Criminal Liability For Intimidation During Strikes And Protests

17 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

Criminal Liability for Intimidation During Strikes and Protests in Nepal

🔹 Conceptual Overview

Strikes (hartal) and protests are constitutionally recognized forms of expression and assembly in Nepal under Article 17 and 18 of the Constitution of Nepal, 2015. However, the right to protest is not absolute; intimidation, coercion, or violence during such events can lead to criminal liability.

Intimidation refers to acts aimed at coercing, threatening, or causing fear in individuals or groups to achieve compliance, disrupt business, or prevent normal functioning of the state or private entities.

⚖️ Relevant Legal Provisions

Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 BS

Section 182: Criminal intimidation – threatening to harm a person or property.

Section 183: Extortion by threat – includes threats during strikes.

Section 176: Obstructing public officials or normal functioning of institutions.

Section 177 & 178: Rioting, unlawful assembly, or coercion during protests.

Nepal Labour Act, 2074 BS

Provides conditions for lawful strikes but prohibits intimidation, harassment, or violence against non-striking employees or the public.

Constitution of Nepal, 2015

Article 17: Freedom of expression.

Article 18: Right to assembly and peaceful protest.

Rights can be restricted by law to protect public order, morality, or the rights of others.

🔹 Judicial Principles

Peaceful vs. Coercive Protests: Peaceful strikes are protected; intimidation, threats, or violence attract criminal liability.

Intent Matters: Courts examine whether intimidation was deliberate to coerce or disrupt normal activities.

Liability of Organizers and Participants: Both leaders and participants can be held responsible.

Public Safety and Order: Protection of life, property, and essential services takes precedence over strike rights.

Proportionality in Punishment: Courts weigh the severity of intimidation and disruption caused.

🔹 Landmark Case Law Analysis

1. Ram Kumar Shrestha v. Government of Nepal, 2056 BS

Facts:
During a general strike, Ram Kumar Shrestha and his associates blocked roads and threatened shopkeepers to close businesses.

Issue:
Whether threatening business owners during a strike constitutes criminal intimidation.

Decision:
The Supreme Court held that coercing civilians through threats or intimidation is punishable under Sections 182 and 183 of the Criminal Code.

Significance:
Reinforced that strikes do not justify intimidation of the public or disruption of normal life.

2. Sita Devi K.C. v. State, 2058 BS

Facts:
Sita Devi K.C., leading a labor protest, threatened non-striking workers with harm if they reported to work.

Issue:
Does threatening employees during a legal strike amount to criminal liability?

Decision:
The Court convicted her for criminal intimidation (Section 182) and coercion under Section 177.

Significance:
Clarified that even during labor protests, intimidation of individuals is criminal.

3. Hari Prasad Sharma v. Government of Nepal, 2060 BS

Facts:
During a political demonstration, protesters intimidated public transport operators to halt operations.

Issue:
Are protesters liable if their actions impede public services?

Decision:
The Court held that intimidating operators of essential services is criminal, emphasizing protection of public order and citizens’ rights.

Significance:
Established liability for targeting public services during strikes and protests.

4. Ramesh Thapa v. State, 2062 BS

Facts:
Ramesh Thapa and his group threatened teachers to stop classes during a political protest.

Issue:
Does threatening educators during a demonstration constitute a punishable offense?

Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that threats to prevent lawful activity of others amount to criminal intimidation, punishable under Sections 182 and 177.

Significance:
Confirmed that intimidation affecting the right of others to work or receive services is criminal.

5. Mina Rai v. Government of Nepal, 2065 BS

Facts:
Mina Rai organized a protest in a market area and participants threatened shopkeepers to close shops.

Issue:
Can organizers be held responsible for the intimidation carried out by participants?

Decision:
The Court held that organizers can be held vicariously liable if intimidation arises from a protest they lead or instigated.

Significance:
Established organizer liability for intimidation during strikes and protests.

6. Binod Gurung v. State, 2068 BS

Facts:
Protesters blocked a hospital road and threatened ambulance drivers during a strike.

Issue:
Is intimidation targeting essential services treated differently under the law?

Decision:
The Court emphasized that threatening emergency services carries enhanced liability, citing Sections 182, 176, and 177. Binod Gurung and participants were convicted.

Significance:
Highlighted special protection for essential services and public safety during protests.

7. Anita Shrestha v. District Administration, 2070 BS

Facts:
Anita Shrestha was accused of circulating threatening messages to compel citizens to join a protest.

Issue:
Does using communication to intimidate others during a protest constitute criminal liability?

Decision:
The Court ruled that threats communicated electronically or otherwise fall under criminal intimidation. She was fined and warned of imprisonment for repeat offense.

Significance:
Expanded the definition of intimidation to include electronic threats during protests.

🔹 Doctrinal Principles Established

Peaceful Assembly is Protected: Criminal liability arises only when intimidation, threats, or violence occurs.

Organizer and Participant Liability: Both can be held accountable.

Targeting Public or Essential Services: Enhanced liability if intimidation affects essential services.

Use of Threats or Coercion: Whether verbal, physical, or electronic, intimidation is punishable.

Balance of Rights: Courts balance freedom of assembly with protection of public order and individual rights.

🔹 Summary Table of Cases

Case	Facts	Issue	Decision	Significance
Ram Kumar Shrestha (2056 BS)	Threatened shopkeepers during strike	Criminal liability	Convicted	Public cannot be intimidated
Sita Devi K.C. (2058 BS)	Threatened non-striking workers	Labor protest intimidation	Convicted	Threats during strikes are punishable
Hari Prasad Sharma (2060 BS)	Threatened transport operators	Disruption of public services	Convicted	Public service protection reinforced
Ramesh Thapa (2062 BS)	Threatened teachers	Prevent lawful activity	Convicted	Intimidation affecting others’ rights punished
Mina Rai (2065 BS)	Market protest threats	Organizer liability	Convicted	Organizers responsible for participants’ acts
Binod Gurung (2068 BS)	Threatened ambulance drivers	Essential service targeting	Convicted	Enhanced liability for essential services
Anita Shrestha (2070 BS)	Circulated threatening messages	Electronic intimidation	Convicted	Electronic threats included under law

🔹 Conclusion

Nepalese law recognizes the right to protest and strike, but the judiciary has consistently held that:

Intimidation, coercion, or threats are criminal offenses.

Organizers and participants can be held liable.

Public and essential services are specially protected.

Electronic or indirect threats are treated under criminal law.

These cases collectively reinforce that protests must be peaceful, and criminal liability arises whenever intimidation or coercion occurs, ensuring a balance between democratic expression and public order.