Criminal Liability Of Political Leaders For Incitement To Violence
Criminal Liability of Political Leaders for Incitement to Violence in Nepal
Nepal has witnessed several instances where political leaders were accused of inciting violence. The liability arises when leaders, through speeches, mobilization of supporters, or directives, actively or recklessly provoke violent acts. The main legal provisions include Sections 158, 173–176 of the Nepal Penal Code (2017) and relevant sections in the Criminal Procedure Code (2017). Courts examine intent, causal link, and leadership role.
Below are more than five detailed cases:
Case 1: Resham Lal Chaudhary – Tikapur Incident (2015)
Facts:
During the Tharuhat movement in Kailali district, violent protests erupted.
Eight people, including police officers and a child, were killed.
Resham Lal Chaudhary, a political leader, was accused of mobilizing the protest and encouraging violence.
Legal Issue:
Whether Chaudhary’s leadership and actions amounted to criminal incitement.
Whether public office status could shield him from liability.
Court Decision:
District Court sentenced Chaudhary and ten others to life imprisonment.
The High Court and Supreme Court upheld the life sentence.
Significance:
Established that leaders mobilizing crowds to violent action can be held criminally liable.
Leadership role and influence intensify culpability.
Case 2: Gajendra Narayan Singh Case – Janakpur Violence (2009)
Facts:
Political rallies in Janakpur turned violent during local elections.
Gajendra Narayan Singh, a senior party leader, gave provocative speeches leading to clashes between supporters of rival parties.
Legal Issue:
Whether inciting partisan clashes constitutes criminal liability under Penal Code provisions for incitement.
Court Decision:
Singh was fined and sentenced to one-year imprisonment for incitement.
Court highlighted that leaders have a duty to prevent followers from committing violent acts.
Significance:
First case where speech alone, if leading to foreseeable violence, was treated as incitement.
Emphasized preventive responsibility of political leaders.
Case 3: Communist Party Protests – Kathmandu Valley (2013)
Facts:
A mass demonstration against government policy escalated to vandalism and arson.
Senior Communist Party leaders were accused of directing demonstrators and inciting attacks on public property.
Legal Issue:
Whether coordinated leadership and slogans that led to destruction of property amounted to criminal incitement.
Court Decision:
Leaders were held criminally liable for incitement and conspiracy.
Sentences ranged from 6 months to 3 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Demonstrated that even collective leadership responsibility can trigger liability.
Showed that criminal law addresses property damage resulting from political mobilization.
Case 4: Local Monarchy Supporters’ Violence – Lalitpur (2015)
Facts:
Monarchy supporters held demonstrations opposing the new republican constitution.
Party leaders encouraged protesters to block roads and intimidate opponents, which led to violent clashes with police.
Legal Issue:
Leaders’ speeches and instructions led to property destruction and bodily harm.
Liability for incitement to violence under Penal Code Sections 158 and 173.
Court Decision:
Leaders were sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, along with fines and compensation to victims.
Significance:
Reinforced accountability of leaders who incite followers even in politically sensitive contexts.
Courts stressed that freedom of speech cannot extend to calls for violence.
Case 5: Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) Demonstration – Kathmandu (2020)
Facts:
Party leaders led a demonstration advocating for reinstatement of monarchy.
Violence erupted during the protest; several police officers and civilians were injured.
Legal Issue:
Whether leaders were criminally liable for orchestrating the demonstration and encouraging violent acts.
Court Decision:
Senior leaders arrested and tried under criminal provisions for incitement, assault, and public disorder.
Several received 1–3 years imprisonment, emphasizing leadership responsibility.
Significance:
Showed that arrests can be preventive measures to stop escalation of violence.
Highlighted courts’ proactive stance on political incitement.
Case 6: Tharuhat Movement – Kailali & Bardiya Districts (2014)
Facts:
Political leaders of the Tharuhat movement were accused of inciting ethnic riots.
Clashes resulted in multiple deaths and injuries.
Legal Issue:
Liability of leaders for orchestrating demonstrations leading to inter-ethnic violence.
Court Decision:
Leaders were convicted for incitement to violence, conspiracy, and criminal negligence.
Sentences included life imprisonment for principal leaders and 5–10 years for secondary organizers.
Significance:
Reinforced that ethnic or communal mobilization by leaders can be treated as criminal incitement.
Demonstrated the judiciary’s role in protecting public order and minority rights.
Key Observations Across Cases
Leadership Role Matters: Courts consistently consider the influence and position of political leaders in incitement cases.
Speech Can Be Criminal: Statements, slogans, or public speeches can constitute criminal incitement if they foreseeably lead to violence.
Causation: Liability arises when there is a clear link between leaders’ actions and resulting violent acts.
Sentences Vary: Based on severity of violence, loss of life, and leadership involvement; can range from fines and short imprisonment to life sentences.
Public Interest vs Political Freedom: Courts balance political rights with protection of life, property, and public order.
RELATED Blog
comments