Judicial Precedents On Extra-Judicial Killings And Impunity
1. Maina Sunuwar Case (2004 / 2017)
Facts:
Maina Sunuwar, a 15‑year‑old girl, was arrested in February 2004 by army personnel in Kavrepalanchok district, while under suspicion of links with insurgents.
She was taken to a military training centre, tortured (head‑submersions, electric shocks) for over 90 minutes, then left in custody; she later died.
The military attempted to cover up her death by claiming she was shot while escaping.
Legal Issues:
Whether the army personnel enjoyed immunity and whether the killing was a “normal” death or an extrajudicial killing.
Whether state‑agents can be held criminally responsible for a death that took place during “internal conflict”.
Whether impunity for state‑actors in such cases is lawful under national or international law.
Judgment/Outcome:
Over a decade later (2017), the court sentenced three soldiers to 20 years’ imprisonment for the killing.
The verdict reaffirmed that even in conflict‑era, killings by state agents without lawful process amount to criminal homicide / murder.
The State’s responsibility to investigate, prosecute and provide remedy was affirmed.
Significance:
Landmark in showing that state actors are not above criminal law in Nepal.
Set precedent that torture followed by death is criminal, not simply an operational “military casualty”.
Advanced accountability during the conflict‑era, reducing impunity.
2. Anil Chaudhary Case (2004 / UN Human Rights Committee decision 2022)
Facts:
Anil Chaudhary, a 15‑year‑old boy from the Tharu indigenous community in Bardiya, was killed in 2004 by security forces in the context of the armed conflict.
He was arbitrarily arrested, subjected to torture, and extrajudicially executed.
Legal Issues:
Whether Nepal is responsible for the death of a child in custody / under arrest by state forces.
Whether statutes of limitations, amnesty, or impunity apply to extrajudicial killings.
Whether the victim’s family has a right to remedy, apology, memorial, and compensation.
Judgment/Outcome:
The UN Human Rights Committee found Nepal responsible for arbitrary detention, torture and extrajudicial killing of Anil.
It recommended Nepal carry out effective investigation, prosecution, public acknowledgment, apology, memorialisation, and compensation.
Although an international body decision, it sets national precedent on state responsibility and impunity.
Significance:
Shows that international human rights bodies treat extrajudicial killings by state agents as violations of international obligations.
Reinforces that national impunity cannot absolve state responsibility.
Strengthens the norm that children killed in detention or by security forces must be addressed within human rights law frameworks.
3. Full Bench of Supreme Court of Nepal on Extrajudicial Killings (2020)
Facts:
Numerous cases of deaths involving security‑forces/custody had not been adequately investigated; state agencies resisted independent inquiry.
A writ petition demanded investigation into extrajudicial killings, including in the Terai/Madhesh region.
Legal Issues:
Whether “extrajudicial killing” must be treated as a special category or simply as murder under the existing criminal law.
Whether the police or state bodies investigating their own agents can guarantee independence.
Whether amnesty, pardon, or statutes of limitation can apply to such killings.
Judgment/Outcome:
The Supreme Court ruled that extrajudicial killings are to be treated as murders under the ordinary criminal law.
It held that existing murder provisions suffice — no special law is required to criminalise such killings.
The Court directed the State to form an independent investigation mechanism separate from the police to deal with these cases.
Significance:
Key jurisprudence: the Court closed the loophole that extrajudicial killing could be treated differently or absolved via amnesty.
Established that the State’s agencies must investigate and prosecute their agents.
Reinforced the doctrine of non‑immunity and accountability for state agents.
4. Gaur Massacre Case (2007 / Supreme Court ordering investigation in 2025)
Facts:
On 21 March 2007, in Gaur (Rautahat district), a clash between Madheshi political activists and Maoists resulted in over 20 – 30 deaths (reports differ) in what was described as a politically‑orchestrated massacre.
Investigations stalled for many years and many accused — including senior politicians and officials — remained untouched.
Legal Issues:
Whether failure to investigate constitutes ongoing state responsibility and perpetuation of impunity.
Whether mass killings by or with complicity of state or political agents fall within the scope of extrajudicial killings and thus require criminal accountability.
