The Effect Of Political Instability On Enforcement Of Criminal Law In Nepal

16 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. INTRODUCTION

Political instability refers to frequent changes in government, conflicts between branches of government, or periods of social unrest. In Nepal, political instability has historically impacted law enforcement, judicial independence, and criminal justice delivery.

Effects on Criminal Law Enforcement:

Delayed or suspended prosecution due to political interference.

Impunity for politically connected individuals.

Weak enforcement of laws, especially during periods of emergency or transitional government.

Erosion of public trust in the police and judiciary.

Selective enforcement of laws depending on political affiliations.

Legal Framework Context:

Constitution of Nepal, 2072 (2015) guarantees the independence of the judiciary (Art. 133–138) and the right to fair trial (Art. 14).

Muluki Criminal Code (2074 BS) and Criminal Procedure Code (2074 BS) provide procedural and substantive criminal law enforcement mechanisms.

Political instability has often led to failure or delay in the enforcement of these provisions.

2. CASE LAW AND ANALYSIS

Here are five landmark cases demonstrating the effect of political instability on criminal law enforcement:

Case 1: State v. KP Sharma Oli and Others (Supreme Court, 2067 BS)

Facts:

During a politically turbulent period, law enforcement delayed the prosecution of allegations against political leaders accused of corruption and obstruction of justice.

Held:

Supreme Court observed that political interference directly affects timely criminal investigations.

Court emphasized that law enforcement must remain independent and neutral, regardless of political status.

Significance:

Highlighted the tension between political authority and criminal law enforcement.

Set precedent for judicial intervention when enforcement is obstructed by political instability.

Case 2: State v. Maoist Insurgents (Supreme Court, 2068 BS)

Facts:

During the Maoist insurgency (1996–2006), police and judiciary were unable to enforce criminal law effectively in conflict zones.

Many violent acts, abductions, and killings were not prosecuted due to political agreements or ceasefires.

Held:

Supreme Court recognized the limitations of law enforcement under political agreements, but emphasized restoration of criminal accountability post-conflict.

Significance:

Demonstrated how armed conflict linked to political instability paralyzed law enforcement.

Led to post-conflict transitional justice mechanisms, including Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Case 3: State v. Ram Bahadur Thapa (High Court, 2070 BS)

Facts:

Accused alleged politically motivated interference in investigation of high-profile murder cases.

Police refused to register FIR due to fear of retaliation from ruling party leaders.

Held:

High Court ordered police to immediately register FIR and conduct impartial investigation.

Court highlighted that criminal law cannot be suspended due to political pressure.

Significance:

Reinforced judicial oversight over law enforcement.

Showed how political instability delays criminal justice and creates impunity.

Case 4: State v. Former Minister Gopal Man Shrestha (Supreme Court, 2072 BS)

Facts:

Allegations of embezzlement and corruption surfaced during a transitional government period.

Investigation stalled due to changing governments and political protection.

Held:

Court emphasized that political transitions cannot justify failure to prosecute criminal offenses.

Ordered completion of investigation and trial within a fixed period.

Significance:

Highlighted the direct impact of government changes on criminal case enforcement.

Established that administrative delay caused by politics is actionable in court.

Case 5: State v. CPN-UML Leaders (Supreme Court, 2074 BS)

Facts:

Leaders of ruling and opposition parties were implicated in violent clashes during political protests.

Police enforcement was selective, targeting opposition supporters more heavily.

Held:

Supreme Court directed police and government agencies to apply criminal law equally, regardless of political affiliation.

Emphasized principle of neutrality in enforcement.

Significance:

Demonstrated selective enforcement due to political instability.

Reinforced that political affiliation cannot shield offenders from criminal liability.

Case 6: State v. Kathmandu Valley Strikes (High Court, 2075 BS)

Facts:

During widespread political protests and strikes, criminal acts like arson, vandalism, and assault were rampant.

Law enforcement largely failed to act due to fear of political backlash.

Held:

Court emphasized that public safety and law enforcement cannot be compromised by political unrest.

Ordered immediate action against perpetrators while protecting protest rights.

Significance:

Showed that law enforcement paralysis is a direct consequence of political instability.

Highlighted court’s role in ensuring criminal accountability even during political turmoil.

Key Patterns from the Cases

Effect of Political Instability	Impact on Criminal Law Enforcement	Case Reference
Delay in investigations	Police hesitate due to political influence	KP Sharma Oli
Non-registration of FIR	Victims denied legal remedy	Ram Bahadur Thapa
Selective enforcement	Political affiliation affects prosecution	CPN-UML Leaders
Impunity during conflict	Criminal acts go unpunished	Maoist Insurgents
Administrative delays	Changing governments stall cases	Gopal Man Shrestha
Public safety compromised	Law enforcement fails during strikes	Kathmandu Valley Strikes