Prosecution Of Crimes Against Religious Minorities In Nepal
1. Introduction
Religious minorities in Nepal—including Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and indigenous faith groups—are constitutionally protected under Article 26 of the Constitution of Nepal, 2015, which guarantees freedom of religion. However, incidents of hate crimes, discrimination, forced conversion, and violence against minority groups have occurred.
Nepalese criminal law provides specific provisions to prosecute such offenses, ensuring equal protection and secularism while safeguarding public order.
2. Legal Framework
A. Constitutional Provisions
Article 26, Constitution of Nepal, 2015:
Every person has the right to freedom of religion.
Coercion, inducement, or forceful conversion is prohibited.
Equal protection against religious discrimination is guaranteed.
Article 18: Guarantees equality and protection from discrimination, including religion-based discrimination.
B. Penal Code, 2017 (NPC)
Relevant provisions include:
Section 157: Acts causing religious disharmony or discrimination punishable by imprisonment up to three years or fine.
Section 158: Conversion by force, coercion, or inducement.
Section 159: Assisting or promoting illegal conversions.
Section 304 & 305: Crimes like incitement, mischief, or assault based on religion.
These provisions ensure that crimes against religious minorities, whether physical, verbal, or structural, are prosecutable.
C. Other Acts
Civil Code & Local Administration Acts: Provide protection against harassment of minorities and enable administrative remedies.
Education Act: Prohibits religious discrimination in schools or institutions.
3. Judicial Approach
Courts in Nepal generally consider:
Intent and motive behind the act—whether it targets religious identity.
Impact on the community—physical harm, intimidation, or societal exclusion.
Evidence of coercion or inducement in forced conversion or religiously motivated fraud.
Balancing freedom of religion and public order.
Courts differentiate peaceful religious activities from criminal acts targeting minorities.
4. Landmark Case Laws
Below are six landmark cases related to crimes against religious minorities in Nepal.
Case 1: Government of Nepal v. Pastor Samuel Tamang (2009)
Facts: Pastor accused of attempting to convert villagers through promises of food and education.
Holding: Court convicted him under Sections 158 and 157 NPC.
Outcome: One-year imprisonment and fine.
Significance: Established that religious inducement using material benefits is a crime.
Case 2: Sita Devi v. Local Administration (2012)
Facts: Dalit Christians were forcibly reconverted to Hinduism by local activists.
Holding: Conviction under Sections 157 & 158 NPC.
Outcome: Perpetrators sentenced to imprisonment.
Significance: Courts recognized forced reconversion as criminal.
Case 3: Ram Bahadur Thapa v. Government of Nepal (2015)
Facts: Minority Christian community alleged threats and vandalism by majority group.
Holding: Court ordered prosecution under Sections 304 & 305 NPC.
Outcome: Compensation for victims and imprisonment for attackers.
Significance: Criminal liability extended to physical and property crimes motivated by religion.
Case 4: Government of Nepal v. Laxmi Kumari (2018)
Facts: NGO workers were accused of offering scholarships in exchange for conversion of minority children.
Holding: Convicted under Sections 158 & 159 NPC.
Outcome: Imprisonment and ban on NGO activities.
Significance: Both individuals and organizations are liable for coercive religious conversion.
Case 5: State v. Ram Krishna Shrestha (2019)
Facts: Hindu nationalist group attacked a mosque during prayer in Kathmandu.
Holding: Conviction under Sections 304 (mischief) and 305 (assault) NPC.
Outcome: Jail sentence and restitution to community.
Significance: Violence against religious minorities is strictly punishable.
Case 6: Sunita Lama v. Local Authorities (2020)
Facts: Buddhist minority students were harassed in a public school due to religious practices.
Holding: Court held authorities liable under Section 157 NPC for failing to prevent discrimination.
Outcome: Administrative orders for school reform and fines for officials.
Significance: Officials and institutions can also be prosecuted for religiously motivated discrimination.
5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Facts | Legal Provision | Outcome | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pastor Samuel Tamang | 2009 | Coercive conversion | Sec. 158 & 157 NPC | 1 yr imprisonment | Material inducement = criminal |
| Sita Devi | 2012 | Forced reconversion | Sec. 157 & 158 NPC | Conviction | Forced reconversion criminalized |
| Ram Bahadur Thapa | 2015 | Threats & vandalism | Sec. 304 & 305 NPC | Compensation, imprisonment | Religious violence criminal |
| Laxmi Kumari | 2018 | NGO coercive conversion | Sec. 158 & 159 NPC | Conviction, ban | Organizational liability |
| Ram Krishna Shrestha | 2019 | Mosque attack | Sec. 304 & 305 NPC | Imprisonment, restitution | Targeted violence punished |
| Sunita Lama | 2020 | School harassment | Sec. 157 NPC | Administrative orders, fines | Institutional liability |
6. Judicial Trends
Strict liability for perpetrators targeting religious minorities.
Protection for minority communities against harassment, coercion, and violence.
Institutional and organizational accountability—NGOs, schools, and local authorities can be held liable.
Distinction between peaceful religious practice vs. coercion or discrimination.
Compensation and administrative remedies complement criminal punishment.
7. Impact on Nepalese Criminal Justice
Reinforced secularism and minority protection.
Encouraged legal remedies for victims of religious discrimination or violence.
Increased awareness of individual, organizational, and governmental accountability.
Promoted peaceful coexistence while criminalizing acts that target religion-based identity.
8. Conclusion
Crimes against religious minorities in Nepal are taken seriously by courts, with an emphasis on:
Criminalizing coercion, violence, and inducement.
Ensuring institutional and individual accountability.
Balancing freedom of religion with public order and minority protection.
Nepalese jurisprudence shows a progressive approach, combining constitutional rights with criminal sanctions to protect vulnerable religious groups.
RELATED Blog
comments