Whether delay or disappearance of case records violates right to remedy and justice.
Judgment/Outcome:
In August 2025 the Supreme Court ordered the reopening of investigations into the massacre, mandating the police and prosecution to provide clarification for the long delay.
The Court asked for reasons why investigation was not done and directed the institutions to act within 15 days.
Significance:
Reinforces that impunity due to delay or non‑investigation is unacceptable under constitutional law.
Demonstrates the judiciary acting as a check on executive or administrative inactivity in mass scale extrajudicial cases.
Sets a precedent that political or historical mass crimes cannot simply lapse into unquestioned impunity.
5. Madhesh Uprising / Special Security Plan Killings Case (2009 / 2025 Supreme Court clearance)
Facts:
In 2009, a Special Security Plan was implemented in the Terai/Madhesh region to counter armed groups; over 400 suspicious killings of civilians alleged during July 2009–April 2012.
Victims and families alleged heavy‑handed use of lethal force, extrajudicial executions, disappearances, and lack of proper investigation.
Legal Issues:
Whether state security operations leading to civilian deaths amount to extrajudicial killing.
Whether the failure to investigate and the delay amounted to continuing impunity and violation of victims’ rights.
Whether amnesty or transitional justice mechanisms can be used to shield perpetrators.
Judgment/Outcome:
In August 2025 the Supreme Court cleared the way for investigation, ordering that a mechanism must be formed independent of the Nepal Police and that cases must proceed under ordinary criminal law.
The Court reiterated that amnesty cannot be applied to killings and that statute of limitations does not bar investigation into gross human rights violations.
Significance:
Landmark for transitional justice and addressing conflict/post‑conflict impunity.
Affirmed that even large‑scale state operations resulting in civilian deaths cannot escape criminal accountability.
Provides a blueprint for enforcing state responsibility in mass casualty contexts.
6. Additional Case: Custodial Deaths / Encounter Killings in Terai (2019)
Facts:
In 2019, several deaths in the Terai (e.g., Kedar Sahani, Dipendra Chaudhary, Kumar Poudel) were reportedly extrajudicial: taken into custody or shot while in police “encounters”.
In some incidents the police refused to register FIRs, attempted to settle via payments or mediation rather than criminal prosecution.
Legal Issues:
Whether state agents’ use of lethal force without due process is extrajudicial killing.
Whether failure to register FIR or investigate constitutes impunity.
Whether non‑criminal settlement of killings by state agents violates due process and the rule of law.
Judgment/Outcome:
Human rights reports noted the continuing pattern of impunity; courts have directed registration of FIRs and investigation.
The jurisprudence (above) refers to these patterns to emphasise systemic impunity.
Significance:
Illustrates the everyday dimension of extrajudicial killings beyond the big conflict‑era cases.
Shows the importance of criminal justice pathways (FIRs, prosecutions) to break impunity.
Key Legal Principles Established
Extrajudicial killing = murder: The Supreme Court held that killings by state agents without lawful process are to be dealt with under the existing criminal law, not a special or lesser regime.
No amnesty/pardon for gross violations: The Court rejected amnesty or blanket pardons for murder committed in conflict context.
Duty to investigate and prosecute: The State has positive obligations to investigate suspicious deaths, prosecute perpetrators, and provide remedy.
Immunity not absolute: Military, police and other state officials cannot claim immunity for unlawful killings.
No statute of limitations for gross human rights violations: Delay or time‑lapse does not absolve state responsibility or preclude investigation.
Independent mechanism required: For cases involving state agents, independent investigation bodies (outside ordinary command structures) are necessary to ensure credibility and accountability.
Concluding Observations
These precedents show that Nepal’s judiciary is increasingly asserting state responsibility in contexts of extrajudicial killing and impunity.
Nevertheless, implementation remains weak: investigations are delayed, prosecutions few, convictions rarer, especially for high‑level perpetrators.
The shift from perception of impunity to accountability is underway but requires enforcement, adequate resources, political will, and legal reform.
These cases are relevant for the broader rule of law and transitional justice: victims and families gain access to remedy; state agents can no longer assume immunity.
RELATED Blog
comments