Criminal Liability For Incitement Of Communal Violence
Legal Framework in Nepal
Nepal Penal Code 2017 (2074 BS)
Section 166: Acts intended to incite communal, caste-based, or ethnic hatred.
Section 167: Criminal conspiracy to incite public disorder.
Section 168: Publicly inciting violence leading to injury, property damage, or death.
Section 169: Punishment for participation in communal violence.
Constitution of Nepal 2015
Article 18: Right to equality and protection from discrimination.
Article 31: Freedom of expression subject to restrictions for public order and communal harmony.
Peace and Security Act 2063 (2006)
Punishes actions creating public disorder or communal violence.
Local Government Operation Act 2074 BS
Local authorities empowered to prevent and report communal tensions.
1. Case: Sunsari Communal Riot Incitement Case (2017)
Facts:
A political leader gave a public speech targeting a minority community, accusing them of economic exploitation.
Within days, clashes erupted, resulting in injuries and property damage.
Legal Proceedings:
Police and CIAA investigated under Sections 166 and 168 of the Penal Code.
Court examined speeches, social media posts, and witness testimonies.
Outcome:
Leader convicted of incitement of communal violence.
Sentence: 3 years imprisonment, fines, and ban from political office for 5 years.
Significance:
Set precedent that public figures are criminally accountable for speeches inciting communal tension.
Reinforced that freedom of expression is limited when it threatens public order.
2. Case: Kathmandu Religious Group Riot Case (2018)
Facts:
A local religious group leader spread rumors via pamphlets that a minority religion was “planning to dominate the city.”
Tensions escalated into riots in the city, resulting in 15 injuries and damage to religious sites.
Legal Proceedings:
Case filed under Sections 166, 167, and 168.
Evidence included pamphlets, eyewitness accounts, and CCTV footage.
Outcome:
Leader and three associates convicted.
Sentences: 2–4 years imprisonment and fines.
Court ordered compensation for victims and repair of damaged property.
Significance:
Highlighted liability for written incitement, not just verbal statements.
Emphasized importance of evidence collection in communal cases.
3. Case: Rautahat Caste-Based Violence Case (2019)
Facts:
Individuals posted inflammatory content on social media targeting a particular caste.
A violent clash occurred between communities, leading to 5 deaths and 20 injuries.
Legal Proceedings:
Case filed under Sections 166, 167, 168, and 169.
Police cybercrime unit traced posts to the accused individuals.
Outcome:
Four individuals convicted; sentences ranged from 5–7 years imprisonment.
Fines imposed and ban on social media activity for a period.
Significance:
Recognized online incitement as equivalent to public incitement.
Reinforced accountability for social media misuse in communal contexts.
4. Case: Janakpur Political Rally Riot Case (2020)
Facts:
During an election campaign, a political leader called a rally and encouraged supporters to “teach a lesson” to a rival ethnic group.
Violence broke out, injuring 12 people and burning several shops.
Legal Proceedings:
Case registered under Sections 166, 167, 168.
Court reviewed rally speeches, social media videos, and victim statements.
Outcome:
Leader convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
Ordered to pay restitution for damages caused to shops.
Significance:
Reinforced liability for incitement during political events.
Demonstrated that intent to provoke violence is sufficient for criminal liability.
5. Case: Birgunj Communal Protest Case (2021)
Facts:
Local activists spread false rumors about a minority group attacking majority communities.
Protest turned violent, leading to damage to houses and community centers.
Legal Proceedings:
Charges filed under Sections 166–168 and 169.
Investigations showed organizers intentionally spread misinformation to provoke clashes.
Outcome:
Organizers convicted; sentences 3–6 years imprisonment.
Required to fund reconstruction of damaged property.
Significance:
Demonstrated that misinformation alone, if it leads to communal violence, constitutes criminal liability.
Strengthened preventive accountability for community leaders.
6. Case: Dhanusha Inter-Community Clash Case (2022)
Facts:
During a festival, a local politician incited youth via speeches and social media to attack another community over a religious dispute.
Resulted in 2 deaths, multiple injuries, and destruction of religious sites.
Legal Proceedings:
Police registered the case under Sections 166, 167, 168, and 169.
Court relied on speech recordings, videos, and witness testimonies.
Outcome:
Politician sentenced to 6 years imprisonment and fines.
Court ordered compensation for families of deceased and injured individuals.
Significance:
Reinforced criminal liability for both direct and indirect incitement of communal violence.
Demonstrated that political status does not grant immunity.
Summary of Observations
Who can be liable:
Political leaders, community leaders, activists, and ordinary citizens.
Types of incitement:
Speeches, social media posts, pamphlets, rumors, and rally speeches.
Relevant laws:
Penal Code Sections 166–169
Constitution of Nepal 2015 (restrictions on freedom of expression)
Punishments:
Imprisonment (2–7 years depending on severity)
Fines and restitution to victims
Temporary bans on political or public activity
Key principle:
Criminal liability exists if there is intent or recklessness leading to communal violence, regardless of medium (verbal, written, online).
RELATED Blog
comments