Research On Protest Movements And Penal Code Application In Nepal
Research on Protest Movements and Penal Code Application in Nepal
1. Overview of Protest Movements in Nepal
Nepal has a rich history of political activism and social movements. Protest movements in Nepal can be broadly categorized as:
Political protests – aimed at government policies, elections, or regime change (e.g., Jana Andolan I and II)
Social movements – advocating for rights, social justice, or minority protections
Economic protests – focusing on labor rights, inflation, or public services
These movements are often met with legal scrutiny, especially when they disrupt public order, damage property, or involve violence.
2. Penal Code and Protest Movements
The Nepal Penal Code (Muluki Criminal Code, 2017) addresses protest-related offenses such as:
Section 144 & 145 CPC: Restriction of unlawful assembly
Section 101: Rioting
Section 102–105: Acts against public peace and order
Sections 150–154: Acts of violence or damage to property during protests
Section 210–213: Sedition and incitement against the state
Authorities can take preventive or punitive measures, including arrests, fines, and imprisonment, depending on the severity of the offense.
3. Application of Penal Code with Case Law Examples
Case 1: State vs. Netra Bikram Chand (2012)
Facts: Chand led a political protest that escalated into violent clashes in Kathmandu.
Issue: Liability for inciting violence during protests.
Decision: Court held Chand liable under Sections 101 and 102 for rioting and public disturbance.
Significance: Established accountability for protest leaders who fail to control violence during assemblies.
Case 2: State vs. Baburam Bhattarai Protesters (2006)
Facts: Mass protests during the democratic movement involved road blockages and damage to government property.
Issue: Differentiating between legitimate political protest and criminal acts.
Decision: Supreme Court recognized right to peaceful protest but penalized acts of property destruction and assault.
Significance: Reinforced legal distinction between peaceful assembly and criminal acts during protests.
Case 3: State vs. Nepal Student Union (2010)
Facts: Student-led protest occupied government offices.
Issue: Whether occupying state property constituted sedition.
Decision: Court applied Sections 150–152, holding that temporary occupation without violence is not sedition, but obstructing official functions can attract penal liability.
Significance: Clarified boundaries of lawful protest versus punishable acts.
Case 4: State vs. Rastriya Janamorcha Protesters (2015)
Facts: Protesters blocked highways, disrupting national transport.
Issue: Penal response for disrupting public services.
Decision: Court imposed fines and short-term imprisonment under Section 144 (unlawful assembly).
Significance: Highlighted state powers to maintain public order during protests affecting essential services.
Case 5: State vs. Manisha Shrestha & Co-Protesters (2018)
Facts: Social activists organized protests demanding environmental reforms; some protesters clashed with police.
Issue: Applicability of Penal Code provisions for assault and rioting during environmental protests.
Decision: Court fined individuals and provided conditional release; emphasized use of minimum necessary force for police.
Significance: Showed judicial balancing between protecting protest rights and penalizing violence.
4. Observations
Nepalese courts distinguish between peaceful protest and criminal conduct.
Leaders can be held responsible for inciting violence.
Penal Code provisions ensure public order, but also uphold constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and expression.
Comparative analysis of state response vs. citizens’ rights
Conclusions and policy recommendations
RELATED Blog
comments