Criminal Liability For Violent Protests Against Hydropower Projects
I. Legal/Regulatory Framework
When protests against hydropower projects in Nepal escalate into violence, a number of legal issues arise:
Use of force, vandalism, arson, assault or obstruction of public infrastructure draw in the Muluki Criminal Code, 2017 (Nepal’s penal law) provisions covering offences such as damage to property, arson, voluntary assault, public order offences, and obstruction of public works.
The government and project proponents may bring complaints under penal/statutory offences for vandalism, arson, intimidation, and sometimes rioting.
The fact of protest does not immunize participants: once protestors engage in violence—throwing stones at police, attacking equipment, burning vehicles or offices—they may face criminal liability.
Liability may extend to organisers, instigators or leaders of such violent protest.
Enforcement can be uneven: some protests remain peaceful and legitimate, but when violent acts occur, authorities may lodge criminal complaints, carry out arrests, and seek compensation for damage.
Key issues include: What constitutes peaceful protest vs violent protest, the threshold for criminal liability (intent to damage, assault, arson), and how project‑affected persons’ rights (e.g., land rights, consultation) interface with state power.
II. Illustrative Cases of Violent Protests Against Hydropower/Infrastructural Projects
Here are five detailed cases from Nepal illustrating violent protests against hydropower or infrastructure associated with hydropower, and resulting criminal liability:
Case 1: Vandalism & Arson at the Office of the Champawati Hydropower Company (Gorkha, December 2022)
Facts:
In December 2022 in Gorkha District (Siranchowk Rural Municipality‑2), around 500 locals from Rainas Municipality (Lamjung district) gathered at the hydropower project office of Champawati Hydropower. They believed the hydropower construction threatened their irrigation project.
The protest turned violent: the group vandalised the company’s office, burned two mini‑trucks, an excavator and two temporary shelters on the premises. The company claimed damage of ~Rs 3.4 million plus delay losses of ~Rs 50 million.
The company registered a complaint with the district police office, naming eight persons for vandalism and arson.
Legal Issues:
Damage to property (company infrastructure) qualifies under the Criminal Code’s damage/arson provisions.
The protestors’ claim: their rights (irrigation) threatened; the company’s claim: unlawful destruction.
The police complaint triggers investigation; arrests may follow; civil claim for compensation is also being made.
Outcome & Significance:
Complaint lodged; likely criminal investigation into named persons.
Displays the moment when protest transitions from non‑violent to violent, triggering criminal liability.
Demonstrates that hydropower projects face risk of violent backlash when local demands/rights are unmet.
Limits of protest rights: once destruction begins, law enforcement steps in, and participants may be held liable for property damage/arson.
Takeaway:
When infrastructure protest escalates to arson/vandalism, criminal liability becomes real, even if underlying grievance is legitimate. Project‑affected communities must be aware that violent acts may result in police complaints and potential prosecution.
Case 2: Scuffle Between Locals & Officials at the Nyadi Hydropower Project (Lamjung, March 2020)
Facts:
In March 2020 in Lamjung District (Marsyangdi Rural Municipality‑6), the Nyadi Hydropower Project (30 MW) was under construction by a Chinese contractor. During nationwide lockdown (COVID‑19 period), local residents blocked the road entering their village with logs and a fence, protesting unscheduled access/truck movements.
Two trucks carrying turbines attempted to force passage by removing the fence; a scuffle erupted. The Chinese‐contractor vehicles were attacked; project employees attempted to retaliate; local youths pushed back. Two officials injured; vehicles vandalised. Police intervened.
Legal Issues:
Assault or attempt thereof (injured project officials).
Vandalism of vehicles.
Obstruction of movement and property damage.
The setting: protests triggered by COVID lockdown context + project movement; escalated into violence.
Outcome & Significance:
Police investigation initiated; local police stated case remains unresolved.
Shows that even construction of hydropower projects can ignite violent conflicts if local concerns (lockdown, movement, safety) are ignored.
The protest had an infrastructure dimension, and violence converted the grievance into criminal liability.
Takeaway:
Project proponents and state authorities must manage local relations proactively; failure can lead to protest turning violent with consequent criminal liability for protestors, and exposure of companies/institutions to claims.
Case 3: Clashes Over Transmission Line & Substation – 400 kV Transmission at Lapsephedi (Kathmandu District, November 2023)
Facts:
In November 2023, residents of Lapsephedi (Shankharapur Municipality‑3, Kathmandu) protested the planned 400 kV Naya Khimti–Barhabise–Lapsephedi transmission line’s substation site. The project was being delivered by the national utility (Nepal Electricity Authority – NEA).
The locals demanded relocation of the substation citing settlement, indigenous community concerns; previous formation of coordination committee proved unsuccessful. When security forces were deployed to enable the contractor, protestors hurled stones at police and APF. At least three police/APF personnel were injured. Over a dozen locals arrested and will be screened for prosecution.
Legal Issues:
Use of stones/throwing at police/APF personnel = assault or attempt to commit assault.
Obstruction of public works (essential infrastructure).
Arrests by district administration for participation in violent protest.
The project context: hydropower transmission line/substation rather than generation, but still part of hydropower chain.
