Prosecution Of Vandalism In Pashupatinath Temple
🛕 Prosecution of Vandalism at Pashupatinath Temple: Case Analysis
Legal Framework
Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 2013 (Nepal)
Protects heritage sites, including Pashupatinath Temple.
Any destruction, unauthorized alteration, or damage to heritage property is a criminal offense.
Muluki Criminal Code, 2017
Section 260 (Destruction of property): Intentionally destroying, damaging, or defacing property is punishable by imprisonment or fines.
Section 160 (Causing death by negligence) and Section 161 (Causing grievous hurt by negligence) may also apply if vandalism results in injury or death.
Pashupati Area Development Trust (PADT) Rules
Administratively regulates temple premises.
Unauthorized activities, encroachments, and damage to temple property can trigger both criminal and administrative actions.
Case 1: Unauthorized Construction in Temple Premises (2019)
Facts:
PADT began construction of a pavement and small structure within the temple boundary without proper authorization. Concerned citizens filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), claiming the works damaged the heritage site.
Issue:
Whether unauthorized construction causing potential damage constitutes vandalism under heritage protection law.
Decision:
The Supreme Court issued an interim halt on the construction, recognizing that altering or building on a heritage site without permission amounts to damaging protected property.
Significance:
Establishes that even structural modifications without malicious intent can be treated as criminally and administratively liable as “damage to property.”
Introduced proactive judicial oversight for preservation.
Case 2: Theft and Damage of Gold Assets (2023)
Facts:
PADT purchased gold sheets for installation on the main Ĺšivalinga. During installation, ~1.5 kg of gold went missing. PADT officials were investigated for misappropriation.
Issue:
Does misappropriation of temple assets constitute vandalism or criminal damage?
Decision:
The Special Court investigated whether the missing gold was due to negligence or intentional misconduct. While charges were filed, three officials were acquitted due to insufficient evidence of intent.
Significance:
Expands the notion of vandalism to internal mismanagement and misappropriation of temple property.
Highlights that proving intent is crucial in prosecuting “vandalism” of trust assets.
Case 3: Theft of Donation Boxes (2023)
Facts:
Two individuals broke into donation boxes near the temple and stole the collected funds. CCTV footage captured their act.
Issue:
Breaking temple property and theft constitute criminal damage and vandalism under Sections 260 and 275 of the Criminal Code.
Decision:
Police filed formal charges; criminal proceedings were initiated.
Significance:
Classic example of vandalism involving both property destruction and theft.
Emphasizes that damage to sacred objects, even minor, is taken seriously.
Case 4: Destruction of Festival Decorations (2020)
Facts:
During Mahashivaratri, elaborate floral decorations installed by PADT were stolen or destroyed by visitors.
Issue:
Does removing or damaging decorative elements fall under vandalism or criminal damage?
Decision:
PADT filed complaints; although minor perpetrators were difficult to identify, the case established precedent for holding individuals accountable for property damage during public festivals.
Significance:
Expands vandalism to cultural and decorative elements of temple property.
Demonstrates challenges in enforcement when multiple visitors are involved.
Case 5: Forced Entry and Unauthorized Priest Appointment (2009)
Facts:
Maoist cadres broke the locks of the main shrine to forcefully install a new priest, violating centuries-old customs.
Issue:
Does breaking locks and entering sacred premises constitute criminal damage?
Decision:
Courts recognized the act as both illegal entry and damage to sacred property, demanding restoration of prior status.
Significance:
Illustrates that vandalism includes forceful intrusion even if physical destruction is limited.
Combines cultural, religious, and property protection concerns.
Case 6: Encroachment and Unauthorized Shop Construction (2017)
Facts:
Vendors built small shops within temple premises without authorization, leading to complaints about damage to temple grounds.
Issue:
Whether encroachment and unauthorized construction constitute vandalism or heritage property damage.
Decision:
Court ordered removal of structures and fined the encroachers under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act.
Significance:
Shows that vandalism is interpreted broadly to include any act degrading or altering temple property, even without intent to steal or destroy.
Establishes precedent for administrative enforcement.
Key Legal Principles Derived from These Cases
Vandalism is broadly interpreted: includes destruction, theft, misappropriation, unauthorized construction, or encroachment.
Intent matters: internal mismanagement may be acquitted if intent cannot be proved.
Joint responsibility: in group acts (festival damage, forced entry), all participants can be held liable.
Cultural and religious value: damage to sacred objects, decorations, or ceremonial items is considered more serious.
Administrative enforcement complements criminal prosecution: PADT can act alongside police and courts.
These six cases show that vandalism at Pashupatinath Temple is treated not just as ordinary property damage, but as a serious offense against heritage, religion, and public trust, with both criminal and administrative consequences.
RELATED Blog
comments