Prosecution Of Sabotage Of Public Utilities In Nepal
Legal Framework
1. Criminal Code of Nepal, 2017 (Muluki Ain)
Section 150: Criminalizes damage, obstruction, or sabotage of public infrastructure and utilities (roads, bridges, hydroelectric plants, power lines, water systems, telecommunication towers). Penalties include imprisonment up to 10 years and fines.
Section 32: Penalizes participation in unlawful assembly contributing to destruction or obstruction of public services.
Section 31: Protects public peace; interference with public utilities causing widespread disruption is punishable.
2. Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 30: Right to a clean and healthy environment; utility sabotage that affects public service and environmental safety may violate this.
Article 51: Obligation of the state to maintain public order and protect vital infrastructure.
Case Studies
Case 1: Transmission Line Obstruction at Lapsephedi (2023)
Facts: Local residents obstructed the installation of a 400 kV transmission corridor/substation. Protesters clashed with police, resulting in injuries to three police personnel.
Legal Action: Defendants charged under Sections 150 and 32 for obstructing public utility construction and causing public disorder.
Outcome: Arrests were made, and prosecutions initiated. This case demonstrates that obstruction—even in protests—can constitute criminal liability when it disrupts vital public utilities.
Case 2: Telecommunications Tower Arson in Sunsari (2015)
Facts: Political opponents set fire to a telecommunications tower to disrupt communication during local elections.
Legal Action: Prosecuted for destruction of public utilities, arson, and public disorder under Section 150 and the Arson Act.
Outcome: Three perpetrators sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and fines covering tower reconstruction.
Significance: Telecommunication infrastructure is recognized as a critical public utility; intentional sabotage attracts severe criminal penalties.
Case 3: Water Reservoir Pipeline Vandalism in Chitwan (2019)
Facts: Residents opposed relocating a water reservoir and damaged pipelines and gates, disrupting water supply.
Legal Action: Defendants charged under Section 150 for damage to public utility infrastructure.
Outcome: Three individuals sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution for repairs.
Significance: Protects essential public utilities like water supply from sabotage.
Case 4: Rural Bridge and Road Sabotage in Ramechhap (2017)
Facts: Protesters in a land dispute partially destroyed a suspension bridge and blocked connecting roads.
Legal Action: Prosecuted for destruction of public infrastructure and participation in unlawful assembly under Sections 150 and 32.
Outcome: Five defendants sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and civil liability imposed for bridge repair.
Significance: Demonstrates that public transport infrastructure is treated as a utility critical to the community.
Case 5: Industrial Electricity Supply Interruption in Kathmandu Valley (2024)
Facts: Dispute over electricity billing led some industries to tamper with transformers to avoid disconnection. This disrupted supply to other industries.
Legal Action: Prosecuted under Section 150 for interfering with electricity supply and causing disruption to other businesses.
Outcome: Two individuals sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and fines. Electrical utility authorities reinforced monitoring to prevent recurrence.
Significance: Interference with energy utilities for personal gain or dispute resolution is a criminal offense.
Case 6: Dam Sabotage Threat in Kulekhani Hydropower Plant (2016)
Facts: During a protest over hydropower land acquisition, protestors threatened to damage Kulekhani dam gates and hydro equipment. Some minor tampering occurred.
Legal Action: Arrests made under Sections 150 and 32 for damage and threat to public utility infrastructure.
Outcome: Three protestors received 1–2 years imprisonment, and authorities conducted inspections to secure hydro equipment.
Significance: Hydropower projects are critical national utilities; any threat of sabotage triggers criminal liability.
Case 7: Sabotage of Rural Water Supply Pipeline in Sindhuli (2018)
Facts: Locals opposed water supply project; they blocked construction and damaged pipelines.
Legal Action: Prosecuted under Section 150 for destruction of public utilities and interference with essential services.
Outcome: Four offenders sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and fines for repair costs.
Significance: Rural utility projects are equally protected; sabotage affecting communities is treated seriously.
Key Takeaways
Criminal liability is established: Deliberate interference, damage, or sabotage of public utilities is punishable under Sections 150 and 32.
Utilities include all critical infrastructure: Electricity, water, telecom, roads, bridges, and hydroelectric projects.
Severity depends on impact: Minor obstruction may attract lighter punishment; deliberate sabotage affecting public services receives heavier sentences.
Restitution is common: Courts often require repair costs to be paid by offenders.
Protests do not exempt liability: Political or social motives do not shield perpetrators from prosecution if utilities are damaged.
RELATED Blog
0 comments