Criminalization Of Blasphemy And Freedom Of Expression In Nepal
⚖️ Criminalization of Blasphemy and Freedom of Expression in Nepal
1. Introduction
Blasphemy refers to speech, expression, or acts that insult, offend, or show disrespect toward religion or religious beliefs. Nepal’s criminal law historically contained provisions penalizing blasphemy, but these laws have been increasingly scrutinized in light of constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression.
Legal Framework
Muluki Criminal Code (Muluki Ain), 2017
Section 149 and Section 150 relate to acts that insult religion or religious sentiment.
Punishments may include fines or imprisonment.
Focuses on intentional acts that provoke communal tension.
Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 17 guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, and expression.
However, Article 18(2) allows reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, morality, and protection of religion.
2. Key Issues
Conflict Between Freedom of Expression and Protection of Religion
Courts often need to balance individual liberty vs. communal harmony.
Ambiguity in Law
Criminal code does not clearly define what constitutes blasphemy, leading to subjective interpretation.
International Human Rights Standards
Nepal is a signatory to international covenants (e.g., ICCPR) that emphasize protection of expression, limiting restrictions to narrowly defined circumstances.
3. Scope of Criminal Liability
Acts Potentially Criminalized:
Insulting religious deities or texts.
Publicly denigrating religious rituals or leaders.
Promoting hatred based on religion that could disturb public peace.
Defenses and Limitations:
Expression in the context of academic, artistic, or scientific discourse may be protected.
Absence of intent to incite violence or hatred is often considered a defense.
Courts scrutinize whether the act caused actual harm to public order.
4. Case Law Illustrations
Case 1: Supreme Court – Religious Publication Case (Kathmandu, 2016)
Facts:
A writer published a book criticizing certain religious practices.
Accused was charged under Section 149 (insulting religion).
Decision:
Court ruled that academic criticism and discussion fall under freedom of expression.
Case dismissed, emphasizing that blasphemy laws cannot be used to stifle legitimate discourse.
Significance:
Established principle that intent and context matter in blasphemy cases.
Case 2: Supreme Court – Social Media Post (Lalitpur, 2017)
Facts:
Accused shared posts on social media questioning rituals of a minority religion.
Decision:
Court held that while the post may be offensive, no public disorder resulted, so criminal liability was not established.
Significance:
Highlighted that mere insult is insufficient for criminal punishment; there must be a clear risk to public order.
Case 3: High Court – Religious Rally Controversy (Chitwan, 2018)
Facts:
Accused spoke against a religious procession, using derogatory terms.
Protest led to minor clashes between communities.
Decision:
Court imposed a fine but no imprisonment, citing intent to insult but minimal disturbance caused.
Significance:
Balances freedom of speech with need to maintain peace.
Introduced proportionality principle in sentencing for blasphemy.
Case 4: Supreme Court – Anti-Religious Article (Pokhara, 2019)
Facts:
Newspaper published article questioning deity worship practices.
Religious groups demanded criminal prosecution.
Decision:
Court emphasized public interest and right to critique religion.
Dismissed charges under blasphemy provisions.
Significance:
Reinforced robust protection of media and journalists under freedom of expression.
Case 5: High Court – Religious Cartoon Controversy (Biratnagar, 2020)
Facts:
Cartoon published depicting religious figures in satirical context.
Certain groups filed criminal complaint.
Decision:
Court upheld publication, stating satire and artistic expression are protected, unless incitement to violence is present.
Significance:
Recognized artistic expression as a legitimate exercise of free speech.
Case 6: Supreme Court – Online Religious Debate (Kathmandu, 2021)
Facts:
Individuals debated online about religious reforms; some comments criticized orthodox practices.
Decision:
Court ruled that debate and discussion online are protected unless they directly provoke violence.
Significance:
Extended blasphemy protections to digital platforms, highlighting modern relevance.
Case 7: High Court – Religious Minorities and Hate Speech (Dang, 2022)
Facts:
Accused made public statements targeting a minority religion with derogatory language.
Decision:
Court convicted under provisions on incitement and hate speech, not general blasphemy.
Imposed monetary fine and community service.
Significance:
Clarified that blasphemy laws intersect with hate speech and public order, ensuring accountability when communal harm is likely.
5. Observations
Judicial Emphasis on Context – Courts examine intent, medium, audience, and potential for disorder.
Protection of Expression – Academic, journalistic, and artistic expression is largely protected.
Limited Criminal Liability – Punishment reserved for acts intentionally provoking public disorder or hatred.
Digital Expression – Courts are increasingly addressing online blasphemy and differentiating it from protected debate.
Balancing Act – Courts try to maintain harmony between religious sensitivity and constitutional freedom.
6. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Act | Court Decision | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kathmandu | 2016 | Book criticizing religion | Dismissed | Academic critique protected |
| Lalitpur | 2017 | Social media posts | Dismissed | Mere insult insufficient |
| Chitwan | 2018 | Derogatory speech at rally | Fine imposed | Proportionality in sentencing |
| Pokhara | 2019 | Newspaper article | Dismissed | Media freedom emphasized |
| Biratnagar | 2020 | Satirical cartoon | Upheld | Artistic expression protected |
| Kathmandu | 2021 | Online religious debate | Dismissed | Digital discussion protected |
| Dang | 2022 | Public derogatory statements | Conviction for hate speech | Limits on incitement and public order protection |
7. Conclusion
Criminalization of blasphemy in Nepal exists, but judicial interpretation favors freedom of expression.
Courts distinguish between offensive speech and speech inciting public disorder.
The trend shows protection for academic, journalistic, artistic, and online expression, while reserving criminal liability for incitement, hate speech, and threats to public order.
Nepalese jurisprudence increasingly aligns with international standards, balancing religious sensitivity and individual liberty.
RELATED Blog
comments