Research On National Security Law And Criminal Offences In Nepal
1. Basnet and Basnet Case (2004)
Facts:
Jit Man Basnet was abducted from his home by individuals in army uniforms during the Maoist insurgency period. He was taken to a barracks, blindfolded, and subjected to severe torture, including beatings and water immersion. He was held for 258 days with limited contact with family.
Legal Issues:
Arbitrary detention and torture under the guise of national security.
Conflict between state powers to maintain security and individual fundamental rights.
Decision:
While the case was primarily addressed through human rights channels rather than a domestic criminal court, the communication highlighted state responsibility for abuse under national security laws.
Implication:
Demonstrates how broad national security powers can lead to rights violations, showing the need for checks on state authority.
2. Arrest of Ram Kumari Jhakri (2021)
Facts:
Ram Kumari Jhakri, a political leader, was arrested for making comments allegedly offensive to the President. Police charged her under Section 58 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes intimidation or acts that obstruct the President or Parliament from performing duties.
Legal Issues:
Scope of offences against the state in cases of speech or political dissent.
Balance between freedom of expression and protection of state officials.
Decision:
Jhakri was arrested; the case drew attention to how national security laws can be applied to speech, although detailed conviction records are not available.
Implication:
Highlights potential misuse of national security provisions to suppress political criticism and the tension between state security and civil liberties.
3. Tikapur Massacre Case (2015)
Facts:
During protests in Tikapur, Kailali, members of the Tharuhat Struggle Committee attacked police and security forces, killing seven officers and a two-year-old child.
Legal Issues:
Violent acts against state agents as offences against national security.
Whether the attack constituted rebellion or terrorism under Nepalese law.
Decision:
The District Court sentenced 11 people, including Resham Lal Chaudhary, to life imprisonment and others to varying terms. The Supreme Court later upheld the convictions and ruled that attempts to pardon under political cover were unconstitutional.
Implication:
Reinforced the state’s authority to prosecute violent attacks against its agents under national security law and emphasized the independence of the judiciary from political influence.
4. Himalaya Pali Custodial Death Case
Facts:
A citizen died in police custody under suspicious circumstances. The National Human Rights Commission recommended prosecution of responsible officers under anti-torture provisions, but no charges were filed.
Legal Issues:
Failure to enforce laws against torture under the security apparatus.
State accountability in exercising national security powers.
Decision:
No criminal prosecution was made.
Implication:
Shows the enforcement gap in Nepal’s national security framework and the impunity often afforded to state actors.
5. Rebellion against the Constitution Draft (2025)
Facts:
A draft amendment proposed criminalizing acts that attempt to “rebel against or undermine the Constitution, democratic republic, or basic structure of the Constitution.”
Legal Issues:
Expansion of the definition of offences against the state.
Risk of targeting dissenting or activist voices under national security law.
Decision:
Draft legislation is under consideration; no convictions yet.
Implication:
Highlights the evolving nature of national security offences and the tension between state stability and civil liberties.
6. Application of Section 49 for Hate Speech Cases
Facts:
Individuals were charged under Section 49 for promoting enmity between communities, allegedly threatening national unity.
Legal Issues:
Determining the boundary between free expression and acts that jeopardize national unity.
Enforcement of broad provisions to prevent social or regional conflict.
Decision:
Courts upheld charges in cases where speech incited violence or hatred, while dismissing cases lacking direct threat to unity.
Implication:
Shows the courts’ role in balancing security concerns with freedom of speech, setting precedents for interpretation of “national security offences.”
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Key Offence | Outcome | Implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basnet & Basnet | 2004 | Torture, arbitrary detention | Human rights channels; no domestic criminal prosecution | Abuse under security powers |
| Ram Kumari Jhakri | 2021 | Intimidation of President/Parliament | Arrested under Sec 58 | Speech vs state security tension |
| Tikapur Massacre | 2015 | Attack on state agents | Life imprisonment for leaders | Enforcement of national security law |
| Himalaya Pali | 2020s | Custodial death | No prosecution | Enforcement gap; impunity |
| Draft Rebellion Act | 2025 | Attempted rebellion | Draft stage | Expanding definition of state offences |
| Hate Speech under Sec 49 | 2010s | Incitement of enmity | Charges upheld/dismissed based on threat | Balancing unity and free speech |
RELATED Blog
comments