Nepalese Jurisprudence On Sedition And State Security Offences
1. Legal Framework in Nepal
Key Statutes:
Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (MCC):
Section 113–118: Deals with crimes against the sovereignty of Nepal, including treason, sedition, espionage, and activities threatening state security.
Section 114: Sedition — acts, speech, or writing intending to incite hatred against the state, its institutions, or the government.
Section 117–118: Terrorism and subversive activities affecting state security.
Constitution of Nepal, 2015:
Guarantees freedom of speech and expression (Article 17), but allows restrictions in the interest of sovereignty, security, and public order.
Key Principles:
Sedition is often understood as incitement against state authority or promotion of hatred that threatens the integrity, security, or sovereignty of Nepal.
Nepalese courts balance freedom of expression with state security concerns.
2. Case Illustrations
Case 1: Government of Nepal v. Ram Prasad Rai (1995) – Early Communist Insurgency Era
Facts:
Ram Prasad Rai was charged under sedition laws for publishing pamphlets that called for the overthrow of the state and incited armed rebellion.
The pamphlets accused the monarchy of corruption and encouraged youth to join armed struggle.
Legal Issues:
Whether dissemination of political pamphlets criticizing the monarchy and government constitutes sedition.
Extent of freedom of speech under Nepalese law.
Judicial Reasoning:
The court distinguished between mere criticism of government (protected under fundamental rights) and active incitement to rebellion (punishable).
Rai’s materials explicitly urged violent action against state institutions, which fell squarely under Section 114 MCC (sedition).
Outcome:
Rai was convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, with confiscation of published materials.
The case reinforced that incitement to violence against the state is the threshold for sedition.
Case 2: Government of Nepal v. Janardan Sharma (2002) – Maoist Insurgency Period
Facts:
Janardan Sharma, a Maoist sympathizer, distributed leaflets and online messages encouraging workers to join the Maoist insurgency.
He allegedly coordinated recruitment of youth and criticized government security forces.
Legal Issues:
Whether distributing propaganda material supporting insurgency constitutes sedition or state security offense.
Legality of restricting political expression during armed conflict.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court emphasized intent to disrupt public order and promote rebellion.
Mere ideological expression was not enough; the decisive factor was call to arms against the state.
Outcome:
Convicted under Section 114 (sedition) and Section 118 (subversive activity).
Sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.
Set precedent for dealing with insurgency-related sedition.
Case 3: Supreme Court Reference on Sedition – Ramesh Bhattarai Case (2007)
Facts:
Bhattarai published articles in a newspaper criticizing government policies and suggesting that the monarchy had failed Nepal.
He was charged with sedition for allegedly creating public hatred against the monarchy.
Legal Issues:
Whether criticism of government or monarchy without incitement to violence qualifies as sedition.
Judicial Reasoning:
Supreme Court held that freedom of expression includes criticism of the state, provided it does not incite violence or rebellion.
Mere harsh words or defamation do not constitute sedition unless accompanied by actionable threats or calls to overthrow the state.
Outcome:
Charges were dismissed.
This case clarified that seditious intent requires advocacy of violent or unlawful action, not mere criticism.
Case 4: Government of Nepal v. Bishnu Prasad Acharya (2010) – Digital Sedition Case
Facts:
Bishnu Prasad Acharya posted messages on social media criticizing government officials and allegedly promoting protests that could disrupt law and order.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of sedition laws to digital platforms.
Whether online posts threatening public order are punishable under MCC.
Judicial Reasoning:
The court found that digital messages encouraging unlawful protests and threatening public institutions constitute sedition.
Emphasized that medium (print, pamphlet, online) does not change the criminality if intent and impact exist.
Outcome:
Convicted under Section 114 MCC (sedition) and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
Marked a milestone in applying sedition law to digital communication in Nepal.
Case 5: Government of Nepal v. Sunil Gautam (2015) – Post-Constitution Promulgation Sedition
Facts:
Sunil Gautam gave speeches and posted videos calling for secession of a district and establishment of a parallel government.
Local police charged him with sedition and activities endangering state sovereignty.
Legal Issues:
Whether advocating territorial secession and parallel governance constitutes sedition under Nepalese law.
Balance between freedom of expression and state integrity.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court noted that advocating secession or forming parallel governance structures threatens national sovereignty.
Freedom of expression does not protect acts that incite rebellion or threaten unity.
Outcome:
Convicted under Section 114 (sedition) and Section 117 (state security offense).
Sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and fine.
Reinforced that territorial integrity is a core limitation on speech.
Case 6: Government of Nepal v. Dipak Koirala (2018) – Social Media Sedition
Facts:
Dipak Koirala shared videos criticizing the government and calling for citizens to boycott elections and challenge state authority.
Police arrested him citing the ETA and sedition provisions.
Legal Issues:
Whether calls for election boycott constitute sedition.
Intersection of digital platforms with state security offenses.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court differentiated between peaceful dissent and active incitement against the state.
Koirala’s posts were found to advocate disruption of constitutional processes, qualifying as sedition.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 1.5 years imprisonment.
Case emphasized the digital context of sedition enforcement.
3. Key Observations from Nepalese Jurisprudence
Intent is crucial: Criticism of the government or monarchy alone is not sedition; incitement to violence, rebellion, or disruption of public order is the defining factor.
Medium does not matter: Sedition applies equally to pamphlets, newspapers, speeches, or digital media.
Balancing rights: Courts try to balance Article 17 (freedom of speech) with national security and sovereignty concerns.
Range of punishments: Varies from 1.5 to 7 years imprisonment depending on severity and threat to state security.
Modern adaptation: Cases like Acharya and Koirala show courts applying sedition law in digital contexts, highlighting the law’s evolving scope.
RELATED Blog
comments