Research On Gender Justice And Penal Law In Nepal
Legal Framework
Before diving into the cases, it’s useful to outline the relevant legal context in Nepal:
The Constitution of Nepal (2015) guarantees equality and non‑discrimination on grounds of gender and also explicitly protects the rights of women, sexual and gender minorities.
The Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (the penal code) criminalises various forms of gender‑based violence, sexual violence, marital rape (though with noted limitations), and offences against women.
Legal reform efforts (via amendment acts) have addressed harmful customary practices (e.g., seclusion during menstruation, child marriage) and discrimination in property and family law.
The judiciary (notably the Supreme Court of Nepal) has played a proactive role in interpreting laws in light of international standards (e.g., CEDAW) and advancing gender justice through landmark judgments.
With this in mind, the following cases illustrate how gender, justice and penal/legal reforms intersect in Nepal.
Case 1: Sapana Pradhan and Others v. Prime Minister and Council of Ministers (2008)
Facts:
A group of women’s rights organisations challenged a legal provision which permitted a husband to take a second wife if the first wife was invalid/unfit or ill, with her consent, arguing it discriminated against women and violated equality rights.
Legal Issues:
Whether the law permitting polygyny under certain conditions violated constitutional‑rights of equality (Article 11 of the Interim Constitution at the time) and the international obligation under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Whether traditional practices/customs in family law which treat women differently are permissible under gender equality principles.
Judgment / Outcome:
The Supreme Court of Nepal held that the legal provision allowing second marriage under such conditions was inconsistent with the equality guarantee and discriminatory towards women. The Court directed legislative amendment to remove such discriminatory provisions.
Significance:
Landmark decision reinforcing that gender‑based discrimination in family law cannot be justified by custom alone.
Strengthened the role of the judiciary in moving the penal and civil legal frameworks toward gender equality.
It triggered reform of personal/family law provisions to eliminate discriminatory treatment of women.
Case 2: Prakash Mani Sharma v. Government of Nepal (2014)
Facts:
A petition was filed seeking a mandamus in relation to women’s reproductive health rights: that the government had failed to provide effective programs for women suffering from uterine prolapse, despite existing budget allocations and obligations under the constitution and international treaties.
Legal Issues:
The right to reproductive health as a component of gender justice and whether the State has a duty (constitutional and legal) to ensure services and infrastructure.
Whether failure to act by the State can be challenged under constitutional guarantees and whether that failure interacts with penal obligations for rights protection.
Judgment / Outcome:
The Court held that the State had obligations to act and that women’s reproductive health issues amount to rights that must be enforced. While this case was more about remedying state action than a classical penal prosecution, it established a precedent for legal accountability and duty of the State in gender‑justice contexts.
Significance:
Demonstrated that gender justice includes not only penal sanctions for wrongdoing but also affirmative duties of the State in law, regulation and policy.
Helped strengthen the legal environment for protecting women’s health rights, which is integral to gender justice.
Case 3: Pun Devi Maharjan v. Government of Nepal (2008)
Facts:
The petition challenged the traditional practice of young girls being chosen as “Kumaris” (living goddesses) in Nepal, arguing that the social restrictions on these girls (dress, mobility, education) violated their rights.
Legal Issues:
Whether a cultural/religious custom which restricts education or mobility of a child girl violates constitutional equality rights or the rights of the child.
Balancing cultural/traditional practices versus rights of girls under modern penal or constitutional law frameworks.
Judgment / Outcome:
The Court found that while the practice did not automatically amount to a rights violation (because the girls in that case attended school etc.), it directed government to ensure safeguards (education access, mobility rights) and to review the practice. It did not hold the custom entirely unconstitutional but placed conditions.
Significance:
A nuanced approach: recognising cultural tradition but insisting on rights safeguards.
Shows how gender justice cases may intersect with penal/constitutional law not only in punishing wrongdoing but in regulating traditional practices.
Illustrates the judiciary’s role in gender justice beyond purely punitive measures.
Case 4: Legal Recognition of Transgender Person — Rukshana Kapali v. Nepal (2024)
Facts:
Transgender activist Rukshana Kapali sought legal recognition of her gender identity as female, without requiring medical verification, and requested her gender marker to be changed on official documents.
