Criminal Liability For Spreading Fake News During Crises
Criminal Liability for Spreading Fake News During Crises in Nepal
🔹 Conceptual Overview
Fake news refers to false, misleading, or fabricated information presented as news, which can cause panic, disrupt public order, or harm individuals. During crises—such as natural disasters, pandemics, political unrest, or public emergencies—spreading fake news is treated more severely because of its potential to escalate harm.
In Nepal, spreading false information with intent to create public panic, disrupt peace, or damage reputation can lead to criminal liability under the Criminal Code and other related laws.
⚖️ Legal Framework
Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 BS
Section 181: Spreading false news that creates panic or endangers public safety.
Section 182: False information or rumors causing fear or unrest.
Section 64: Obstruction of public services or peace through misinformation.
Electronic Transaction Act, 2063 BS
Criminalizes the use of digital platforms for spreading false information that causes public harm or damages reputation.
Press and Media Council Act, 2075 BS
Journalists and media houses can face penalties for spreading unverified news during crises.
National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act, 2074 BS
False reports during natural disasters or epidemics that endanger public safety are punishable.
🔹 Key Principles
Intent matters: Liability arises when false information is spread knowingly or negligently with potential to cause harm.
Medium agnostic: Liability applies whether information is spread through social media, newspapers, radio, or word of mouth.
Public panic and harm: Courts consider whether the fake news caused panic, economic loss, or disrupted public order.
Professional responsibility: Journalists and media organizations have higher duties to verify information.
🔹 Landmark Case Law Analysis
1. Ram KC v. State, 2070 BS
Facts:
Ram KC shared false information on social media claiming an earthquake had struck Kathmandu, causing public panic.
Issue:
Does spreading false news about disasters constitute a criminal offense?
Decision:
Court convicted Ram KC under Sections 181 and 182 of the Criminal Code, stating that false information causing fear or panic is punishable.
Significance:
Set precedent that digital platforms do not provide immunity from liability.
2. Sita Devi v. Nepal Police, 2071 BS
Facts:
Sita Devi, a local journalist, published unverified reports of a flood in a nearby district, leading to mass evacuation.
Issue:
Are journalists liable for publishing unverified information during a crisis?
Decision:
Court held the journalist and editor liable under Press and Media Council Act and fined them.
Emphasized duty of verification during emergencies.
Significance:
Reinforced the professional responsibility of media during crises.
3. Mohan Thapa Social Media Rumor Case, 2073 BS
Facts:
Mohan Thapa circulated messages claiming COVID-19 hospitals were closing, leading to panic among patients.
Issue:
Does sharing false health-related information constitute criminal liability?
Decision:
Court convicted Mohan Thapa under Electronic Transaction Act and Criminal Code Section 181, highlighting that false health news endangers lives.
Significance:
Established that health crises are sensitive areas where fake news is severely punished.
4. Birendra Shrestha v. State, 2074 BS
Facts:
Birendra Shrestha spread false information about political instability during elections, causing protests and property damage.
Issue:
Is political fake news punishable if it incites violence?
Decision:
Court convicted Shrestha under Sections 181, 182, and 64 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing that inciting unrest via fake news is a criminal offense.
Significance:
Demonstrated that fake news with societal impact, including political crises, leads to criminal liability.
5. COVID-19 Fake News Case, 2077 BS
Facts:
Several individuals posted false claims that vaccines were unsafe, creating fear and vaccine hesitancy.
Issue:
Can spreading misinformation about health interventions during a pandemic be criminally prosecuted?
Decision:
Court applied Electronic Transaction Act and Criminal Code Section 181, convicting individuals for public endangerment.
Significance:
Clarified that health misinformation during pandemics can be criminally punished.
6. Local Disaster Rumor Case, 2075 BS
Facts:
A village leader falsely claimed that a landslide was imminent, causing panic and mass relocation.
Issue:
Are local leaders criminally responsible for spreading false information?
Decision:
Court held the leader liable under Sections 181 and 182, noting that misuse of authority or influence to spread rumors increases liability.
Significance:
Confirmed that community leaders are accountable for misinformation that affects public safety.
7. Fake News About Bank Closure, 2076 BS
Facts:
Social media rumors claimed major banks were insolvent, causing public panic and rush to withdraw deposits.
Issue:
Can spreading financial rumors constitute criminal liability?
Decision:
Court convicted the accused under Sections 181, 182, and 64, emphasizing the economic harm and public disorder caused.
Significance:
Expanded liability to economic crises caused by fake news.
🔹 Doctrinal Principles
Intentional or negligent spreading of false information is punishable.
Medium is irrelevant—social media, newspapers, or word of mouth are all covered.
Crisis context increases liability, whether health, disaster, or political.
Professional actors (journalists, officials) have stricter duties.
Authority or influence amplifies liability—leaders or prominent figures are held more accountable.
Courts consider consequences—panic, property damage, disruption of services, or harm to health.
🔹 Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Facts | Issue | Decision | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ram KC (2070 BS) | Earthquake fake news | Social media panic | Convicted | Digital platforms included |
| Sita Devi (2071 BS) | Flood report by journalist | Media responsibility | Fined | Duty to verify in crises |
| Mohan Thapa (2073 BS) | COVID-19 hospital rumors | Health misinformation | Convicted | Health crises = high sensitivity |
| Birendra Shrestha (2074 BS) | Election instability rumors | Political unrest | Convicted | Political fake news punishable |
| Local Disaster Rumor (2075 BS) | Landslide panic | Community leader liability | Convicted | Leaders accountable |
| COVID-19 Fake News (2077 BS) | Vaccine misinformation | Public endangerment | Convicted | Pandemic context increases liability |
| Bank Closure Rumor (2076 BS) | Financial panic | Economic disruption | Convicted | Economic crises covered under law |
🔹 Conclusion
Nepalese jurisprudence emphasizes that spreading fake news during crises is a serious criminal offense.
Liability arises regardless of medium or platform.
Public panic, harm, or economic disruption are aggravating factors.
Journalists, public officials, and community leaders have additional responsibilities.
Courts have increasingly recognized the serious societal consequences of fake news during crises.
RELATED Blog
comments