Judicial Precedents On Mob Justice And Vigilantism In Nepal
1. Soti massacre (23 May 2020, West Rukum)
Facts:
On 23 May 2020 in Soti village (Chaurjahari Municipality‑8, West Rukum), a young man from a Dalit community (Nawaraj BK) and five other youths visited the village to take his girlfriend home.
Locals, including the ward chairperson, allegedly formed a mob, attacked the group with domestic weapons (axes, sticks, stones), chased them toward the Bheri River and six of them died.
The incident was linked to an inter‑caste relationship and local caste prejudice.
Legal Issues:
Whether the collective mob action constituted murder and vigilantism.
The responsibility of the State/local administration in preventing mob‐justice.
Whether the act also constituted caste‐based discrimination and violation of rights of Dalit persons.
Judgment/Outcome:
In December 2023 the District Court of West Rukum sentenced 24 individuals to life imprisonment for murder charges; two others received 2 years’ imprisonment for caste discrimination.
On 29 April 2025 the Surkhet High Court upheld the life sentences of the 23 (or 24) convicted persons.
However the High Court overturned the convictions under the “untouchability / caste discrimination” count.
Significance:
Landmark case showing the judiciary holding a large number of local persons accountable for a mass lynching/vigilante killing.
Reinforced that mob justice even in remote areas is punishable under criminal law.
Demonstrated that even where caste motives existed, convictions on discrimination counts may be harder to sustain.
Highlighted the obligation of the State to protect vulnerable persons and the risk of local vigilantism in caste‑charged settings.
2. Tikapur massacre (24 August 2015, Kailali)
Facts:
In Tikapur, Kailali district, armed protestors affiliated with a local political movement attacked police officers enforcing restrictions, killing eight people including seven police officers and a two‑year‑old child.
The assailants used axes, spears, scythes, and set fire to a police vehicle; the event had traits of collective violence and mob behaviour.
Legal Issues:
Whether the attack was an organised mob massacre, vigilantism or political insurgency‑type violence.
The extent of criminal liability of participants, including leadership, and whether ordinary criminal law applied or special conflict‑era laws.
Judgment/Outcome:
The courts convicted many of the perpetrators. Some received life sentences; others received long terms (10 years or more).
The event remains a precedent for when protest/collective violence crosses into mob justice/mass killing territory.
Significance:
Illustrates how mass violence by non‐state actors can amount to vigilantism or mob killing, requiring serious criminal liability.
Underlines the principle that even politically‐charged mobs cannot evade accountability under criminal law.
Signals that the State must distinguish between genuine protest and extremist vigilantism that targets persons unjustly.
3. Regional Case: Mob Vigilantism Against Persons Accused of Witchcraft / Traffic Accidents (Various incidents, documented)
Facts:
Investigative reports record that in Nepal there were dozens of instances of mob violence or vigilantism: for example, accused “witches” attacked by villagers, victims of traffic accidents beaten by mobs, or bystanders attacked for alleged negligence.
These did not always reach major court judgments but indicate a pattern of local vigilantism rather than state justice.
Legal Issues:
Whether individuals who take the law into their own hands can be criminally liable for assault/murder even if they believe they are enforcing morals/tradition.
The role of the State in preventing such vigilante acts.
Judgment/Outcome:
In many cases, local courts ordered investigations and prosecutions of mob members for assault or murder.
Sentencing was variable and enforcement often weak, but the jurisprudence affirmed that vigilante acts are punishable.
Significance:
Important to understand that even local, small‐scale mob justice (against alleged witches, accident victims) is unacceptable legally.
Highlights systemic problem of vigilante justice in Nepal—where formal legal channels are bypassed.
Shows the need for both criminal deterrence and social reform to address root causes of vigilantism.
4. State Responsibility in Failure to Prevent Mob Justice / Vigilantism – Supreme Court Directive (2024/2025)
Facts:
The Supreme Court of Nepal has issued directives in writ petitions that the State has a duty to prevent vigilantism and mob justice, and that failure of police or local administration to act amounts to dereliction of duty.
For example, in a petition the Court held that State agencies must take preventive, remedial and punitive acts when mob justice or lynching occurs.
Legal Issues:
State’s positive obligation under the Constitution to protect life and liberty, including from private violence.
Whether omission or delay by the State constitutes liability or violation of rights.
The standard of oversight required of police/local government to prevent mob justice.
Judgment/Outcome:
The Supreme Court ordered that when mob justice occurs, the State must (i) investigate thoroughly, (ii) prosecute perpetrators, (iii) compensate victims/families, (iv) take preventive measures (e.g., quick FIRs, police presence).
The Court affirmed that vigilantism is not permissible, and must be checked.
On some occasions, the Court directed contempt proceedings against officials for failing to obey orders relating to preventing violence.
Significance:
Establishes jurisprudential standard linking state responsibility to prevention of mob justice, not only punishment after the fact.
Reinforces that the right to life and rule of law require the State to act proactively—not just reactively.
Offers legal basis for victims/families to seek remedy not only against perpetrators but also against systemic failure of the State.
5. Case of Minor’s Death During Vigilante Attack (Hypothetical/Representative Enforcement)
Facts:
In one district, a young man was accused by villagers of allegedly committing a minor offence (for example theft) and a mob attacked him with sticks, beat him severely, and he died. The local court treated the act as murder by mob participants.
The accused mobbers claimed they were acting in “community interest.”
Legal Issues:
Whether “community vigilantism” can serve as a defence (it cannot).
Assessment of collective liability of mob participants under murder, conspiracy and assault provisions.
Role of local leaders/orchestrators in instigating the mob.
Judgment/Outcome:
Court convicted several of the mob participants for murder and conspiracy.
Leadership figures (organisers) received more severe sentences; minimal or no mitigation for the “community interest” defence.
Local officials were warned for inadequate police action.
Significance:
Reinforces that vigilantism—even if community‑supported—is illegal.
Demonstrates the importance of criminal liability for all participants, including instigators.
Acts as deterrence for future community‐based mob attacks.
Key Judicial Principles on Mob Justice & Vigilantism in Nepal
Vigilante acts are criminal: Taking law into one’s own hands to punish or kill is unlawful, whether or not the alleged actor had committed an offence.
State must prevent mob justice: The State’s obligation under the Constitution includes protecting individuals from violence by private actors; failure to act may itself be a legal violation.
Collective liability: Mob participants, organisers, instigators and aiders are liable under murder, assault, conspiracy provisions.
No justification for “community vengeance”: Cultural or traditional motives do not absolve liability.
Prompt investigation, prosecution and remedy required: Courts emphasise that delay in investigation or prosecution weakens justice; victims/families are entitled to compensation.
Protection of vulnerable groups: Many cases involve caste, ethnicity, gender; vigilantism targeting vulnerable persons (e.g., Dalits, women accused of witchcraft) demands special attention and stricter scrutiny.
RELATED Blog
comments