Criminal Liability For Caste-Based Untouchability Practices
I. Legal Framework in Nepal
Nepal has several laws and constitutional provisions prohibiting caste-based discrimination and untouchability:
Constitution of Nepal 2015:
Article 24(1): Prohibits untouchability and caste-based discrimination in public and private places.
Article 24(5): Provides victims the right to compensation and makes violation punishable by law.
Caste-Based Discrimination and Untouchability (Offence and Punishment) Act, 2011:
Criminalizes acts of discrimination based on caste, origin, occupation, or community.
Prescribes imprisonment (generally 3 months to 3 years) and fines.
Liability extends to instigators, abettors, or public officials committing such acts.
Denial of access to public goods, services, or facilities on the basis of caste is punishable.
II. Detailed Case Analyses
Case 1: West Rukum Massacre (2020, Verdict 2023)
Facts: Six Dalit youths were attacked and killed by a group of upper-caste villagers because one of the victims was in an inter-caste relationship. The attackers chased the victims and killed them using weapons and stones.
Legal Issues: Murder, attempted murder, and caste-based discrimination under the CBDU Act.
Outcome: 24 perpetrators were sentenced to life imprisonment plus additional 2-year jail terms; fined NPR 50,000 each. Two others received 2-year sentences for discrimination offences.
Significance: First high-profile case where mass killing motivated by caste discrimination led to maximum criminal sentences under Nepalese law.
Case 2: Ramechhap Minor Hostage Case (2022)
Facts: A man held a minor girl hostage and discriminated against her due to her caste.
Legal Issues: Caste-based discrimination combined with hostage-taking.
Outcome: Sentenced to 1 year imprisonment for caste discrimination and 3½ years for hostage-taking, plus a fine.
Significance: Shows liability extends to combined offences, reinforcing the criminal nature of caste discrimination even when not resulting in physical harm.
Case 3: Siraha Public Well Untouchability (2014)
Facts: A Dalit woman attempted to access a public well but was beaten and verbally abused by upper-caste villagers.
Legal Issues: Denial of access to public facility based on caste.
Outcome: Acquitted due to lack of evidence.
Significance: Demonstrates the implementation gap in enforcing caste-based discrimination laws, highlighting challenges in evidence collection and reporting.
Case 4: Bajhang Property Demolition (2023)
Facts: A Dalit man’s house and crops were demolished by a group of upper-caste villagers, citing caste-based animosity.
Legal Issues: Property destruction and caste-based discrimination.
Outcome: Case proceedings were ongoing at the time of reporting.
Significance: Highlights structural discrimination that goes beyond social exclusion, affecting property rights and livelihood.
Case 5: Jhapa Milk Sale Discrimination (2023)
Facts: A Dalit woman was denied the purchase of milk from a shop solely because of her caste.
Legal Issues: Denial of goods and services based on caste.
Outcome: Police registered the case; accused released on bail. Case proceedings ongoing.
Significance: Illustrates everyday discrimination in daily life and the legal recourse available, even if prosecution is slow.
Case 6: Tek Bahadur Bista v. Government of Nepal
Facts: The Supreme Court dealt with recognition of caste-based untouchability acts as criminal offences.
Legal Issues: Legal interpretation of the CBDU Act and constitutional protection against untouchability.
Outcome: Court affirmed that acts of untouchability and caste-based discrimination are punishable criminal acts.
Significance: Sets a precedent for courts to recognize and prosecute untouchability as a criminal offence, reinforcing state accountability.
III. Observations and Analysis
Scope of Liability:
Covers denial of service, property rights violations, public facility exclusion, physical assault, and murder motivated by caste.
Liability extends to perpetrators, instigators, and accomplices.
Enforcement Challenges:
Weak evidence collection, informal settlements, victim intimidation, and reluctance of police officers.
Many minor cases remain unprosecuted.
Sentencing Trends:
Minor discrimination may lead to 1–3 years of imprisonment.
When combined with serious crimes (murder, assault), sentences can escalate to life imprisonment.
Significance of Case Law:
Landmark cases, especially the West Rukum verdict, show that the judiciary can impose maximum punishment.
Reinforces that caste discrimination is treated as a criminal matter, not just a civil violation.
RELATED Blog
comments