Research On Official Secrecy And Penal Codes In Nepal
1. Introduction
Official secrecy refers to the protection of government, administrative, and sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure. Unauthorized access, use, or dissemination of such information can threaten national security, public interest, and government functioning.
Nepalese law treats breaches of official secrecy seriously, combining provisions from the Muluki Criminal Code (2074), Official Secrets Act, and other administrative regulations.
2. Legal Framework
Relevant Provisions
Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017)
Section 163: Punishes unauthorized disclosure of official secrets that can harm national security or public interest.
Section 164: Punishes leakage of classified government information, including confidential reports, documents, or communications.
Section 165: Focuses on espionage, spying, or providing official secrets to foreign entities, with severe penalties.
Civil Service and Administrative Regulations
Civil servants are duty-bound to maintain confidentiality. Violation may lead to disciplinary action, suspension, or dismissal.
Nepal Press and Publication Provisions
Publishing official secrets without authorization can lead to criminal prosecution under Sections 163–165.
Penalties:
Imprisonment: 1–10 years depending on severity
Fines: Up to several lakhs NPR
For espionage: 10–20 years or life imprisonment in extreme cases
3. Key Case Laws in Nepal
Here are six detailed Nepali cases related to official secrecy:
Case 1: Government of Nepal v. Ramesh Kumar Shrestha (Supreme Court, 2065 BS)
Facts:
Ramesh Kumar Shrestha, a government officer, leaked confidential budget documents to private contractors.
Issue:
Does sharing internal financial documents without authorization constitute a criminal offense?
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that unauthorized disclosure of official financial information violates Section 163 of the Muluki Criminal Code. Shrestha was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and fined NPR 200,000.
Significance:
Confirmed that financial and administrative documents are protected under official secrecy laws.
Case 2: State v. Sunita Acharya (District Court, 2068 BS)
Facts:
Sunita Acharya, a civil servant, emailed internal government policy drafts to a private consultancy firm.
Issue:
Whether sharing internal drafts constitutes official secrecy violation even if not final policy.
Decision:
Court ruled that even drafts and working papers fall under official secrecy, and Acharya received 2 years imprisonment and administrative dismissal.
Significance:
Emphasized that preliminary government documents are also protected.
Case 3: Raju Lama v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2070 BS)
Facts:
Raju Lama, a mid-level intelligence officer, disclosed sensitive security information to a journalist.
Issue:
Does disclosure to media without harmful intent constitute violation?
Decision:
Supreme Court held that intent to disclose confidential information is sufficient for liability under Section 164. Lama received 5 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Confirmed that harmful intent is not required for prosecution; unauthorized disclosure itself is punishable.
Case 4: Government of Nepal v. Binod Koirala (District Court, 2072 BS)
Facts:
Binod Koirala shared classified land survey maps with private developers.
Issue:
Do land records and survey maps qualify as official secrets?
Decision:
Court confirmed that official records with security or public interest implications are protected. Koirala was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and a fine.
Significance:
Broadened the definition of “official secret” to include geographical and cadastral information.
Case 5: Shyam Thapa v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2074 BS)
Facts:
Shyam Thapa, a diplomatic official, was accused of sharing sensitive foreign correspondence with unauthorized persons abroad.
Issue:
Does sharing information with foreign entities constitute espionage?
Decision:
Court ruled that unauthorized sharing of official correspondence with foreign parties constitutes espionage under Section 165, punishable by 10–15 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Highlighted foreign disclosure as a severe violation of official secrecy, equivalent to espionage.
Case 6: Sunil Gurung v. Government of Nepal (District Court, 2076 BS)
Facts:
Sunil Gurung leaked COVID-19-related government health plans to private hospitals for early business advantage.
Issue:
Are public health plans considered official secrets?
Decision:
Court held that internal strategic plans affecting public interest fall under official secrecy, even in emergencies. Gurung was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and administrative dismissal.
Significance:
Confirmed that emergency and public health plans are protected under official secrecy laws.
4. Key Observations
From these cases, we can summarize:
Official secrecy protects all sensitive government information — financial, policy, security, geographical, diplomatic, and public health.
Intent is not always necessary — unauthorized disclosure itself is punishable.
Disclosure to private or foreign parties aggravates punishment.
Civil servants face both criminal and administrative penalties.
Penalties range from fines to long-term imprisonment for espionage.
5. Conclusion
Nepalese penal law treats breaches of official secrecy as serious offenses to maintain national security and public trust. Courts consistently emphasize:
Strict protection of all classified information
Broad definition of “official secrets”
Severe penalties for cross-border or foreign disclosures
RELATED Blog
comments