Legal Issues:
Rights of sexual and gender minorities under the Constitution (Article 18(3) and Article 42) which protect gender identity and non‑discrimination.
Whether requiring medical verification for gender recognition constitutes discrimination and violation of rights to dignity and identity.
How penal/administrative law frameworks must adapt to protect gender‑identity rights.
Judgment / Outcome:
The Supreme Court of Nepal ruled that Kapali must be recognised as female on all documents without having to submit to medical verification. The Court affirmed the principle of self‑identification and non‑discrimination.
Significance:
Landmark for gender minorities: recognition of gender identity rights, extending gender justice beyond binary women/men.
Demonstrates that gender justice under Nepal’s legal system includes rights protections and is not just limited to women.
Sets precedent for administrative, civil and penal system reforms (e.g., identification documents, anti‑discrimination protections).
Case 5: Efforts and Challenges in Marital Rape Law Reform
Facts:
Nepal’s legal regime on marital rape has undergone reform. Historically, marital rape was not treated on par with non‑marital rape; the penal code distinguishes between rape generally and within marriage, often with lighter sentences or unclear provisions. Coverage and penalties remain weaker for marital rape victims.
Legal Issues:
Whether the penal code treats rape within marriage differently and whether that difference violates gender‑equality guarantees (women’s rights to bodily integrity, freedom from violence).
Whether the existence of a statutory “loophole” for marital rape undermines gender justice and equality under penal law.
Judgment / Outcome:
While a single landmark decision with full penal conviction may be less publicly surfaced, the legal commentary acknowledges that Nepal’s penal code (Chapter on rape) treats marital rape with lower maximum sentence (up to 5 years) compared to non‑marital rape. Legal commentators argue this violates Article 21 (right to justice) and Article 38(3) (women’s rights against violence) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has in earlier PILs recognised marital rape as a crime.
Significance:
Highlights the gap in gender justice within the penal law: although the law exists, it is weaker for married victims.
Underlines the need for penal reform to bring marital rape treatment equal with other forms of sexual violence, thereby advancing gender justice.
Demonstrates that gender justice depends not just on criminalising offences but on ensuring equality in enforcement, sentencing and access to remedy.
Additional Observations & Themes
From these cases and the broader legal context, several important observations emerge:
Gender justice is multi‑layered: It includes eliminating discrimination in family law (Case 1), ensuring state duties in health/rights (Case 2), protecting children and women in traditions (Case 3), recognising gender minorities (Case 4), and addressing sexual violence/violence against women in penal law (Case 5).
Penal law reform is ongoing: Nepal’s penal code and legal reform processes are gradually expanding coverage of gender‑based violence, equality rights, recognition of gender identity. However, enforcement and equality (especially of married women, gender minorities) remain issues.
Judicial activism plays a central role: The Supreme Court has been instrumental in interpreting constitutional guarantees, international obligations (CEDAW etc.), invalidating discriminatory laws, and pressuring legislative reform.
Implementation gaps persist: Even when legal provisions exist (for marital rape, for example), practical enforcement, sentencing parity, and victim access to justice remain challenge‑areas. The commentary on Nepal’s statute of limitations and weaker sentences for marital rape illustrate that.
Beyond women: gender‑identity justice: The recognition of transgender rights (Case 4) signals that gender justice in Nepal is increasingly inclusive of sexual/gender minorities, not only women vs men.
Customary/traditional practices: Many of the gender justice issues involve deeply rooted social or customary practices (polygyny, “Kumari” tradition, marital traditions) and the law has to engage both the civil/penal code and change customs.
Intersection with penal law: Many gender justice cases implicate penal law (violence, rape, assault, discrimination) but also involve civil/family/legal reform. The penal justice system is a tool for gender justice but not the only one.
Conclusion
The research on gender justice and penal law in Nepal shows significant strides in legal reform and judicial interpretation, but also shows that achieving full equality and justice is an ongoing process. The five cases above illustrate different dimensions: equality in marriage/family law, state duty in health rights, protection of women’s rights in traditions, recognition of gender identity rights, and reform of sexual‑violence law. For deeper research or comparative study, one could trace how the penal code treats gender‑based offences, how sentencing differs, and examine empirical data on gender‑based violence prosecutions in Nepal.
RELATED Blog
comments