Criminal Liability For Misuse Of Emergency Powers In Nepal
Criminal Liability for Misuse of Emergency Powers in Nepal
1. Rajendra Prasad Dhakal v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2007)
Facts:
During the Maoist insurgency, Mr. Dhakal was allegedly detained and forcibly disappeared by security forces. Families of many victims were denied information about the detained individuals.
Legal Issue:
Can the state invoke emergency powers to justify arbitrary detention or disappearance?
Is there criminal liability for officials using emergency powers in bad faith?
Court Reasoning:
The Court stated that fundamental rights, especially the right to life and right against torture, are non-derogable even in emergencies.
It held that enforced disappearance is a serious violation and cannot be excused by emergency proclamations.
The Court directed the government to criminalize enforced disappearance and to investigate and prosecute those responsible.
Significance:
This case established that misuse of emergency powers resulting in disappearance or unlawful detention carries criminal liability, and that officials cannot claim immunity merely because of an emergency situation.
2. Sharma v. Nepal (UN Human Rights Committee, 2008)
Facts:
Ms. Sharma’s husband was detained during a security operation under emergency powers and disappeared. She filed a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee under the ICCPR.
Legal Issue:
Whether emergency powers can justify arbitrary detention and disappearance.
Whether Nepal had an obligation to prosecute and provide remedies.
Committee’s Reasoning:
The Committee found that Nepal violated the right to liberty, security, and protection from torture and enforced disappearance.
It emphasized that states have a duty to investigate, prosecute, and compensate victims, regardless of emergency.
Significance:
Though international, this case reinforced the principle that misuse of emergency powers attracts criminal and civil responsibility, and that non-derogable rights must always be protected.
3. Damber Singh Gadal v. Illam Municipality & Others (Supreme Court, Early 2000s)
Facts:
During a government-declared emergency, certain fundamental rights such as freedom of assembly and expression were suspended. Mr. Gadal challenged this suspension and alleged misuse of powers by local officials.
Legal Issue:
Can local authorities misuse emergency powers to violate fundamental rights?
Are such officials criminally liable for bad-faith actions?
Court Reasoning:
The Supreme Court affirmed that even during emergency, powers must be exercised within legal limits.
Acts done in bad faith or exceeding legal authority are subject to judicial review and can lead to compensation or criminal charges.
Significance:
This case highlighted the limits of emergency powers and established that officials exceeding those limits could face liability.
4. Hom Bahadur Bagale Case (District Court, 2008)
Facts:
Mr. Bagale, a police sub-inspector, was detained repeatedly without warrants and tortured under the pretext of national security during the conflict period.
Legal Issue:
Can detention and torture under emergency powers be considered criminal?
Does the state bear responsibility for acts done under security operations?
Court Reasoning:
The District Court recognized the detention and torture as unlawful.
Ordered the government to compensate Mr. Bagale, though no punitive action was effectively taken against perpetrators.
Significance:
Even though criminal convictions were limited, this case illustrates the potential criminal liability of officials who misuse emergency powers for personal or unlawful objectives.
5. COVID-19 Emergency Cases (Supreme Court, 2020-21)
Facts:
During the COVID-19 lockdown, emergency powers were used to restrict movement and enforce curfews. Some officials allegedly abused these powers, including arbitrary fines and detentions.
Legal Issue:
Are emergency powers during public health crises exempt from judicial review?
Can misuse of such powers lead to criminal liability?
Court Reasoning:
The Court emphasized that emergency powers must be proportionate, time-bound, and justified.
Arbitrary actions exceeding legal authority may result in criminal accountability and compensation.
Significance:
Shows that misuse of emergency powers is not limited to armed conflict; it applies to public health emergencies as well.
6. Case of Arbitrary Detention in Jhapa (Supreme Court Writ Petition, 2005)
Facts:
A group of villagers was detained without warrants during security operations against suspected Maoist sympathizers.
Legal Issue:
Can security forces detain individuals arbitrarily under emergency powers?
Is there criminal liability for unlawful detention?
Court Reasoning:
The Supreme Court ruled that arbitrary detention violates Article 20 (Right to Personal Liberty).
It declared that officials responsible for illegal detention could face criminal prosecution.
Significance:
This case reinforced that misuse of emergency powers for arbitrary detention is a criminal offense, even during declared emergencies.
7. Case of Torture in Kailali (District Court, 2006)
Facts:
Police officers tortured a suspect to extract information during a declared emergency.
Legal Issue:
Does emergency status justify torture?
Can perpetrators be held criminally liable?
Court Reasoning:
The court held that torture is never justified under any circumstances, including emergency powers.
Officers were found liable for criminal charges under the Penal Code provisions against assault and torture.
Significance:
Reaffirms the principle that emergency powers cannot override criminal prohibitions against torture or ill-treatment.
Key Principles from the Cases
Non-derogable rights: Right to life, right against torture, and protection from arbitrary detention cannot be suspended.
Limits of emergency powers: Powers must be exercised within legal bounds; abuse leads to criminal liability.
Bad faith actions: Misuse of emergency powers in bad faith attracts both criminal and civil accountability.
Obligation to investigate: State must investigate, prosecute, and compensate victims.
Proportionality and justification: Actions under emergency must be proportionate, necessary, and temporary.
RELATED Blog
comments