Prosecution Of Films And Literature Violating Decency Laws
Legal Framework: Decency Laws in Nepal
Muluki Criminal Code (2017 / 2074 BS)
Section 164 – Obscene acts or publications: Producing, publishing, or distributing obscene materials is punishable.
Section 165 – Public display of obscene content, including films, magazines, or literature.
Section 166 – Distribution of materials harmful to morality or public decency.
Sections 167-168 – Sexual exploitation through media or written work.
Motion Picture (Regulation) Act, 2049 BS
Regulates film certification and screening.
Films must be approved by the Film Development Board (FDB) before public exhibition.
Screening or publishing uncertified or obscene content can lead to prosecution.
Press and Publication Act, 1991
Prohibits the publication of obscene or indecent literature.
Editors and publishers can be held criminally liable.
Case Laws
1. Case: “Kabaddi 4” – Obscene Scenes Controversy (2019, Kathmandu)
Facts:
Local activists filed a complaint against the film Kabaddi 4 for including sexually suggestive scenes and vulgar dialogues.
Allegation: Violation of Section 164 & 165 (obscene publication and display).
Legal Issues:
Whether sexually suggestive content in a film constitutes criminal obscenity or artistic expression.
Examination of community standards vs. freedom of expression.
Outcome:
Court emphasized context and intent.
Film cleared after minor edits were made.
Case highlighted that not all sexual content is automatically obscene, and artistic intent matters.
Takeaways:
Nepalese courts weigh artistic merit vs. public decency.
Certification by Film Development Board (FDB) is crucial.
2. Case: “Mero Euta Saathi Chha” – Obscenity Complaint (2016, Lalitpur)
Facts:
Complaint filed alleging a scene showing partial nudity violated decency laws.
Legal Issues:
Section 165 of the Criminal Code – public display of obscene content.
Press and Publication Act – distribution without proper certification.
Outcome:
Court ruled minor nudity for story context is not obscene.
Producers instructed to display age-appropriate advisory.
Takeaways:
Obscenity is interpreted relative to social norms, not absolute nudity.
3. Case: Erotic Literature Ban – “Aansu Ko Pustak” (2017, Kathmandu)
Facts:
A small publication contained explicit sexual content and erotic stories.
Activists filed a complaint citing Sections 164 & 166, claiming it corrupted youth morality.
Legal Issues:
Whether private literature intended for adult readership violates public decency laws.
Publisher’s defense: targeted audience was adult readers.
Outcome:
Court banned distribution to minors and required adult-only sales.
Publisher fined NPR 50,000.
Takeaways:
Literature is regulated based on audience and accessibility, not just content.
Legal precedent shows age-restricted access mitigates criminal liability.
4. Case: “Lover Boy” Film Controversy (2018, Pokhara)
Facts:
Screening stopped mid-release after local authorities received complaints about sexualized content and provocative scenes.
Legal Issues:
Violation of Film Development Board rules and Section 165.
Examination of local community standards vs. national law.
Outcome:
Film allowed after censor board certification with minor cuts.
Court emphasized provincial authorities cannot arbitrarily stop films if certified by FDB.
Takeaways:
Film censorship must follow legal and procedural frameworks, not solely local complaints.
Courts protect certified artistic expression.
5. Case: Online Obscene Content – “Adult Stories” Website (2020, Kathmandu)
Facts:
Website publishing erotic short stories in Nepali language.
Complaint filed citing Sections 164, 165, and 166 for distribution of obscene content.
Legal Issues:
Application of criminal decency laws to digital publications.
Jurisdiction and access by minors were central issues.
Outcome:
Court blocked website access in Nepal.
Admins fined and warned against further violations.
Takeaways:
Digital and online publications fall under same decency laws as print media.
Courts increasingly tackle internet-based obscenity.
6. Case: Controversial Art Exhibit – “Erotic Sculptures” (2019, Lalitpur)
Facts:
Art exhibition included sexually explicit sculptures.
Local complaint filed citing violation of public decency laws.
Legal Issues:
Balancing artistic freedom vs. public morality.
Whether a private exhibition in a controlled gallery constitutes public display.
Outcome:
Court allowed exhibition with restricted adult-only access.
Emphasized artistic context and private venue reduce liability.
Takeaways:
Nepalese courts often consider context, venue, and audience in decency-related prosecutions.
Key Observations from These Cases
Criminal liability exists for films, literature, and digital content under Sections 164-166.
Public decency standards are evaluated relative to society’s norms, not absolute nudity or sexual content.
Certification and age restriction reduce liability.
Courts differentiate between:
Obscene vs. artistic content
Private adult content vs. public display
Digital vs. physical publication
Both producers/publishers and distributors can face fines or prosecution.
Courts balance freedom of expression with protection of public morality.
RELATED Blog
comments