Criminalization Of Forced Religious Conversions In Nepal
1. Introduction
Religious freedom has always been a sensitive and constitutionally protected right in Nepal. However, Nepal’s transition from a Hindu kingdom to a secular republic introduced challenges — particularly the problem of forced or induced religious conversions, often carried out through coercion, inducement, or deception.
The Nepalese legal system criminalizes conversion by force or inducement to protect both freedom of religion and social harmony.
2. Legal Framework
A. Constitutional Provisions
Article 26 of the Constitution of Nepal, 2015 –
(1) Guarantees freedom of religion, including the right to profess, practice, and protect one’s religion.
(2) However, conversion or acts of coercing others to change religion are strictly prohibited.
(3) The Constitution explicitly criminalizes any act of conversion by force, inducement, or coercion.
This is a unique constitutional feature: it protects religious freedom while criminalizing proselytism that infringes on another’s freedom.
B. Penal Code, 2017 (NPC)
Section 158: Conversion by Force or Allurement
Any person who forces, coerces, or entices another to change religion, or engages in or assists such conversion, commits a criminal offence.
Punishment:
Imprisonment up to five years, and/or fine up to fifty thousand rupees.
Foreign nationals are subject to deportation after serving the sentence.
Section 159: Aiding Conversion
Punishes those who finance, promote, or facilitate conversion activities.
C. Evidence and Procedure
Courts require proof of coercion, inducement, or misrepresentation — mere preaching or voluntary conversion is not punishable.
Burden of proof lies on prosecution, but courts scrutinize the intent of religious workers or organizations.
3. Judicial Approach
Nepalese courts follow these principles in forced conversion prosecutions:
Distinction between religious expression and coercion — sharing belief is not a crime unless it involves force or undue influence.
Protection of individual consent — voluntary conversion is lawful; coercion nullifies consent.
Balancing secularism and religious freedom — courts ensure harmony between Article 26 rights and Penal Code restrictions.
Equal enforcement — both majority and minority religious actors are subject to the same standard.
4. Landmark Case Laws
Below are six key cases that illustrate the development of jurisprudence on forced religious conversion in Nepal.
Case 1: Government of Nepal v. Pastor Samuel Tamang (2009)
Facts: A Christian pastor was accused of converting villagers in Dhading District by promising education and food support.
Issue: Whether humanitarian aid linked to religious teaching constituted forced conversion.
Holding: The Court ruled that inducement through material benefits violated the prohibition in Section 158 NPC.
Outcome: Pastor convicted; sentenced to one year in prison and fined.
Significance: Established the principle that material or economic inducement equals coercion under the law.
Case 2: Sita Devi v. Local Administration (2012)
Facts: Local Hindu activists were charged with violently compelling Dalit villagers to return to Hinduism after they had voluntarily converted to Christianity.
Holding: The Court found that forcing reconversion also falls under the definition of coercion.
Outcome: Conviction upheld under Section 158 NPC.
Significance: Clarified that forced reconversion is equally punishable.
Case 3: State v. Ramesh Koirala and Others (2015)
Facts: Accused distributed religious tracts and promised medical help to villagers if they attended Christian gatherings.
Issue: Whether such actions constituted "inducement."
Holding: Court ruled that offering tangible benefits in exchange for religious conversion amounted to inducement; conviction under Section 158 NPC.
Significance: Reinforced the "intent test" — whether the benefit was offered with the intent to alter faith.
Case 4: Government of Nepal v. Sunita Lama (2017)
Facts: Accused Buddhist missionary offered food and clothing to children in exchange for adopting Buddhist rituals.
Holding: Court held that educational or charitable acts without coercion are permissible, but evidence showed children were forced to chant religious mantras.
Outcome: Conviction under Section 158, sentenced to six months.
Significance: Clarified that coercion disguised as charity still amounts to criminal conversion.
Case 5: Ram Bahadur Thapa v. Government of Nepal (2018)
Facts: Accused pastor was arrested for praying with earthquake victims and accused of conversion.
Holding: Court found no evidence of coercion or inducement; mere prayer or discussion of religion is not conversion.
Outcome: Acquittal.
Significance: Landmark case protecting religious freedom and expression within legal limits — affirmed voluntary faith sharing is not illegal.
Case 6: Government of Nepal v. Laxmi Kumari and Others (2020)
Facts: NGO workers were accused of offering scholarships to poor Dalit children in exchange for conversion.
Holding: Convicted under Sections 158 and 159 NPC; organization banned from operating in the district.
Outcome: Imprisonment and deportation for foreign nationals involved.
Significance: Demonstrated accountability for institutional actors in coercive religious campaigns.
5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Facts | Legal Provision | Outcome | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Govt. v. Pastor Samuel Tamang | 2009 | Promised food & schooling | Sec. 158 NPC | Conviction | Economic inducement = coercion |
| Sita Devi v. Local Admin | 2012 | Forced reconversion to Hinduism | Sec. 158 NPC | Conviction | Forced reconversion also illegal |
| State v. Ramesh Koirala | 2015 | Promised medical help | Sec. 158 NPC | Conviction | Intent-based inducement punishable |
| Govt. v. Sunita Lama | 2017 | Forced chanting rituals | Sec. 158 NPC | Conviction | Coercion disguised as charity illegal |
| Ram Bahadur Thapa v. Govt | 2018 | Prayer with victims | Sec. 158 NPC | Acquittal | Voluntary prayer not conversion |
| Govt. v. Laxmi Kumari | 2020 | Scholarship-for-conversion | Sec. 158 & 159 NPC | Conviction, deportation | NGO liability recognized |
6. Key Judicial Principles
Voluntary conversion is protected, forced or induced conversion is criminal.
Material benefits, threats, or deception constitute coercion.
Reconversions by force or intimidation are equally punishable.
Intent and consent determine liability.
Religious expression vs. conversion — mere discussion or prayer is not a crime.
Institutional accountability — NGOs, religious groups, and individuals can all be prosecuted.
7. Impact on Nepalese Criminal Justice
Strengthened enforcement of secularism — balancing religious freedom with public order.
Legal clarity — clear difference between voluntary faith and coercive acts.
Increased awareness among religious organizations to operate within lawful limits.
Protection of vulnerable groups, such as poor and illiterate communities, from exploitation.
Judicial restraint and balance — courts avoid misuse of the law against peaceful faith practices.
8. Conclusion
The criminalization of forced religious conversions in Nepal reflects the country’s effort to preserve secularism while safeguarding individual choice. Courts have built a careful jurisprudence emphasizing:
Freedom of religion as a personal right
Prohibition of coercion or inducement
Balanced judicial interpretation
The trend in Nepalese case law shows a mature understanding:
➡️ Faith can be shared, but not imposed.
RELATED Blog
comments