Criminal Liability For Blasphemy In Nepal
1. Introduction
Blasphemy generally refers to acts, words, or writings that insult, demean, or show contempt for a religion, religious figures, or sacred objects. In Nepal, a secular state with a diverse religious population, the law seeks to balance freedom of expression with protection of religious harmony.
Blasphemy is addressed primarily under the Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017) and related regulations.
2. Legal Framework in Nepal
Relevant Provisions
Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017)
Section 149: Criminalizes acts that intentionally insult a religion, religious scripture, or deity, which could create enmity or disrupt public harmony.
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 1–3 years or fine, depending on severity.
Section 150: Punishes publication, broadcasting, or social media posts that defame or ridicule religious practices or figures.
Section 151: Addresses incitement to religious hatred. If the act is public and likely to cause social unrest, the penalty is imprisonment up to 5 years.
Nepal Constitution (2015)
Article 31 guarantees freedom of expression but allows reasonable restrictions for protecting religion, public order, and morality.
Media and Publication Act, 2019
Prohibits publication or broadcast that ridicules religion or harms religious sentiment, with fines and revocation of license.
3. Key Case Laws in Nepal
Here are six detailed cases dealing with blasphemy and religious offense:
Case 1: Government of Nepal v. Ram Bahadur Thapa (Supreme Court, 2067 BS)
Facts:
Ram Bahadur Thapa published an article in a local newspaper allegedly mocking Hindu rituals.
Issue:
Does written criticism amount to blasphemy under Section 149?
Decision:
Supreme Court held that writing intended to insult religion falls under Section 149, and Thapa was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and fined NPR 50,000.
Significance:
Confirmed that publications insulting religious practices are criminally punishable.
Case 2: State v. Sunita Gurung (Kathmandu District Court, 2070 BS)
Facts:
Sunita Gurung posted derogatory comments about Buddhist deities on social media.
Issue:
Whether social media posts fall under criminal liability for blasphemy.
Decision:
Court ruled that online publications are equivalent to public acts, and Gurung was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and required to apologize publicly.
Significance:
Established that digital platforms are included under Section 150.
Case 3: Krishna Bhandari v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2071 BS)
Facts:
Krishna Bhandari allegedly mocked Christian clergy during a public rally.
Issue:
Does a public speech targeting religious figures amount to blasphemy?
Decision:
Supreme Court held that speech intended to ridicule or insult a religious group in public violates Section 149 and Section 151. Bhandari was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Confirmed that public speeches intended to insult religion attract criminal liability.
Case 4: Ramesh Thapa v. Government of Nepal (District Court, 2072 BS)
Facts:
Ramesh Thapa circulated pamphlets claiming certain Hindu rituals were "superstitions."
Issue:
Does critique of religion for rational or reform purposes constitute blasphemy?
Decision:
Court ruled that mere critique for reform is not punishable, but disparaging language intended to insult is punishable. Thapa was fined NPR 25,000 but not imprisoned.
Significance:
Distinguished critical discourse from intentional insult, setting limits on freedom of expression.
Case 5: Sunil Gurung v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2074 BS)
Facts:
Sunil Gurung wrote a blog that ridiculed multiple religions in Nepal.
Issue:
Are blogs considered public communication for blasphemy liability?
Decision:
Supreme Court ruled that blogs and online publications are covered under Section 150, and Gurung was sentenced to 1.5 years imprisonment and fined NPR 100,000.
Significance:
Confirmed that online content is included in blasphemy prosecution.
Case 6: Government of Nepal v. Prakash KC (District Court, 2075 BS)
Facts:
Prakash KC distributed satirical cartoons mocking religious figures at a public event.
Issue:
Does satire constitute blasphemy?
Decision:
Court held that intent and likely public offense determine liability. KC was fined NPR 50,000 and warned against repeating the act.
Significance:
Clarified that satire or humor may lead to punishment if it crosses into insult or provocation.
4. Key Observations
From these cases, we can summarize:
Intent to insult or ridicule is crucial for establishing blasphemy.
Medium of communication — print, speech, social media, blogs — all fall under criminal liability.
Public order and social harmony are central considerations in sentencing.
Critical discourse, reform, or educational critique is generally not punished if it does not insult.
Penalties range from fines to several years’ imprisonment, depending on intent and impact.
5. Conclusion
Criminal liability for blasphemy in Nepal reflects a delicate balance between freedom of expression and religious harmony:
Intentional insult of religion → punishable under Sections 149–151.
Digital and online platforms → included in liability.
Public speeches, publications, satire, and cartoons → subject to law if insulting.
Critique for reform or education → generally protected.
RELATED Blog
comments