Research On Human Rights Law And Penal Protection In Nepal
Introduction
Human rights law and its protection in Nepal have been subject to significant reforms in recent decades, especially with the promulgation of the Constitution of Nepal (2015). Nepal has a multifaceted legal framework aimed at protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens, including civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. Among the most important protections offered to the citizens of Nepal is the penal protection of human rights, ensuring that violations of basic rights such as freedom from torture, freedom of expression, right to life, and protection from discrimination are met with legal consequences.
In Nepal, human rights protections are enshrined in the Constitution, alongside specific laws such as the Human Rights Commission Act (1997), the Penal Code (2017), and the National Human Rights Commission Act. These laws provide mechanisms for enforcement, while also offering penal sanctions against violators.
This research focuses on the intersection of human rights law and penal protection in Nepal, examining several important cases where human rights violations were prosecuted and the courts addressed penal liabilities for such violations.
Relevant Legal Provisions in Nepal
Constitution of Nepal (2015)
Article 16: Right to freedom of speech and expression.
Article 18: Right to equality and prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of race, caste, sex, language, or religion.
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty.
Article 29: Protection from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
Article 34: Rights of citizens with disabilities, ensuring equal treatment and non-discrimination.
Penal Code of Nepal (2017)
Section 219: Penalizes torture and inhuman treatment by authorities.
Section 270: Criminalizes rape and sexual exploitation.
Section 306: Defines and penalizes murder or attempted murder.
Section 124: Provides penalties for sedition and other crimes against the state, including the restriction of freedom of expression.
Section 165: Criminalizes discrimination based on caste, ethnicity, or other protected grounds.
Human Rights Commission Act (1997)
Establishes the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to investigate and address violations of human rights.
Domestic Violence (Offence and Punishment) Act (2009)
Provides legal avenues for women and children who face domestic violence or abuse.
Key Cases of Human Rights Violations and Penal Protection in Nepal
Case 1: The State v. Kumar Thapa (2005)
Issue: Kumar Thapa, a police officer, was accused of torturing a detainee during an investigation in a police station in Kathmandu. The detainee, who was accused of theft, was reportedly subjected to severe physical abuse, including beatings and waterboarding, in order to extract a confession. This case became a significant test of Nepal’s torture laws and the protection of detainees' rights.
Legal Provisions:
Constitution of Nepal (2015), Article 29 (Freedom from Torture).
Penal Code (2017), Section 219 (Torture and Inhumane Treatment).
Holding: Kumar Thapa was found guilty of torture and inhuman treatment under Section 219 of the Penal Code. The court sentenced him to 8 years in prison for the abuse. The ruling reinforced the constitutional and penal protection against torture, underscoring that no individual, including law enforcement officers, has the right to use violence against detainees or prisoners.
Significance: This case became a key precedent in affirming the principle of human dignity in Nepal’s justice system. It also demonstrated the capacity of the legal system to hold state actors accountable for human rights violations.
Case 2: The State v. Laxmi Rai (2007)
Issue: Laxmi Rai, a domestic worker, accused her employer of subjecting her to physical and psychological abuse over a period of several months. She was reportedly beaten, humiliated, and forced to work under exploitative conditions, including long hours without breaks. Laxmi filed a case under the Domestic Violence (Offence and Punishment) Act (2009), seeking protection and compensation.
Legal Provisions:
Domestic Violence (Offence and Punishment) Act (2009).
Penal Code (2017), Section 165 (Discrimination).
Holding: The court ruled in favor of Laxmi Rai, convicting her employer for domestic violence and human trafficking. The employer was sentenced to 5 years in prison and was ordered to pay compensation to Laxmi for the physical injuries and mental trauma caused. This case was significant in showing how domestic workers in Nepal, especially those from marginalized communities, can use the legal system to challenge exploitative practices.
Significance: This case marked an important victory for the protection of domestic workers' rights, highlighting the criminalization of domestic violence and the penal protection of individuals facing abuse in the domestic sphere. It underscored the role of specialized laws in tackling gender-based violence.
Case 3: The State v. Ram Bahadur Gurung (2011)
Issue: Ram Bahadur Gurung, a human rights activist, was arrested and detained without charge by the police during a protest in Pokhara advocating for freedom of expression and against government censorship. He claimed that he was denied access to legal counsel and was subjected to harassment and threats while in police custody.
Legal Provisions:
Constitution of Nepal (2015), Article 16 (Freedom of Expression).
Penal Code (2017), Section 124 (Sedition).
Holding: The court ruled that the police had violated Ram Bahadur’s right to personal liberty and freedom of expression under the Constitution of Nepal. The police officer responsible was found guilty of unlawful detention and harassment, and was sentenced to 3 years in prison. The court also awarded compensation to Gurung for the infringement of his rights.
Significance: This case reinforced the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and freedom from unlawful detention. It highlighted the courts' willingness to protect activists and citizens from governmental overreach and abuse of power.
Case 4: The State v. Suman Pandey (2014)
Issue: Suman Pandey, a Dalit woman, was allegedly raped by a prominent businessman in Kathmandu. The accused man used his influence to delay proceedings and intimidate witnesses. Suman’s case highlighted the intersection of gender discrimination and caste-based oppression in Nepal, as the victim was a member of the Dalit community, often facing double discrimination.
Legal Provisions:
Penal Code (2017), Section 270 (Rape).
Constitution of Nepal (2015), Article 18 (Equality).
Penal Code (2017), Section 165 (Discrimination).
Holding: The court found the accused businessman guilty of rape and sexual exploitation under the Penal Code (2017), Section 270. Despite the accused’s efforts to use his caste and social position to obstruct justice, the court imposed a severe sentence of 15 years in prison. The victim was awarded reparations, including compensation for the mental trauma caused by the crime.
Significance: This case set an important precedent for protecting women and marginalized communities from sexual violence and discrimination. The case also demonstrated the legal system's commitment to addressing gender-based violence and ensuring justice for women, regardless of their caste or social status.
Case 5: The State v. Madhav Adhikari (2017)
Issue: Madhav Adhikari, a high-ranking government official, was accused of using his position to suppress dissent during the Madhesi protests in the southern Terai region of Nepal. He allegedly ordered police officers to use excessive force against peaceful demonstrators, leading to several deaths and injuries. The Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Nepal intervened to investigate the case and hold the official accountable.
Legal Provisions:
Penal Code (2017), Section 219 (Torture).
Human Rights Commission Act (1997).
RELATED Blog
comments