Outcome & Significance:
Arrests were made; district administration indicated legal action will follow for those identified.
Demonstrates that protest against elements of hydropower chain (transmission/substation) can turn violent and trigger criminal liability.
Also shows state readiness to deploy security forces and make arrests at first sign of violence.
Takeaway:
Community resistance must be managed through consultation and negotiation. Where protestors resort to violence (stone‑pelting), law enforcement may pursue criminal cases for assault and obstruction of infrastructure.
Case 4: Locals Protest Against Proposed Bhote Koshi‑5 Hydropower Project (Sindhupalchok, June 2025)
Facts:
June 2025 in Bahrabise and surrounding areas (Sindhupalchok District) locals protested a proposed 46 MW Bhote Koshi‑5 hydropower project (by Kalika Hydropower Company). They argued that the project would divert river water underground from existing tailrace of the 102 MW Middle Bhote Koshi Project, threatening ecological balance and local identity.
The protest included disruption of a public hearing: chairs were damaged, the event was halted; participants carried black flags and chanted slogans (“Go back Kalika Hydro”).
Legal Issues:
Destruction of public hearing equipment (chairs) = vandalism.
Disruption of public administrative/consultation process = obstructing participatory hearing; potential administrative offence.
While no serious bodily harm reported, the transition from demonstration to damage implies exposure to criminal liability.
Outcome & Significance:
The protest remains ongoing; the event shows that even before full construction, local resistance can escalate to property damage.
Indicates early phase protest but potential for escalation into violence if ignored.
Takeaway:
Project developers should expect that local opposition may escalate; early consultation and redress may avert criminal consequences.
Case 5: Violent Protest Over Hydropower Project Demands – Kaligandaki ‘A’ Hydropower Project (Syangja, January 2019)
Facts:
In January 2019 in Beltari area, Syangja District, project‐affected persons of the Kaligandaki ‘A’ hydropower blocked the road to the powerhouse facility. Their demands: local residents should receive electricity from the project, irrigation facility, construction of a concrete road. They claimed they had lost land but were deprived of promised benefits.
They staged a demonstration, though the report does not detail serious violence (no stone‑pelting or arrests reported at this stage), but the blockade of project access qualifies as obstruction of infrastructure.
Legal Issues:
Road‐blockade = obstruction of project works; possible penal offense if infrastructure considered essential public work.
Although not explicitly violent, this illustrates the threshold where protest may escalate.
Outcome & Significance:
The project authorities noted the protesters had not formally submitted their demands; negotiations began.
Shows that local grievances around hydropower can trigger protests that may risk escalating into violent confrontation if unresolved.
Takeaway:
Even non‑violent resistance such as blockade can lead to escalation; early redress, benefit‑sharing and consultation are important prevention tools.
III. Observations of Criminal Liability Patterns
From examining these cases, several patterns emerge regarding criminal liability for violent protests against hydropower projects in Nepal:
Escalation from grievance to violence
Many protests start with legitimate grievances (e.g., compensation, environmental concerns, benefit‑sharing) but escalate when consultation fails or when project works continue despite resistance.
Turning point: property damage, assault, obstruction
Criminal liability typically arises when protestors engage in property damage (vandalism, arson), assault on project officials or security forces, obstruction of infrastructure works, or blockades obstructing public services.
Law enforcement response
Once violence begins, police or Armed Police Force intervene; arrests follow; complaints lodged by companies or authorities; criminal investigations initiated.
Penal consequences
While many protests remain unresolved in court publicly, we see charges for vandalism/arson (Case 1), assault (Case 3), obstruction (Case 2 & 4). Victims may seek compensation; criminal liability may apply to individuals responsible for damage.
Preventive dimension
Effective mitigation is not simply law enforcement after violence, but proactive community engagement, benefit‑sharing, consultation, project transparency. Failure leads to criminal liabilities.
Infrastructure chain vulnerability
Not only generation projects but transmission lines, substations, project offices are protest focal points. Protests here are as vulnerable to escalation as dams.
IV. Legal and Policy Implications
Project developers and government must recognise that violent protests bring criminal law consequences—not only for protesters but also risks to project schedule/cost and reputational damage.
Communities and local stakeholders have rights to protest and demand redress, but when protests turn violent, participants risk criminal liability under penal law.
Legal reform / enforcement clarity: The penal code provisions applicable need clearer application in infrastructure protest contexts—law enforcement must balance right to protest and protection of property/life.
Judicial oversight: Courts may be called upon not only after criminal acts but to ensure state response to grievances (consultation, compensation) to reduce risk of violence.
Compensation and restoration: When damage occurs, companies may claim compensation; criminal prosecution of perpetrators may proceed simultaneously.
V. Conclusion
Violent protests against hydropower and associated infrastructure in Nepal sit at the intersection of social justice (community rights, benefit‑sharing, environmental impact) and penal law (property damage, assault, obstruction). The cases above show that while many grievances are legitimate, once protestors cross into violence (vandalism, arson, attacks on officials), criminal liability becomes real under Nepal’s penal code and project authorities will lodge complaints and seek enforcement.
RELATED Blog
comments