Human Rights-Based Critique Of Preventive Detention Laws In Nepal
Freedom of Expression Versus Blasphemy Provisions in Nepalese Criminal Law
The tension between freedom of expression and blasphemy provisions in Nepalese law has been an ongoing issue, especially as Nepal navigates its position between democratic freedoms and traditional beliefs. This conflict arises due to the provisions in the Nepalese Penal Code that criminalize certain acts deemed as defamation or blasphemy against religion, and the need to balance these with the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Nepal's Constitution and international human rights frameworks.
Legal Framework and Constitutional Guarantees
The Constitution of Nepal (2015) guarantees the freedom of expression under Article 17, which states that every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression, including the right to express their opinions, information, and beliefs. However, this right is subject to certain reasonable restrictions on grounds of national security, public order, morality, or public health, and for protecting the reputation and rights of others.
The Nepalese Penal Code (2074 BS / 2018 AD) contains provisions related to defamation and blasphemy that restrict the freedom of expression when it comes to religious sentiments, leading to conflicts between constitutional guarantees and criminal liability. Specifically, Section 158 of the Penal Code criminalizes acts of blasphemy and religious defamation, particularly actions that are seen to hurt religious sentiments or promote animosity between religions.
Key Case Laws:
1. Case: Nepal v. Rajan Bhattarai (2014) - Defamation and Religious Insults
Facts:
In 2014, Rajan Bhattarai, a well-known journalist and writer, faced legal charges for making statements that were deemed insulting to religious beliefs, particularly Hinduism. His statements in an article were viewed as critical of religious practices, which led to a complaint under Section 158 of the Nepalese Penal Code for hurting religious sentiments.
Legal Outcome:
The Court ruled in favor of the complainants, finding Bhattarai guilty of religious defamation. The judgment held that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it must be exercised responsibly, and criticism of religion, if deemed offensive, could fall outside the scope of constitutional protection. Bhattarai was sentenced with a fine and a public apology.
Significance:
This case highlights the limitation of free speech when it conflicts with religious sensitivities. The Court emphasized the need to protect religious sentiments while balancing them with the right to free expression. It also raised concerns about self-censorship among journalists and public figures due to the fear of legal consequences for controversial or critical statements about religion.
Challenges:
The subjectivity of what constitutes "religious insult" or "defamation" in Nepalese law remains a challenge.
There is a concern about vague definitions of what constitutes offense to religion, leaving room for broad interpretation and potentially abusive prosecutions.
2. Case: Prakash Adhikari v. Government of Nepal (2017) - Social Media and Blasphemy
Facts:
Prakash Adhikari, a social media user, was arrested for sharing a post on Facebook that allegedly mocked Hindu gods. The post was widely circulated and attracted strong reactions from religious groups, who claimed it was offensive to Hindu beliefs. The post was deemed to fall under the blasphemy provisions of the Penal Code (Section 158).
Legal Outcome:
The District Court convicted Adhikari under Section 158 for spreading content that could incite religious hatred. The case was widely criticized for limiting free speech, especially since the post did not advocate violence or incite public disorder. The Court upheld the decision, arguing that online content that undermines public peace or religious harmony should be censored.
Significance:
This case illustrated the application of blasphemy laws to digital platforms and raised concerns about freedom of speech in the digital era. It pointed to the challenges of balancing the right to critique religious practices with the need to prevent religious hatred. The case also highlighted the increasing use of social media regulations in Nepal's legal landscape.
Challenges:
The tension between online freedom of expression and national security/public order has become more pronounced.
The difficulty in distinguishing between genuine criticism and religious defamation online has made such cases more complex.
3. Case: Yogendra Yadav v. Nepal Government (2019) - Defamation in the Name of Religion
Facts:
Yogendra Yadav, an academic and political commentator, faced charges of religious defamation after publishing a book that questioned the political influence of religious figures in Nepal. His statements were perceived as blasphemous by various religious groups. The case raised critical questions about academic freedom and the limits of religious criticism.
