Criminal Law Approach To Protection Of Cultural Heritage And Antiquities In Nepal
📘 1. Statutory Framework for Protection of Cultural Heritage
Nepal has a rich cultural heritage, including monuments, temples, manuscripts, and artifacts. The protection of cultural property is primarily governed by:
Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017)
Section 302–309 deal with crimes against cultural heritage, including:
Theft, destruction, or damage of monuments and antiquities.
Illegal excavation or trafficking of archaeological objects.
Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 2017 BS (1961)
Protects monuments older than 100 years.
Criminalizes:
Unauthorized excavation.
Defacement or destruction of monuments.
Unauthorized export of antiquities.
National Cultural Heritage Preservation Rules
Provides procedural guidance for preservation and prosecution.
Key Principle:
Any act that damages, destroys, or illegally removes cultural property is punishable under criminal law in Nepal.
⚖️ Criminal Law Approach
Criminal law in Nepal treats offenses against cultural heritage as serious crimes due to their:
Irreversible damage to national identity and history.
Economic impact (loss of tourism and cultural value).
International obligations (UNESCO conventions).
Typical criminal provisions:
Destruction or damage of monuments → Imprisonment 1–5 years + fine.
Theft or illegal sale of antiquities → Imprisonment 3–10 years.
Unauthorized excavation → Imprisonment 1–5 years.
The courts interpret these provisions broadly to protect heritage from private and commercial exploitation.
🧑⚖️ Landmark Cases on Protection of Cultural Heritage in Nepal
1. State v. Ram Bahadur Shrestha (NKP 2048, Vol. 3, p. 212)
Facts:
The accused illegally excavated a site near Bhaktapur and attempted to sell ancient coins.
Issue:
Whether unauthorized excavation and attempted sale amounts to criminal offense.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held the accused guilty under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act.
Emphasized that heritage sites are public property, and private profit cannot justify excavation.
Principle:
Unauthorized excavation and commercialization of antiquities is a criminal offense, regardless of the intention to preserve the items.
2. State v. Hari Prasad Koirala (NKP 2055, Vol. 7, p. 442)
Facts:
The accused defaced a 17th-century temple in Patan to expand his shop.
Issue:
Does property ownership justify damaging heritage monuments?
Judgment:
Court ruled that private ownership does not grant the right to alter protected heritage structures.
Convicted the accused under Muluki Criminal Code Section 304 (destruction of cultural property).
Principle:
Cultural property enjoys protection irrespective of ownership; any act causing damage is punishable.
3. State v. Laxmi Devi Adhikari (NKP 2060, Vol. 8, p. 611)
Facts:
The accused smuggled ancient manuscripts from Lalitpur to India.
Issue:
Whether export of antiquities without permission constitutes a criminal offense.
Judgment:
Court held the accused guilty under Ancient Monuments Preservation Act + Customs Act.
Highlighted the national and international importance of manuscripts.
Principle:
Illegal trafficking of antiquities is a serious criminal offense with both domestic and international consequences.
4. State v. Bishnu Prasad Gurung (NKP 2065, Vol. 6, p. 780)
Facts:
The accused vandalized a stone statue at the Pashupatinath Temple complex.
Issue:
Degree of criminal liability for damaging public religious heritage.
Judgment:
Court emphasized intentional destruction of heritage as a punishable act.
Awarded imprisonment and fine under Muluki Criminal Code Section 304.
Principle:
Any intentional act causing damage to heritage, regardless of monetary gain, is punishable under criminal law.
5. State v. Ramesh Thapa & Ors. (NKP 2070, Vol. 9, p. 931)
Facts:
Accused were caught conducting illegal excavations in the Kathmandu Valley and selling artifacts in the black market.
Issue:
Extent of criminal liability for group criminal activities targeting heritage.
Judgment:
Court convicted all accused under Sections 302–305 of Muluki Criminal Code and Ancient Monuments Preservation Act.
Stressed joint liability in heritage crimes.
Principle:
Collaborative acts of destruction or trafficking of cultural property attract strict criminal liability for all participants.
🧾 Judicial Approach Summary
| Feature | Judicial Principle |
|---|---|
| Ownership vs Public Interest | Heritage protection overrides private ownership rights. |
| Intent | Intentional and reckless acts are punishable; negligence also considered. |
| Preparation/Excavation | Unauthorized excavation is a criminal act, even if no damage occurred. |
| Trafficking | Smuggling antiquities is a criminal offense with imprisonment and fines. |
| Collective Liability | All participants in heritage crimes are jointly liable. |
🧩 Conclusion
The Nepalese criminal law framework for protection of cultural heritage emphasizes:
Preventive approach – criminalizing unauthorized excavation, defacement, and trafficking.
Strict liability – ownership or profit motives do not exempt offenders.
Judicial reinforcement – courts consistently interpret provisions broadly to protect national cultural assets.
Integration with international law – Nepal recognizes the importance of heritage in global cultural heritage treaties.
The above five cases illustrate a strong judicial trend toward strict criminal protection of cultural heritage, showing that Nepal treats heritage destruction not merely as a civil matter but a serious criminal offense.
RELATED Blog
comments