Research On Constitutional Rights And Sedition Law In Nepal

15 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Introduction: Constitutional Rights and Sedition in Nepal

A. Constitutional Rights

The Constitution of Nepal 2015 guarantees several fundamental rights that directly relate to sedition and freedom of expression. The key provisions are:

Article 17 – Right to Freedom:
Every citizen has the freedom of opinion and expression, freedom to assemble peacefully, freedom to form unions, and freedom to move and reside freely.

Article 19 – Right to Communication:
It guarantees that no publication, broadcasting, or dissemination of any material shall be censored except in cases that threaten national sovereignty, integrity, or harmonious relations.

Article 49 – Duties of Citizens:
Every citizen must uphold and defend the sovereignty, integrity, and national unity of Nepal.

The Constitution balances freedom of expression with state security and unity, which is where sedition laws become relevant.

B. Sedition Law in Nepal

Nepal’s legal framework does not have a single codified “Sedition Act,” but sedition-related provisions are found mainly under:

Muluki Criminal Code, 2017 (Section 58):
Punishes any person who commits an act that may jeopardize the sovereignty, territorial integrity, nationality, or independence of Nepal.

National Broadcasting Act, 1992 and Press Council Act, 1992:
Prohibit publication or broadcasting of material that incites hatred, disorder, or disrespects national unity.

Public Security Act, 1989:
Allows preventive detention of persons suspected of acting against public security or national interest.

Thus, sedition in Nepal includes acts that attempt to incite hatred against the State, promote separatism, or challenge sovereignty, even through speech or publication.

2. Relationship Between Constitutional Rights and Sedition

While freedom of expression is a guaranteed right, it is not absolute. Article 17(2)(a) allows “reasonable restrictions” on the grounds of:

National security,

Public order,

Decency or morality, and

Protection of the reputation of others.

This balance often becomes a legal question: Where does free speech end and sedition begin?

3. Landmark Nepalese Cases on Constitutional Rights and Sedition

Below are five major cases that shaped the interpretation of sedition and free speech in Nepal.

Case 1: Advocate Krishna Prasad Bhattarai v. Government of Nepal (1990, NKP 2047)

Facts:
During the Panchayat era, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, a pro-democracy leader, was detained under the Public Security Act for delivering speeches that criticized the monarchy and demanded a multi-party democracy.

Issue:
Whether criticizing the King and advocating for democracy constituted sedition or a legitimate exercise of free expression.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that peaceful advocacy for political reform cannot be treated as sedition.
The Court stated that “the right to express political opinion is inherent in a democracy.”
Detaining Bhattarai under security laws was unconstitutional.

Significance:
This case established that criticizing the government or monarchy does not amount to sedition, as long as it does not incite violence or disunity.

Case 2: Dharmendra Bastola v. Government of Nepal (2003, NKP 2060)

Facts:
Dharmendra Bastola, a journalist, published an article criticizing government military actions during the Maoist insurgency. He was charged with attempting to harm national unity and security.

Issue:
Whether journalistic criticism of government actions can be deemed seditious.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that press freedom is vital to democracy and that critical reporting cannot be criminalized as sedition unless it provokes public disorder or rebellion.
The Court emphasized that the “expression of dissent is not equivalent to disloyalty.”

Significance:
The case reinforced the constitutional protection of press freedom, limiting the misuse of sedition laws against journalists.

Case 3: Lekhnath Neupane v. Government of Nepal (2006, NKP 2063)

Facts:
During the Maoist conflict, political activist Lekhnath Neupane distributed leaflets calling for an end to the monarchy and establishment of a republic. He was arrested for “anti-national” activities under the Public Security Act.

Issue:
Does advocacy for a republican form of government constitute sedition?

Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that peaceful advocacy for systemic change does not endanger sovereignty or unity and thus cannot be considered sedition.
However, if such advocacy promotes violence, it would cross the line.

Significance:
This case clarified the difference between peaceful political advocacy and seditious acts—a major precedent during Nepal’s transition to republicanism.

Case 4: Kantipur Publications v. Government of Nepal (2008, NKP 2065)

Facts:
The Kantipur newspaper published reports alleging corruption and human rights abuses by the security forces. The government accused it of undermining national security and unity.

Issue:
Whether publishing information critical of state agencies amounts to an act against national interest.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy.
The government must show “clear and present danger” to sovereignty or national integrity to restrict expression.
Since the publication was based on factual reporting, it was protected under Article 19.

Significance:
This case reaffirmed the principle that truthful criticism of government does not equate to sedition.

Case 5: Durga Prasai v. Government of Nepal (2023, Supreme Court of Nepal)

Facts:
Businessman Durga Prasai organized mass rallies criticizing federalism and republicanism, calling for the return of monarchy. Authorities accused him of promoting instability and undermining national unity.

Issue:
Can calls to restore monarchy or alter the constitutional structure be treated as sedition?

Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that expressing political opinions, even unpopular ones, falls under free expression as long as they do not incite violence or rebellion.
However, the Court warned that if such movements promote armed uprising or communal hatred, they may fall within the ambit of sedition.

Significance:
This is a modern interpretation balancing freedom of speech with protection of national integrity under the 2015 Constitution.

4. Key Legal Principles from the Cases

Peaceful dissent is not sedition.
Criticizing the government or monarchy, or advocating systemic change, is constitutionally protected.

Violent or inciting speech can be sedition.
When expression leads to public disorder or promotes separatism, it loses protection.

Freedom of press is essential.
Journalists and publications cannot be targeted for performing their duty in good faith.

Reasonable restrictions must meet the test of necessity and proportionality.
The state must justify why limiting speech is essential for security.

5. Conclusion

Nepal’s judiciary has played a vital role in defining the boundary between free expression and sedition.
While the Constitution protects freedom of speech, it equally demands loyalty to sovereignty and national integrity.
Through its evolving case law—from Bhattarai’s era of monarchy to Prasai’s modern republican context—the Supreme Court has consistently leaned toward protecting democratic expression while ensuring national unity.

Summary Table

Case	Year	Key Issue	Court’s View
Krishna Prasad Bhattarai v. GoN	1990	Criticism of monarchy	Peaceful political speech ≠ sedition
Dharmendra Bastola v. GoN	2003	Press criticism	Dissent protected under free press
Lekhnath Neupane v. GoN	2006	Advocacy for republic	Peaceful advocacy protected
Kantipur Publications v. GoN	2008	Media criticism	Truthful reporting ≠ anti-national
Durga Prasai v. GoN	2023	Calls for monarchy	Political opinion allowed unless violent