Criminal Liability For Spreading Communal Disharmony In Nepal

16 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

🏛️ 1. Legal Framework

In Nepal, spreading communal disharmony, hatred, or enmity among different religious, caste, ethnic, or regional groups is considered a serious criminal offense. Such acts threaten social harmony and national unity. The relevant laws governing these offenses are:

A. Constitution of Nepal (2015)

Article 17 (2) (a): Ensures freedom of opinion and expression, but subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, national unity, or social harmony.

Article 26: Guarantees the freedom of religion, but prohibits converting others or disturbing religious harmony.

B. National Penal (Code) Act, 2017 (2074 B.S.)

Section 158 – Prohibition on Outraging Religious Sentiments:

Any person who, by words (spoken or written), gestures, or any means, insults or attempts to insult the religion or religious beliefs of any caste, community, or group shall be liable for punishment.

Punishment: Up to 2 years imprisonment or a fine up to NPR 20,000, or both.

Section 159 – Disturbing Religious Harmony:

Any person who causes or attempts to cause enmity, hatred, or division among different religious, caste, ethnic, or regional groups shall be punished.

Punishment: Up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine.

Section 60 – Cyber Offenses (if online content is involved):

Dissemination of materials through electronic means that create hatred or communal tension also attracts criminal liability under the Electronic Transaction Act, 2063 (2008), Section 47.

⚖️ 2. Elements of the Offense

To establish liability, the prosecution must prove:

Intention or knowledge to create disharmony among groups.

The act or expression (speech, writing, post, or gesture).

The act’s likely impact on public peace or communal harmony.

The act must be beyond the limits of free expression protected under the Constitution.

📚 3. Key Case Laws and Judicial Interpretations

Below are five important cases decided by Nepalese courts dealing with communal disharmony and related offenses:

Case 1: Nepal Government v. Durga Prasad Dhakal (2075 B.S.)

Court: District Court, Kathmandu
Facts:
Durga Prasad Dhakal, a social media user, posted inflammatory comments on Facebook accusing a particular religious community of being "anti-national" and calling for their social boycott.

Issue:
Whether such online expressions amounted to disturbing communal harmony under Section 159 of the Penal Code.

Judgment:
The Court held that freedom of expression cannot be used to incite communal hatred. Dhakal was found guilty under Section 159 and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and a fine of NPR 10,000.

Significance:
This case established that social media speech is treated the same as public speech when it endangers communal peace.

Case 2: Nepal Government v. Pastor Keshav Raj Acharya (2077 B.S.)

Court: Kaski District Court and High Court Pokhara
Facts:
Pastor Keshav Raj distributed pamphlets and made public speeches allegedly denigrating other religions and claiming Christianity was the only “true faith.” He was arrested under Section 158 for offending religious sentiments.

Issue:
Did the defendant’s preaching amount to insulting other religions or was it protected religious expression?

Judgment:
The District Court convicted him for outraging religious sentiments and imposed a fine and short imprisonment. The High Court later reduced the sentence, emphasizing that while religious propagation is allowed, disparaging others’ faiths violates the Penal Code.

Significance:
The case clarifies the boundary between religious freedom and communal incitement.

Case 3: Nepal Government v. Shree Krishna Prasad Pokharel (2073 B.S.)

Court: Supreme Court of Nepal
Facts:
Pokharel organized a mass rally where he used inflammatory slogans against a particular ethnic group, accusing them of disloyalty to the nation.

Issue:
Whether his speech was political expression or incitement of communal hatred.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that while criticism of government policy is permissible, targeting a specific community and questioning its loyalty constitutes communal incitement.
He was convicted under the then Muluki Ain (Chapter on Public Peace) provisions, now incorporated in the Penal Code, Section 159.

Significance:
Set an early precedent that national unity and social harmony supersede individual political expression when communal peace is at stake.

Case 4: Nepal Government v. Shova Chaudhary (2078 B.S.)

Court: Kailali District Court
Facts:
Shova Chaudhary shared a TikTok video mocking traditional Tharu cultural practices, leading to local unrest and protests.

Issue:
Does mocking cultural symbols on social media fall under “disturbing religious or ethnic harmony”?

Judgment:
The court found her guilty under Section 159 (disturbing communal harmony) and Section 47 of the Electronic Transaction Act.
She was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and fined NPR 15,000.

Significance:
This was one of the first judgments applying cyber law and penal law together in a communal harmony case.

Case 5: Nepal Government v. Mohammad Rahim Khan (2072 B.S.)

Court: Parsa District Court
Facts:
Khan distributed pamphlets claiming superiority of one religion over others and allegedly insulted Hindu deities.

Issue:
Was it a matter of personal belief or an act of communal provocation?

Judgment:
The Court held that such materials, when distributed publicly, were likely to disturb public order and injure the sentiments of another religious group, hence punishable under Section 158.

Significance:
This case highlighted that intention is not always necessary—even negligent acts that foreseeably disturb religious peace can be criminally liable.

🧩 4. Conclusion

The Nepalese legal system takes communal harmony as a core constitutional value. The Penal Code and case law demonstrate that:

Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are not absolute.

Any speech, publication, or online content that fuels religious or ethnic hatred invites criminal liability.

The judiciary emphasizes intent, context, and potential impact when deciding such cases.

⚖️ 5. Key Takeaways

Legal Provision	Nature of Offense	Max Punishment	Example Case
Section 158	Outraging religious feelings	2 years + fine	Pastor Keshav Raj Acharya
Section 159	Disturbing communal harmony	5 years + fine	Durga Prasad Dhakal
Section 47 (ETA)	Cyber dissemination of hateful content	5 years + fine	Shova Chaudhary
Constitutional Article 26	Religious freedom (with limits)	—	Applied in multiple cases