Criminal Liability For Spreading False Information During Pandemics
Legal Framework in Nepal
During pandemics like COVID-19, spreading false or misleading information can cause panic, endanger public health, and disrupt governmental response. Nepalese law addresses this through:
Muluki Criminal Code (MCC), 2017
Section 26: Causing public mischief or panic.
Section 29: Spreading false news or rumors that threaten public order.
Section 310: Endangering public health or safety through negligence or misinformation.
Epidemic Diseases Control Act, 1964
Provides powers to penalize acts that obstruct public health measures or spread misinformation during epidemics.
Information Technology Act, 2006
Penalizes online dissemination of false information that may harm individuals or public safety.
Case Analyses
1. Kathmandu COVID-19 Rumor Case (2020)
Facts: During the early COVID-19 outbreak, a person circulated a message claiming that all hospitals in Kathmandu had run out of ventilators and ICU beds, causing panic and overcrowding at hospitals.
Investigation: The Metropolitan Police Cyber Bureau traced the source via WhatsApp and social media accounts.
Prosecution: Charged under MCC Section 29 (spreading false information causing public panic) and the Epidemic Diseases Control Act.
Court Outcome: Kathmandu District Court sentenced the accused to 1 year imprisonment and fined NPR 50,000.
Significance: First major pandemic-related misinformation case, establishing liability for causing panic through false claims.
2. Bhaktapur Fake Vaccine Case (2021)
Facts: An individual sold “miracle COVID-19 vaccines” claiming they were government-approved, spreading false hope and endangering public health.
Investigation: The Department of Drug Administration and local police raided his office, seized counterfeit vaccines, and recorded witness statements from buyers.
Prosecution: Prosecuted under MCC Section 310 (endangering public health) and Section 29 (spreading false news).
Court Outcome: Convicted to 3 years imprisonment and fined NPR 200,000.
Significance: Highlighted the intersection of criminal law and public health regulations, particularly against profiteering using misinformation.
3. Morang Hospital Panic Case (2020)
Facts: A social media post falsely claimed that a major hospital in Biratnagar had closed due to a COVID outbreak. This led to crowding at other hospitals and panic among patients.
Investigation: Police Cyber Bureau and hospital security reviewed CCTV and traced the post to a local resident.
Prosecution: Charged under MCC Section 29 for spreading false information and Epidemic Diseases Control Act for obstructing healthcare services.
Court Outcome: Convicted; sentenced to 9 months imprisonment and ordered to issue a public apology.
Significance: Showed that social media dissemination of false health information can be prosecuted effectively.
4. Sunsari Quarantine Rumor Case (2021)
Facts: False news claimed that a quarantine center in Sunsari was unsafe and that people inside were dying, prompting a crowd to storm the center and attack healthcare workers.
Investigation: Police identified the rumor spreaders via mobile tracking and WhatsApp group administration records.
Prosecution: Charges included rioting, abetment, and spreading false information under MCC Section 29 and Epidemic Act provisions.
Court Outcome: 4 people sentenced to 2–4 years imprisonment; fines imposed on all participants.
Significance: Demonstrated that false information leading to physical harm and disruption can carry combined criminal liability.
5. Pokhara Fake Oxygen Supply Case (2021)
Facts: A local businessman spread messages claiming he could provide oxygen cylinders for COVID patients at discounted rates, but the claim was false and led to panic and fraudulent transactions.
Investigation: Victims filed complaints, and the police seized his accounts and social media evidence.
Prosecution: Charged under MCC Section 310 (public health endangerment) and Section 29 (false information), as well as fraud provisions under MCC Section 262.
Court Outcome: 2 years imprisonment, confiscation of ill-gotten gains, and community service.
Significance: Showed the overlap between public health protection, cybercrime, and fraud during pandemics.
6. Dhangadhi Mask Hoax Case (2020)
Facts: A message circulated that face masks distributed by the government were contaminated with COVID-19, causing fear and refusal of safety measures.
Investigation: Police tracked the messages to a social media influencer.
Prosecution: Charged under MCC Section 29 (causing public panic) and Epidemic Diseases Control Act.
Court Outcome: 6 months imprisonment, fine of NPR 25,000, and mandatory public awareness campaign participation.
Significance: Case underscored legal accountability of individuals influencing public health compliance through false claims.
7. Lalitpur Vaccine Side-Effect Hoax Case (2021)
Facts: False online posts claimed that a COVID vaccine caused immediate death in most recipients. This led to vaccine hesitancy and disruption of vaccination drives.
Investigation: Police Cyber Bureau traced the posts and collected forensic evidence of origin.
Prosecution: Section 29 and 310 of MCC applied, along with IT Act provisions for online harm.
Court Outcome: 1-year imprisonment and fine NPR 100,000; posts were removed and corrections issued.
Significance: Established jurisprudence on liability for online misinformation impacting public health.
Key Observations
Primary Triggers: Panic, vaccine misinformation, fake treatments, and rumors about hospital safety.
Types of Offenders: Individuals, social media influencers, local businessmen, and organized groups exploiting fear.
Legal Approach: Courts use Sections 29 and 310 MCC, Epidemic Act provisions, and IT Act provisions collectively.
Sentencing Trends:
Minor panic-inducing posts: 6–12 months imprisonment
Endangering health or causing disruption: 1–3 years imprisonment, fines, confiscation of profits
Involvement in rioting or fraud: 2–4 years imprisonment
Conclusion
Nepalese criminal law treats false information during pandemics as a serious offense, particularly when it endangers public health, disrupts pandemic management, or incites panic. Courts increasingly rely on cyber forensic evidence, witness testimony, and coordination with health authorities. Liability can include imprisonment, fines, confiscation, and mandatory corrective action.
RELATED Blog
comments