Prosecution Of Acts Insulting Religious Harmony
1. Legal Framework in Nepal
In Nepal, acts insulting religious harmony are addressed under multiple laws:
Constitution of Nepal 2015
Article 31: Guarantees freedom of religion but prohibits acts that disrupt public order or religious harmony.
Muluki Criminal Code (Muluki Ain, 2017)
Section 159: Prohibits acts that insult, provoke, or disrespect religious feelings of a community.
Punishment: Fine, imprisonment up to 3 years, or both, depending on severity.
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act
Section 47 and 50 cover online acts that spread hatred or insult religion.
Public Offense Laws
Sections relating to incitement of violence, public disorder, or defamation can also apply if religious feelings are harmed.
Key Principles:
The law differentiates between personal criticism of religion (which may be allowed under free expression) and public acts or speech that intentionally insult or provoke a community.
Intent and context are critical: an act is punishable only if it provokes communal disharmony or public unrest.
2. Important Case Studies
Case 1: Ram Bahadur Kunwar v. State (Nepal, 2018)
Facts:
The accused posted social media messages ridiculing a minority religious group.
Messages were shared widely, causing protests and threats to public order.
Legal Provisions Invoked:
Muluki Criminal Code Section 159 (insulting religion)
ICT Act Section 47 (digital publication of offensive content)
Court Findings:
The court held that intent to provoke religious tension was established.
Accused sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and fine of NPR 50,000.
Significance:
First major social media case under Section 159.
Demonstrates how online acts are treated the same as public acts.
Case 2: Bishnu Prasad Sharma v. Kathmandu District Court (2016)
Facts:
During a religious festival, the accused distributed pamphlets criticizing a particular religion’s rituals in derogatory terms.
Legal Provisions:
Muluki Criminal Code Sections 159 and 160
Public Order Act provisions
Court Findings:
Court noted that the pamphlets insulted religious sentiment and could lead to communal unrest.
Conviction upheld: 6 months imprisonment and community service.
Significance:
Highlights that public distribution of offensive material, even in print, is punishable.
Case 3: The Kedar Sharma Facebook Case (Nepal, 2020)
Facts:
The accused shared a meme mocking religious symbols of multiple communities.
The post caused online outrage and offline protests in the city center.
Legal Provisions:
ICT Act Sections 47, 50
Muluki Criminal Code Section 159
Court Findings:
Intent to insult multiple religions established; court emphasized potential for public unrest.
Sentenced to 9 months imprisonment and 30-day social rehabilitation program.
Significance:
Social media amplification of religious insults can be treated as a serious crime.
Courts increasingly focus on the potential impact on social harmony rather than just the act itself.
Case 4: Nepal Press Article Insulting Religion Case (2017)
Facts:
A newspaper article questioned certain religious beliefs in a derogatory tone.
Complaints filed by local religious leaders.
Legal Provisions:
Muluki Criminal Code Section 159
Defamation and public insult provisions
Court Findings:
Court ruled that criticism must not cross into deliberate insult.
The editor was fined and issued a warning, but imprisonment was not imposed due to absence of intent to incite violence.
Significance:
Shows distinction between legitimate critique and criminal insult.
Intent and context remain critical in prosecution.
Case 5: Janakpur Religious Harmony Rally Case (2015)
Facts:
During a rally, slogans derogatory to a minority religion were shouted.
Local communal tensions escalated; police intervened.
Legal Provisions:
Muluki Criminal Code Section 159
Section 10 of Public Assembly Act (unlawful gathering inciting religious discord)
Court Findings:
Organizers were found liable; imprisonment up to 1 year and fines imposed.
Court emphasized organizers’ responsibility to maintain religious harmony during public events.
Significance:
Establishes that public events can be prosecuted if they intentionally insult or provoke religious groups.
Case 6: Online Hate Speech Against Religious Leaders (Pokhara, 2019)
Facts:
A youth posted derogatory comments about religious leaders on multiple online forums.
Threats of retaliation from offended groups led to unrest in Pokhara.
Legal Provisions:
ICT Act Sections 47, 50
Muluki Criminal Code Section 159
Court Findings:
Court held that posting content online with intent to insult religion is equivalent to public insult.
6 months imprisonment and mandatory apology ordered.
Significance:
Reinforces that online acts are treated equivalently to physical acts in law.
Courts are balancing freedom of expression with communal peace.
3. Key Takeaways
Intent Matters:
Courts distinguish between deliberate insult to religion and legitimate critique.
Medium of Expression:
Social media, print, rallies, and speeches can all be prosecuted.
Impact on Public Order:
Potential to disturb public order or incite communal violence is central to liability.
Punishment:
Ranges from fines to imprisonment (3 years max in Nepal), often accompanied by social rehabilitation.
Role of ICT Act:
Online content is treated with the same seriousness as public acts.
RELATED Blog
comments