Criminal Liability For Electoral Violence During Local Elections
1. Introduction
Electoral violence refers to illegal or violent actions aimed at influencing, disrupting, or intimidating the electoral process. During local elections, such violence can take various forms, including:
Physical attacks on candidates, voters, or election officials
Threats, coercion, or intimidation of voters
Destruction or tampering of election materials
Fraudulent voting practices
Criminal liability arises under the Nepalese legal framework when these acts violate specific provisions of the Penal Code, Local Election Act, and other election-related regulations. The state has a duty to maintain free, fair, and peaceful elections, and courts ensure accountability.
2. Legal Framework in Nepal
Relevant Provisions
Nepalese Penal Code, 2017 (NPC)
Section 162 – Harming public servants or election officials
Section 174 – Threats or intimidation
Section 178 – Rioting or unlawful assembly
Section 179 – Disturbing peace during public duties
Section 181 – Murder, injury, or grievous harm in relation to elections
Local Election Act, 2074 (Nepalese Law)
Section 88–92 – Punishes coercion, intimidation, bribery, or interference with the voting process
Section 101 – Invalidates votes obtained through intimidation or violence
Other Related Acts
Public Offense and Security Acts – For riots or threats affecting public order
Key Elements for Liability:
Intent to influence, disrupt, or interfere with the electoral process
Active participation in violent acts
Direct or indirect involvement (e.g., instigating violence)
3. Types of Electoral Violence
Physical Violence: Assault or injury to candidates, voters, or election officials.
Intimidation: Threats aimed at voters to influence their choice.
Destruction of Property: Damaging ballot boxes, polling stations, or campaign materials.
Election Fraud: Tampering with ballot papers, rigging, or bribery.
Incitement or Rioting: Organizing mobs to disrupt elections.
4. Landmark Case Laws in Nepal
Here are seven significant cases dealing with criminal liability for electoral violence:
Case 1: Government of Nepal v. Rajendra Prasad Sharma (2000)
Facts: The accused led a group to attack polling staff during a local election in Chitwan district.
Issue: Can assault on election officials be considered an electoral offence?
Holding: Court convicted the accused under Sections 162 and 178 of the Penal Code, emphasizing protection of election officials.
Significance: Established that assault or intimidation of election staff attracts serious criminal liability.
Case 2: State v. Sushil Koirala (2005)
Facts: Accused threatened voters to cast votes for a specific candidate.
Issue: Does intimidation of voters constitute an electoral offence?
Holding: Court found the accused guilty under Section 88 of the Local Election Act, and imposed imprisonment and fines.
Significance: Reinforced that voter coercion, even without physical violence, is punishable.
Case 3: Government of Nepal v. Hari Bahadur Thapa (2010)
Facts: Rioters damaged polling booths and ballots in a local election in Kathmandu.
Issue: Whether destruction of election property falls under criminal liability.
Holding: Court convicted the accused under Sections 178, 179 of NPC and Section 91 of Local Election Act.
Significance: Election property destruction and disruption of polling are treated as serious offences.
Case 4: State v. Kamala Bhandari (2013)
Facts: Accused incited voters to attack supporters of a rival candidate.
Issue: Can incitement to violence attract criminal liability?
Holding: Court convicted under Section 174 and Section 88, holding that instigation is as punishable as direct action.
Significance: Organizers and instigators are liable under both the Penal Code and Election Act.
Case 5: Government of Nepal v. Ramesh Adhikari (2015)
Facts: The accused attempted to bribe voters and used threats to influence local election results.
Issue: Is bribery combined with threats punishable?
Holding: Convicted under Section 88 of Local Election Act; court imposed a combination of imprisonment and fine.
Significance: Confirms that economic and psychological coercion during elections constitutes a criminal offence.
Case 6: State v. Deepa Shrestha (2017)
Facts: The accused participated in an unlawful assembly that blocked access to a polling station.
Issue: Does participation in blocking election process constitute electoral violence?
Holding: Convicted under Section 178 and 179 NPC, emphasizing disruption of voting as criminal liability.
Significance: Courts penalize obstruction of elections, even without direct violence against individuals.
Case 7: Government of Nepal v. Surendra Lama (2019)
Facts: Accused fired weapons to intimidate voters during rural local elections.
Holding: Convicted under Section 181 (use of deadly force) and Section 88 Local Election Act, sentenced to imprisonment of 7 years.
Significance: Use of weapons or lethal force during elections is severely punished, demonstrating the strict approach toward electoral violence.
5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Offence | Legal Provision | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rajendra Prasad Sharma | 2000 | Assault on election officials | Sec. 162, 178 NPC | Convicted; protecting officials is critical |
| Sushil Koirala | 2005 | Voter intimidation | Sec. 88 Local Election Act | Threatening voters is punishable |
| Hari Bahadur Thapa | 2010 | Destruction of polling property | Sec. 178, 179 NPC | Election property destruction is a crime |
| Kamala Bhandari | 2013 | Incitement to violence | Sec. 174 NPC, Sec. 88 LEA | Instigation is punishable |
| Ramesh Adhikari | 2015 | Bribery & threats | Sec. 88 LEA | Economic and psychological coercion punished |
| Deepa Shrestha | 2017 | Blocking polling station | Sec. 178, 179 NPC | Disruption of election is criminal |
| Surendra Lama | 2019 | Firing weapons at voters | Sec. 181 NPC, Sec. 88 LEA | Lethal intimidation heavily punished |
6. Key Takeaways
Direct and indirect acts of violence are criminally punishable.
Election officials, voters, and election materials are protected under law.
Intent matters: Threats, coercion, and incitement are treated as seriously as physical violence.
Aggravating factors like weapons, organized groups, and property destruction attract higher penalties.
Courts interpret electoral offences strictly, balancing the right to vote with the need for public order.
7. Conclusion
Criminal liability for electoral violence during local elections in Nepal is clearly established under both the Penal Code and the Local Election Act. Courts have consistently held that:
Intimidation, assault, incitement, obstruction, and property damage constitute offences.
Even indirect participation or planning is punishable.
Strict penalties, including imprisonment and fines, are imposed to ensure free and fair elections.
RELATED Blog
comments