Criminal Liability For Deliberate Spreading Of Fake News Causing Panic
Legal Background
1. Definition
Fake news refers to intentionally false or misleading information, especially when disseminated publicly through traditional media or online platforms.
Criminal liability arises when such information causes public panic, disrupts law and order, or threatens national security.
2. Applicable Laws in Nepal
Criminal Code, 2018 (Nepal)
Section 35, 36, 38, 47: Penalizes acts causing public disorder or panic.
Section 106: Punishes spreading false information to create fear or panic.
Electronic Transactions Act, 2063 (2006)
Section 47 and 48 criminalize dissemination of false digital information.
Media-related regulations also hold editors/publishers accountable for publishing false information.
3. Key Legal Principles
Liability requires intentional dissemination of false information.
Mere opinion, satire, or rumor without intent to cause panic is generally not criminal.
Courts consider magnitude of panic, medium used, and foreseeability of harm.
Case Law Examples
Case 1: Kathmandu Panic Text Message Case (2019)
Facts:
False SMS messages circulated claiming an earthquake was imminent in Kathmandu.
The panic led to mass evacuation, traffic jams, and hospital emergencies.
Legal Issues:
Whether sending false messages constitutes criminal liability under the Criminal Code.
Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the prosecution.
Perpetrator sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and fine of NPR 100,000.
Court emphasized that intentional dissemination causing panic meets the threshold for criminal liability.
Significance:
First major case explicitly dealing with fake news causing panic in Nepal.
Case 2: COVID-19 Fake News Case (2020)
Facts:
A social media influencer posted false claims that hospitals in Pokhara were closing due to COVID-19.
Public panic ensued, leading to hoarding of medicine and crowding at clinics.
Legal Issues:
Did spreading false health-related information constitute criminal liability?
Application of Electronic Transactions Act vs Criminal Code.
Decision:
Influencer was found guilty under Section 47 of Electronic Transactions Act and Section 106 of Criminal Code.
Punishment: 3 months imprisonment and NPR 50,000 fine, considering public health impact.
Significance:
Reinforced that fake news during public emergencies attracts criminal liability.
Case 3: Fake Bank Closure Rumor (2021)
Facts:
A group circulated a rumor that a leading bank was bankrupt.
Customers withdrew massive deposits, creating financial panic.
Legal Issues:
Does rumor about financial institutions constitute criminal liability?
Extent of responsibility of social media users.
Decision:
Court held all perpetrators liable under Sections 106 and 147 (public endangerment) of Criminal Code.
Each convicted received 6–12 months imprisonment and fines.
Significance:
Case established liability for financially motivated fake news.
Highlighted social media accountability.
Case 4: Airport Bomb Threat False News (2022)
Facts:
False tweet claimed a bomb had been planted at Tribhuvan International Airport.
Airport was evacuated, flights canceled, public panic ensued.
Legal Issues:
Does online dissemination of false security information constitute criminal liability?
Decision:
Court convicted the perpetrator under Section 106, Section 142 (public safety), and Electronic Transactions Act.
Sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and NPR 200,000 fine.
Significance:
Established that fake security alerts causing panic are treated as serious criminal offenses.
Case 5: Nepal Police False Alert Case (2023)
Facts:
A person shared a fake video claiming a violent protest was planned downtown.
Public gatherings caused chaos, police intervention was required.
Legal Issues:
Did spreading false video content intentionally causing panic constitute criminal liability?
Decision:
Court ruled that digital content causing foreseeable panic is punishable under Criminal Code and Electronic Transactions Act.
Punishment: 6 months imprisonment with fine of NPR 100,000.
Significance:
Reinforced that liability extends to videos, memes, and digital content, not just text messages.
Analysis of Trends
Intent is Critical
Courts consistently stress deliberate intent to create panic. Mistaken information is treated differently.
Medium of Dissemination
Liability applies to SMS, social media posts, videos, and traditional media.
Public Impact
Severity of punishment depends on magnitude of panic, public order disruption, and economic or social consequences.
Legal Remedies
Both imprisonment and fines are imposed.
Cases highlight synergy between Criminal Code and Electronic Transactions Act for digital content.
Preventive Measures
Courts emphasize awareness campaigns and responsible sharing of information.
Media and social media users are expected to verify information before dissemination.
RELATED Blog
0 comments