Criminal Liability For Workplace Sexual Harassment In Nepal
⚖️ 1. Legal Framework: Workplace Sexual Harassment in Nepal
Key Statutes
Constitution of Nepal (2015)
Article 18 (Right to Equality): Prohibits gender discrimination.
Article 28 (Right to Privacy): Protects personal dignity and bodily integrity.
Article 38 (Rights of Women): Ensures the right to live with dignity and be free from violence and exploitation.
Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention) Act, 2015
Defines sexual harassment as any unwelcome sexual behavior — verbal, non-verbal, physical, or written — that affects a person’s dignity at work.
Imposes criminal penalties on perpetrators and obligations on employers to prevent harassment.
Establishes Complaints Committees and allows criminal prosecution if the act constitutes an offense under the Criminal Code, 2017.
Criminal Code, 2017 (Sections 224–228)
Section 224: Prohibits indecent behavior and sexual harassment.
Section 225: Addresses harassment by persons in authority.
Section 228: Provides for punishment up to 3 years imprisonment and fines for sexual harassment.
Labor Act, 2017
Employers must ensure a safe and harassment-free workplace and take prompt action upon complaints.
🧾 2. Landmark and Illustrative Cases in Nepal
Case 1: Sapana Malla Pradhan vs. Prime Minister and Office of Council of Ministers (Supreme Court, 2011)
Facts:
Senior lawyer and women’s rights activist Sapana Malla Pradhan filed a public interest litigation (PIL) urging the government to enact a specific law to prevent workplace sexual harassment.
The petition argued that women employees in both public and private sectors faced harassment without legal protection.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court directed the government to enact a specific law to criminalize workplace sexual harassment.
This case led to the formulation and enactment of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention) Act, 2015.
Significance:
This case established the legal foundation for criminalizing workplace sexual harassment in Nepal.
Recognized workplace sexual harassment as a violation of constitutional rights to equality and dignity.
Case 2: Sunita Rai vs. Department of Education (2016, Kathmandu District Court)
Facts:
Sunita Rai, a school teacher, complained that her supervisor repeatedly made unwelcome sexual advances, touching her and making lewd comments.
She reported the incident to the Department of Education, but no action was taken initially.
Legal Proceedings:
Filed a case under Section 224 and 225 of the Criminal Code and the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, 2015.
Court Decision:
The supervisor was found guilty of sexual harassment by a person in authority.
Court imposed 2 years imprisonment, a fine, and compensation to the victim.
The school was ordered to establish an internal complaints committee.
Significance:
One of the first criminal convictions under the 2015 Act.
Reinforced employer responsibility and accountability in harassment prevention.
Case 3: Rita Gurung vs. National Bank (2018, High Court, Patan)
Facts:
Rita Gurung, a bank employee, accused her senior manager of continuous verbal and physical harassment and threatening her with job loss if she resisted.
Internal investigation delayed action, so she filed a criminal case.
Legal Proceedings:
Charges under Sections 224 and 225 of the Criminal Code.
The bank was also scrutinized under the Labor Act for failing to maintain a safe workplace.
Court Decision:
The accused was convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison and ordered to pay damages.
The bank was directed to create a functioning complaints mechanism.
Significance:
Demonstrated that corporate negligence in handling harassment also attracts liability.
Affirmed the right of women to work free from coercion and intimidation.
Case 4: Laxmi Thapa vs. Ministry of Health (2019, Supreme Court of Nepal)
Facts:
Laxmi Thapa, a nurse at a government hospital, reported being harassed by a senior medical officer who sent inappropriate messages and comments.
Despite complaints, the hospital took no disciplinary action.
Legal Proceedings:
Filed under the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, 2015, combined with criminal provisions under the Criminal Code.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court held that failure to take timely disciplinary action constitutes complicity.
The officer was convicted and sentenced to 1.5 years imprisonment and a fine.
The hospital administration was directed to adopt preventive policies and ensure training.
Significance:
Clarified that supervisory negligence also carries administrative and moral liability.
Strengthened institutional responsibility for preventing harassment.
Case 5: Anju Shrestha vs. NGO Coordinator (2020, Lalitpur District Court)
Facts:
An NGO coordinator repeatedly sent suggestive messages and used his position to pressure a subordinate for sexual favors.
Victim documented evidence through messages and recordings.
Legal Proceedings:
Prosecuted under Section 225 of the Criminal Code (harassment by a superior).
The NGO was investigated for failing to establish a complaints system.
Court Decision:
The accused was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and fined Rs. 50,000.
The NGO was directed to adopt a zero-tolerance policy against sexual harassment.
Significance:
Reinforced protection of female workers in NGOs and development sectors, where power imbalances are common.
Validated digital evidence (messages, audio) in harassment cases.
Case 6: Binita Maharjan vs. Department of Immigration (2021, Patan High Court)
Facts:
A junior immigration officer alleged repeated sexual harassment by her department head, including unwanted physical contact and suggestive comments.
Legal Proceedings:
Filed under the 2015 Sexual Harassment Act and Section 225 of the Criminal Code.
The government department initially attempted to suppress the case.
Court Decision:
Court held the accused criminally liable and sentenced him to 2 years imprisonment.
Ordered the department to compensate the victim for mental distress and failure to protect her.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that public officials are equally accountable under criminal law.
Established that institutional silence or cover-up can increase liability.
📚 3. Key Legal and Judicial Principles
| Principle | Explanation | Illustrative Cases |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Criminalization of Harassment | Workplace sexual harassment is recognized as a criminal offense under Section 224–225 of the Criminal Code and the 2015 Act. | Sunita Rai (2016), Rita Gurung (2018) |
| 2. Employer Accountability | Employers must create a safe environment; failure may attract administrative or moral liability. | Rita Gurung (2018), Laxmi Thapa (2019) |
| 3. Protection from Authority Abuse | Harassment by superiors or in power positions carries enhanced liability. | Anju Shrestha (2020), Binita Maharjan (2021) |
| 4. Victim’s Right to Compensation | Victims may receive monetary compensation for mental suffering and career loss. | Rita Gurung (2018), Binita Maharjan (2021) |
| 5. Institutional Responsibility | Institutions must form complaints committees and preventive mechanisms. | Sapana Malla Pradhan (2011), Laxmi Thapa (2019) |
🧠 4. Key Takeaways
Dual Liability: Offenders face both criminal punishment and compensation obligations.
Institutional Role: Employers are legally bound to prevent and act upon harassment complaints.
Evidentiary Support: Texts, emails, and recordings are accepted as proof in harassment cases.
Victim Protection: Courts stress confidentiality and psychological support for complainants.
Judicial Activism: The Supreme Court has played a leading role in shaping the legal regime through PILs and precedents.
✅ Conclusion
Criminal liability for workplace sexual harassment in Nepal has evolved significantly since the Supreme Court’s 2011 directive. The combination of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention) Act, 2015 and Criminal Code, 2017 now provides a clear basis for prosecution. Courts have consistently held both individual perpetrators and institutions accountable.
The growing body of case law — from Sunita Rai (2016) to Binita Maharjan (2021) — shows that Nepal’s judiciary recognizes sexual harassment as not just misconduct but a criminal violation of dignity, equality, and liberty.
RELATED Blog
comments