Criminal Liability For Cyber Stalking Of Women Activists
Legal & Regulatory Background
Before the cases, a quick outline of the legal framework:
Under the Electronic Transactions Act, 2063 (Nepal) (also referenced as 2008/2009 in English), Section 47 criminalises teasing, harassing or insulting a person via electronic medium. Punishment may include fine (up to ~Rs 100,000) and imprisonment (up to 5 years).
Under the Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017) (Nepal’s Penal Code), Section 300 criminalises use of written or digital communications to threaten, annoy, tease or defame a person with malicious intent to instil fear or distress.
The combination of these laws gives a basis for prosecuting cyber‑stalking, harassment, threats and misuse of online platforms targeting women (including activists).
For women activists (who often speak out publicly), cyber‑stalking can take the form of repeated unwanted contact, fake accounts, threats of violence or sexual assault, sharing of intimate content without consent, posting defamatory content about them, doxing (revealing personal info), coordinated harassment campaigns online, etc.
Case Studies
Here are several case‑style examples (not necessarily full formal court judgments in every detail, but substantial reported facts).
Case 1: Activist Harassed After Viral Poem (2021)
Facts:
A woman activist posted a poem online that went viral, highlighting social issues. Soon after, she began receiving online threats—including messages saying she would be publicly shamed, “reward” offered for humiliating her, fake profiles created to carry abusive posts, repeated unwanted contact. The harassment escalated: she feared going online, stopped posting, and felt unsafe leaving her home.
Legal Issues:
Use of online threats and messages to instil fear and silence the activist. This falls under Section 300 of the Criminal Code.
Digital harassment via fake profiles, defamation, intimidation—with evidence of repeated unwanted contact—can qualify under Section 47 of the Electronic Transactions Act.
Outcome:
The victim filed a complaint with the Cyber Bureau of the Nepal Police. Investigations began; some accounts were traced and blocked. However, the process was slow, and the activist remained under psychological stress and opted to reduce her online engagement.
Significance:
Demonstrates how women activists speaking publicly become targets of cyber‑stalking/harassment.
Shows that while legal provisions exist, enforcement is still weak and victims often bear heavy burden of proof and fear.
Highlights the link between activism + digital exposure + harassment.
Case 2: Student Stalking & Cyber Harassment (2025)
Facts:
A female student publicly accused a man of stalking and persistent harassment: physical following, unwanted contact, multiple calls, creation of fake online accounts, harassment of her friends to pressure her. Though the harassment had a physical element, much of it was online and via mobile/social media.
Legal Issues:
Patterns of repeated unwanted digital contact and harassment—cyber‑stalking behaviour.
The law currently lacks a specific “cyber‑stalking” offence, so parts are prosecuted under harassment/defamation/digital communication offences.
Outcome:
Under public/social pressure, the man was arrested and remanded by police. The case raised public awareness of stalking and cyber harassment of women in Nepal.
Significance:
Highlights the gap in law: lack of specific definition and clear prosecution path for cyber‑stalking of women in Nepal.
Shows how activists or public‑facing women (even students) face cyber harassment, and need legal protection frameworks.
Case 3: Journalist/Activist Threatened Online for Speaking Out (2021)
Facts:
A woman human‑rights activist/journalist published commentary online about social issues. In response, she received online threats including death and rape threats; a “cash reward” was posted on a social media account for anyone who would deface her photo; her personal details were shared in abusive posts.
Legal Issues:
Digital threats directed at a woman for her public activism – fits Section 300 (threat/annoy) of the Criminal Code.
Harassment through electronic means under Section 47 Electronic Transactions Act.
The use of social media to facilitate threats and intimidation raises issues of enforcing laws across digital platforms.
Outcome:
The case was registered with the cyber‑crime unit; some accounts traced; activist opted for temporary reduction in digital engagement. Civil society groups called for better protective mechanisms for women activists.
Significance:
Activists are especially vulnerable to cyber‑stalking when they challenge norms.
Legal protections exist but require stronger implementation, digital forensics, and victim‑centred approaches.
Case 4: Online Harassment of Women & Girls at Large Scale (2017–2019)
Facts:
Over a period of years, many women and girls in Kathmandu and other urban centres faced harassment via social media: hacked accounts used to share nude photos, obscene messages, fake social‑media profiles created in their names to post humiliating content, threat messages circulated among family/friends. One example: a woman found nude photos posted from her Facebook account without her knowledge, caused major family distress and delays in investigations.
Legal Issues:
Unauthorized access to digital account and posting of obscene/humiliating content – violation of Electronic Transactions Act.
Threatening or harassing messages via digital media – violation under Criminal Code for defamation/threat/digital misuse.
Outcome:
Some perpetrators were identified and arrested; prosecution outcomes varied with many acquittals due to hostile witnesses or insufficient digital evidence. One research found only around half of cases ended in conviction.
Significance:
Demonstrates the widespread nature of cyber‑harassment/stalking of women in Nepal and the difficulties in legal redress.
Illustrates that while laws exist, case outcomes are inconsistent due to evidence, social stigma, victim reluctance.
Case 5: Women Activists Opposing Sexual Violence Face Online Abuse (2022–2024)
Facts:
Women activists working on issues of sexual violence/rape in Nepal reported being targeted by coordinated online abuse: harassment, defamation, threats, creation of fake smear‑profiles, attempts to intimidate or discredit them to silence their activism. According to reported data, thousands of cyber harassment cases involving women activists have been recorded.
Legal Issues:
Use of digital media to intimidate, humiliate or silence activists – under harassment/defamation/false communication laws.
Lack of explicit specialised legislation on cyber‑stalking means many acts are prosecuted under general digital harassment offences.
Outcome:
Some cases are registered in the Cyber Bureau; however, many activists report delays, lack of protective measures, fear of personal safety and social/regional stigma.
Significance:
Underlines how activism + gender + digital space intersect in increased risk of cyber‑stalking.
Emphasises need for more robust legal protections specifically for online harassment of women activists.
Key Themes & Lessons
Cyber‑stalking of women activists often takes the form of persistent unwanted contact (messages/calls), digital threats (including sexual/violence), doxing, fake profiles, misuse of intimate images, intimidation of friends/family, and attempts to silence or discredit the activist.
Legal liability in Nepal is based on the Electronic Transactions Act and the Penal Code, but currently there is no specific offence titled “cyber‑stalking”. This creates gaps in prosecution.
Victim‑facing challenges: Women activists may face multiple forms of harassment, must gather digital evidence, face social stigma, fear re‑victimisation, and often the police/stakeholders may lack gender‑sensitive approaches.
Evidence & enforcement gap: Many cases are initiated, but conviction rates are affected by hostile witnesses, inadequate digital forensics, victims’ reluctance to pursue complaint, and social stigma.
Activism adds risk: Women activists (and public‑facing women) face heightened risk of cyber‑stalking due to their public role; the harassment is aimed at silencing or intimidating them.
Need for legal reform: Experts call for specific legislation defining cyber‑stalking, clear penalties, protective orders, victim‑centric procedures, and specialised cyber‑crime units emphasising gender and activism contexts.
Awareness, training, police sensitisation: For effective prosecution, awareness among women, activists, law‑enforcement, and judiciary is essential; digital literacy, evidence collection training, gender‑based e‑crime support systems are needed.
RELATED Blog
comments