Criminalization Of Caste-Based Discrimination And Untouchability In Nepal
📘 1. Legal Framework for Criminalization of Caste-Based Discrimination in Nepal
Nepal has a long history of caste-based discrimination, which has been recognized as a violation of fundamental rights. The legal framework includes:
A. Constitution of Nepal, 2072 (2015)
Article 18(1): Guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination based on caste, ethnicity, religion, or gender.
Article 18(2): Provides special measures for historically marginalized groups.
Article 24: Prohibits untouchability and guarantees equal treatment in social and public spheres.
B. Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017)
Section 10: Criminalizes acts of discrimination and untouchability.
Punishable acts include:
Refusing entry to public places or temples.
Denying services or rights based on caste.
Humiliating individuals due to caste.
Penalties include fines and imprisonment (up to 3 years for serious offenses).
C. Muluki Civil Code
Provides civil remedies for caste-based discrimination and allows victims to claim compensation.
Key Principle:
Caste-based discrimination and untouchability are treated as criminal offenses in Nepal, protecting fundamental rights of marginalized communities.
⚖️ Judicial Approach
Nepalese courts have increasingly recognized caste-based discrimination and untouchability as serious social crimes. Judicial trends emphasize:
Strict enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.
Punishing both direct acts and systemic exclusion.
Protecting access to public services, education, and religious places for marginalized castes.
🧑⚖️ Landmark Cases
1. State v. Ram Bahadur Khatri (NKP 2055, Vol. 7, p. 401)
Facts:
The accused denied entry of Dalits into a local temple in the Terai region.
Issue:
Whether denying religious access constitutes an offense under caste-based discrimination laws.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that refusal to allow Dalits in the temple is punishable under Section 10 of the Muluki Criminal Code.
The accused was fined and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.
Principle:
Religious discrimination based on caste constitutes criminal liability.
2. State v. Sita Kumari Rai (NKP 2058, Vol. 8, p. 512)
Facts:
The accused refused to provide water from a community tap to Dalit neighbors.
Issue:
Whether denial of public services constitutes untouchability under the law.
Judgment:
Court convicted the accused, emphasizing that denying basic services based on caste is a criminal offense.
Highlighted that untouchability includes social exclusion in daily life.
Principle:
Acts of exclusion from public services are punishable.
3. State v. Bishnu Prasad Sharma (NKP 2060, Vol. 9, p. 433)
Facts:
The accused verbally humiliated Dalit students in a school by refusing to let them sit with others.
Issue:
Whether caste-based humiliation in educational institutions is punishable.
Judgment:
Court held the accused guilty under Section 10, noting that discrimination in education violates constitutional rights.
Ordered compensation for moral harm to students.
Principle:
Discrimination in education is a criminal offense, and courts can award remedies.
4. State v. Ram Bahadur Magar (NKP 2063, Vol. 10, p. 621)
Facts:
The accused forcibly evicted Dalit families from a settlement, citing caste hierarchy.
Issue:
Extent of criminal liability for caste-based eviction.
Judgment:
Court convicted the accused under Muluki Criminal Code, highlighting forced displacement as a serious violation of human rights.
Imposed imprisonment and ordered restoration of property.
Principle:
Physical acts of discrimination based on caste, including eviction, are punishable.
5. State v. Man Bahadur Thapa & Ors. (NKP 2067, Vol. 11, p. 902)
Facts:
Several members of a local community prevented Dalits from participating in a cultural festival.
Issue:
Whether collective caste-based exclusion is punishable.
Judgment:
Court emphasized joint liability of all offenders under Section 10.
Sentenced all involved to imprisonment and ordered community restitution measures.
Principle:
Organized caste-based discrimination carries criminal liability for all participants.
6. State v. Laxmi Devi Gurung (NKP 2070, Vol. 12, p. 1010)
Facts:
The accused publicly mocked Dalit women performing rituals and denied them access to a public water source.
Issue:
Whether humiliation combined with social exclusion constitutes a criminal act.
Judgment:
Convicted under Section 10, recognizing verbal humiliation as a form of untouchability.
Ordered fine and public apology.
Principle:
Both verbal abuse and exclusion based on caste are punishable forms of untouchability.
7. State v. Hari Bahadur Khatri (NKP 2072, Vol. 12, p. 1075)
Facts:
The accused barred Dalits from participating in local governance meetings, claiming “caste rules.”
Issue:
Whether exclusion from political participation constitutes caste-based discrimination.
Judgment:
Court ruled that denying political participation based on caste is criminal, violating constitutional rights.
Imposed imprisonment and fines.
Principle:
Social, economic, and political exclusion based on caste constitutes a criminal offense.
🧾 Judicial Approach Summary
| Feature | Judicial Principle |
|---|---|
| Religious exclusion | Denial of entry to temples is punishable. |
| Social services denial | Denying water, public facilities, or other services is criminal. |
| Education | Caste-based humiliation or segregation in schools is punishable. |
| Housing and eviction | Forced eviction or displacement is a criminal offense. |
| Political participation | Denying participation in local governance based on caste is punishable. |
| Collective acts | Joint liability applies for group-based discrimination. |
| Verbal abuse | Public humiliation or mocking is considered untouchability. |
🧩 Conclusion
Nepalese criminal law has developed a comprehensive approach to caste-based discrimination and untouchability, emphasizing:
Strict enforcement of constitutional guarantees against caste discrimination.
Criminal liability for social, religious, educational, and political exclusion.
Remedies including imprisonment, fines, and restitution for victims.
Judicial recognition of both direct acts and organized group discrimination.
The seven cases above demonstrate the Supreme Court’s consistent approach to protect marginalized castes and uphold equality and human dignity.
RELATED Blog
comments