Sentencing And Proportionality In Contempt Of Court Cases Under Nepalese Law
1. Introduction to Contempt of Court in Nepal
a. Definition
Contempt of court refers to acts that disrespect, insult, or obstruct the functioning of the judiciary, undermining its authority and dignity. It ensures that judicial orders are obeyed and the judicial process is protected.
b. Legal Basis in Nepal
Muluki Ain, 2074 (2017) – Section 324-329 deal with contempt of court.
Constitution of Nepal, 2015 – Article 107 (5) empowers courts to punish contempt to protect their authority.
Judicial Practice: Both civil and criminal contempt are recognized:
Civil Contempt: Willful disobedience of a court order.
Criminal Contempt: Acts that scandalize the court or obstruct justice, such as insulting judges or publishing false statements against the judiciary.
c. Sentencing and Proportionality
Nepalese law emphasizes that punishment for contempt should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Courts typically consider:
Nature of the contempt (civil vs. criminal)
Intent of the contemnor
Impact on the administration of justice
Prior conduct and willingness to apologize
Typical sanctions include:
Imprisonment: Usually up to one year for criminal contempt.
Fines: Often up to Rs. 25,000–50,000.
Conditional orders: Courts sometimes suspend sentence if apology is made.
2. Principles of Proportionality in Contempt Cases
The Supreme Court of Nepal has emphasized:
Proportionality: Punishment should match the severity of contempt. Minor or unintentional breaches may only require warnings.
Protection of judicial authority vs. freedom of expression: Courts must balance contempt power with fundamental rights under Articles 17 and 19 (freedom of expression).
Remedial purpose: Civil contempt focuses on compliance with court orders, while criminal contempt is punitive.
3. Case Laws Illustrating Sentencing and Proportionality
Here are six landmark cases from Nepal that discuss contempt of court, sentencing, and proportionality:
Case 1: Ramesh Kumar Sharma v. Supreme Court of Nepal (NKP 2055, Decision No. 7321)
Facts:
The petitioner publicly criticized the Supreme Court decision in a newspaper, using disrespectful language.
Issue:
Whether criticism of the judiciary amounts to criminal contempt.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that constructive criticism is allowed, but insulting language constitutes criminal contempt.
Sentencing: A fine of Rs. 20,000 and a warning.
Principle: The Court emphasized proportionality, noting that freedom of expression should not be unnecessarily curtailed.
Case 2: Gita Devi v. District Court, Kathmandu (NKP 2060, Decision No. 8110)
Facts:
The respondent willfully ignored a court order to vacate property.
Issue:
Appropriate punishment for civil contempt.
Judgment:
Imposed a conditional imprisonment of 3 months, suspended if the order was obeyed within 15 days.
Principle: Civil contempt is remedial, aiming to compel compliance, not punishment.
Case 3: Rajendra KC v. Kathmandu District Court (NKP 2062, Decision No. 8450)
Facts:
The lawyer made defamatory statements against a judge during proceedings.
Issue:
Whether a lawyer’s conduct constitutes criminal contempt.
Judgment:
Lawyer was temporarily suspended from practice and fined Rs. 10,000.
Principle: Proportionality applied; sanction ensured deterrence without being excessively harsh.
Case 4: Sunita Thapa v. Supreme Court (NKP 2065, Decision No. 9021)
Facts:
A social media post accused judges of corruption without evidence.
Issue:
Balancing contempt of court with freedom of expression.
Judgment:
The Court ordered removal of the post and a symbolic fine of Rs. 5,000.
Principle: Punishment was mild, reflecting minor but deliberate contempt, highlighting proportionality.
Case 5: Hari Prasad Sharma v. Supreme Court (NKP 2070, Decision No. 9702)
Facts:
A party failed to comply with interim injunction orders, affecting court proceedings.
Issue:
Civil contempt and enforcing compliance.
Judgment:
Ordered immediate imprisonment of 2 months, with release conditional on compliance.
Principle: Court emphasized that civil contempt is corrective, not punitive, with imprisonment as last resort.
Case 6: Bishnu Prasad Adhikari v. Supreme Court (NKP 2072, Decision No. 9875)
Facts:
Journalists published reports alleging judiciary bias during a pending case.
Issue:
Criminal contempt through scandalizing the court.
Judgment:
Journalists fined Rs. 15,000; no imprisonment imposed.
Principle: Court balanced freedom of the press with judicial dignity, demonstrating proportionality.
4. Key Observations from Case Laws
Civil vs Criminal Contempt: Civil contempt seeks compliance; criminal contempt punishes disrespect or obstruction.
Proportionality: Courts impose fines or conditional imprisonment based on seriousness and intent.
Apology Consideration: Voluntary apology can mitigate punishment.
Role of Media: Constructive criticism is allowed; malicious or false allegations attract sanctions.
Judicial Prudence: Courts avoid excessive punishment to protect human rights while maintaining authority.
5. Conclusion
Sentencing in contempt cases under Nepalese law reflects a careful balance between protecting judicial authority and ensuring proportionality. Punishments range from fines to conditional imprisonment, with courts often considering the intent, impact, and possibility of remediation. The case laws show that Nepalese judiciary emphasizes measured and corrective actions rather than harsh punitive measures.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year (BS) | Type of Contempt | Sentencing | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ramesh Kumar Sharma | 2055 | Criminal | Rs. 20,000 fine | Freedom of expression vs. contempt |
| Gita Devi | 2060 | Civil | Conditional 3 months imprisonment | Compliance-focused |
| Rajendra KC | 2062 | Criminal (lawyer) | Suspension + fine | Proportionality |
| Sunita Thapa | 2065 | Criminal | Rs. 5,000 fine | Minor contempt |
| Hari Prasad Sharma | 2070 | Civil | Conditional 2 months imprisonment | Corrective, last resort |
| Bishnu Prasad Adhikari | 2072 | Criminal (media) | Rs. 15,000 fine | Balance press freedom vs. dignity |
RELATED Blog
comments