Judicial Interpretation Of Custodial Deaths And State Responsibility
🏛 Judicial Interpretation of Custodial Deaths and State Responsibility in Nepal
Custodial deaths are among the gravest violations of human rights. They occur when an individual dies while under the custody of the police, military, or prison authorities. In Nepal, both the Constitution and the Nepal Penal Code (2017) provide protection against torture, unlawful detention, and extrajudicial killings. However, the judiciary has had to interpret these rights through landmark cases to establish state responsibility.
1. Ram Kumar Bhandari v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2007)
Facts:
Ram Kumar Bhandari’s father, a teacher, was arrested by security forces in Lamjung during the Maoist conflict (2001) and later died in custody.
Authorities denied the arrest for several months, and his body was never returned.
Legal Issues:
Whether the state can be held responsible for the disappearance and presumed death of a person in custody.
Whether the family is entitled to justice and compensation.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court declared that the State bears direct responsibility for the safety of individuals in its custody.
It held that enforced disappearance and custodial death violate the right to life (Article 16) and the right against torture (Article 22) of the Constitution of Nepal.
The Court ordered the government to investigate, prosecute, and provide compensation to the family.
Significance:
This case was the first to clearly define custodial death as a constitutional wrong and link it to state accountability.
It emphasized that the burden of proof shifts to the State once custody is established.
2. Maina Sunuwar Case (Supreme Court, 2010)
Facts:
Maina Sunuwar, a 15-year-old girl, was arrested by army personnel in 2004 on suspicion of being linked to Maoists.
She was tortured and killed during interrogation inside an army barracks.
The army buried her secretly within the barracks compound.
Legal Issues:
Whether the Nepal Army could be tried in civilian courts for custodial killing.
Scope of state responsibility for military personnel’s actions during internal conflict.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that custodial killing by army personnel constitutes a grave violation of the right to life, and no immunity applies under the Nepal Army Act.
It directed the government to prosecute the army officers in civilian criminal courts, not just through military proceedings.
Significance:
Established that military personnel are not above the law in cases of custodial death.
Defined custodial death as both a criminal offence and a constitutional violation.
Strengthened the principle that state agents are personally and institutionally liable.
3. Govinda Prasad Nepal v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2011)
Facts:
Govinda Prasad was arrested in Kathmandu on theft suspicion and was later found dead in police custody.
The police claimed suicide, but evidence showed severe bruises and internal injuries.
Legal Issues:
Whether the State can be held liable for deaths caused by police torture.
Responsibility of police superiors for subordinates’ misconduct.
Judgment:
The Court held that custodial deaths create a presumption of state responsibility unless the authorities prove otherwise.
It found that the police had failed to ensure the detainee’s safety, thereby violating Article 16 (right to life) and Article 22 (freedom from torture).
The State was ordered to pay compensation to the family and to initiate criminal proceedings against the responsible officers.
Significance:
Introduced the doctrine of state liability for omission — even failure to prevent torture or ensure medical care constitutes a violation.
Highlighted that custodial deaths violate not only national law but also international human rights obligations.
4. Krishna Prasad Adhikari v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2014)
Facts:
Krishna Prasad Adhikari, a teenager, was abducted by Maoist cadres in 2004 and later killed.
His parents filed a case demanding justice, arguing that the State failed to investigate despite repeated requests.
Legal Issues:
Whether the State’s failure to investigate custodial or conflict-related deaths amounts to a continuing violation of rights.
Judgment:
The Court held that failure to investigate and prosecute custodial deaths is itself a constitutional violation.
Directed the government to pursue the perpetrators and ensure justice for the victims’ families.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of state responsibility to include the duty to investigate, prosecute, and compensate victims’ families.
Reinforced the principle of continuing violation, meaning the State remains accountable until justice is delivered.
5. Nanda Prasad Adhikari v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2015)
Facts:
Following the murder of his son Krishna Prasad, Nanda Prasad Adhikari and his wife went on a prolonged hunger strike demanding justice.
During the hunger strike, Nanda Prasad died while under police protection in a hospital.
Legal Issues:
Whether the death of a detainee under protective custody due to neglect constitutes custodial death.
Extent of state’s duty of care toward those under its custody or protection.
Judgment:
The Court ruled that state custody extends to any situation where the individual’s liberty is restricted by state control.
The State was held liable for negligence leading to Nanda Prasad’s death.
The Court reiterated that the State cannot escape responsibility for deaths occurring under its watch, even from medical neglect.
Significance:
Broadened the definition of custodial death to include death in protective or medical custody.
Emphasized positive obligations of the State to protect life, not merely refrain from abuse.
6. Arjun Bahadur Lama Case (Supreme Court, 2016)
Facts:
Lama, a teacher, was abducted and killed by Maoist cadres in 2005.
The government failed to investigate for years, citing the ongoing transitional justice process.
Legal Issues:
Whether the State can delay justice for custodial or conflict-related deaths under transitional justice mechanisms.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that transitional justice cannot override the obligation of criminal accountability for custodial deaths.
Ordered the government to register criminal cases and prosecute the perpetrators.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that State responsibility for custodial deaths cannot be deferred.
Established that reconciliation does not negate criminal prosecution in cases of unlawful killings.
7. Bhaktapur Prison Deaths Case (Supreme Court, 2018)
Facts:
Two prisoners died inside Bhaktapur Prison under suspicious circumstances.
Prison authorities claimed natural causes; families alleged beatings by guards.
Legal Issues:
Whether the State has a duty of care toward convicted prisoners.
Applicability of the constitutional right to life to convicted individuals.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that prisoners retain their right to life and dignity even while serving sentences.
The Court ordered independent investigation and compensation to the families.
Significance:
Affirmed that state responsibility extends to all persons deprived of liberty, including convicted prisoners.
Recognized custodial death as a violation of both constitutional and human rights.
⚖️ Judicial Principles Established
| Principle | Judicial Interpretation | Key Cases |
|---|---|---|
| State Responsibility | The State is liable for any death occurring in custody unless proven otherwise. | Ram Kumar Bhandari, Govinda Prasad Nepal |
| No Immunity for State Agents | Army or police personnel cannot claim immunity for custodial deaths. | Maina Sunuwar Case |
| Duty to Investigate | Failure to investigate custodial death itself is a continuing violation. | Krishna Prasad & Nanda Prasad Adhikari |
| Right to Life in Custody | Prisoners retain their right to life and humane treatment. | Bhaktapur Prison Deaths Case |
| Obligation to Compensate | The State must provide compensation and prosecute offenders. | Govinda Prasad Nepal, Arjun Lama |
| Judicial Oversight | Courts may direct independent investigation when police are implicated. | Ram Kumar Bhandari, Maina Sunuwar |
đź•Š Conclusion
Nepal’s judiciary has developed a strong jurisprudence on custodial deaths and state responsibility, interpreting them through both constitutional and international human rights lenses. Key takeaways include:
Custodial death = violation of right to life and human dignity.
State accountability is automatic once custody is established.
Military and police officers have personal criminal liability for custodial killings.
Failure to investigate or prosecute is itself a constitutional breach.
Victims’ families are entitled to justice, compensation, and truth.
RELATED Blog
comments