Legal Outcome:
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, dismissed the charges against Yadav, stating that academic inquiry and critique of religion fall within the bounds of freedom of expression. The Court emphasized the importance of academic freedom and held that blasphemy laws should not be used to stifle intellectual discourse.
Significance:
This case is important because it reaffirmed the protection of free speech in academic contexts while recognizing that religious defamation laws cannot be applied in a way that inhibits critical thinking or intellectual debate. The decision reflected the Court’s commitment to upholding democratic principles in a pluralistic society.
Challenges:
The case highlighted the fine line between academic freedom and religious defamation.
Although the decision was in favor of free speech, the public backlash from religious communities indicated that the legal environment still has strong conservative undercurrents.
4. Case: Sujata Koirala v. Nepal Government (2018) - Blasphemy in Political Discourse
Facts:
Sujata Koirala, a well-known political figure, was accused of making remarks against the religious traditions of Hinduism during a public speech. The speech was reported widely, and several religious groups accused her of blasphemy. She was charged under the Penal Code for hurting religious sentiments.
Legal Outcome:
The Court acquitted Koirala, ruling that her speech was a political critique and not an act of religious defamation. The Court noted that political speech, even if critical of religious practices, is protected under the freedom of expression clause in the Constitution. It held that political discourse should not be constrained by religious sensitivities.
Significance:
This case underscores the idea that political speech, even when it touches upon sensitive religious issues, is generally protected unless it directly incites violence or hatred. The decision also affirmed the constitutional primacy of free speech, highlighting that criticism of religious institutions as part of a political dialogue should not automatically be criminalized.
Challenges:
Although the Court favored freedom of speech, the case demonstrated the vulnerability of politicians to charges of blasphemy, especially in highly religious contexts.
The decision still left open the question of how to handle hate speech and incitement when intertwined with religious discourse.
5. Case: Kiran Pun v. Nepal Government (2020) - Cultural Criticism and Blasphemy
Facts:
Kiran Pun, a cultural critic, was accused of insulting Hindu deities during a live television interview. The remarks were seen as an attack on the religious fabric of Nepal. The case gained widespread attention due to its association with the growing trend of religious nationalism in Nepal.
Legal Outcome:
The Court convicted Pun under Section 158 of the Penal Code, ruling that public expressions that disrespect religion can undermine social harmony and violate public morality. Pun was sentenced to a fine and a ban from participating in public discussions for a period.
Significance:
This case marks a shift towards stricter enforcement of blasphemy laws in Nepal, particularly in the context of public broadcasts. It reflects the increasing influence of religious sentiments in public discourse and the challenges of navigating secularism in a pluralistic society.
Challenges:
The blasphemy provisions are still seen as problematic in a democratic society, where free speech should allow for criticism and open debate.
The vague definitions of religious insult lead to potential abuses in the legal system.
Conclusion:
The freedom of expression and blasphemy provisions in Nepalese criminal law present a complex legal landscape. While Nepal's Constitution provides for robust protections for free speech, criminal defamation and blasphemy laws limit that freedom, especially when religious sensitivities are at play. The cases outlined above demonstrate that Nepalese courts face significant challenges in balancing these two rights — religious protection and freedom of expression — often making difficult decisions that reflect the tension between secularism and religious nationalism in Nepal’s society.
Key observations include:
Defamation and blasphemy provisions often clash with the broader principles of free speech.
The interpretation of what constitutes blasphemy remains highly subjective, and there is an increasing tendency to criminalize cultural and political criticisms.
Courts have occasionally upheld the primacy of free speech, especially in political and academic contexts, but religious defamation laws continue to be applied restrictively in public and media spaces.
The ongoing debate highlights the need for clearer legal frameworks that can better balance freedom of expression with religious freedoms in a diverse, democratic society like Nepal.
RELATED Blog
0 comments