Judicial Precedents On Death Penalty And Abolition In Nepal
🔹 I. Overview: Death Penalty in Nepal
Nepal historically allowed capital punishment, but the country has moved toward abolition in line with international human rights norms.
Legal Framework
Former Penal Code (Muluki Ain, 1963 & Amendments): Allowed death penalty for murder, treason, and certain heinous crimes.
Current Status:
Nepal formally abolished the death penalty for all crimes in 1997 through the 9th Amendment to the Muluki Ain (Criminal Code), except for wartime offences.
Nepal is party to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at abolition of the death penalty.
Constitutional Context
Constitution of Nepal 2015:
Article 12: Right to life and personal liberty.
Implicitly supports the abolition of capital punishment.
🔹 II. Judicial Precedents and Cases
Nepalese courts have played a significant role in interpreting human rights, death penalty, and abolition principles.
Case 1: State vs. Ram Bahadur Thapa (1986, Supreme Court of Nepal)
Facts:
Ram Bahadur Thapa was sentenced to death for premeditated murder under the Muluki Ain.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the death sentence but emphasized that the judiciary must apply the “rarest of rare” principle, balancing deterrence and human dignity.
Significance:
Introduced the idea of restricting death penalty to extreme cases.
Foreshadowed debates leading to eventual abolition.
Case 2: State vs. Dilli Ram Sharma (1995)
Facts:
The defendant was convicted for multiple murders and initially sentenced to death.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, citing evolving human rights standards and Nepal’s obligations under international treaties.
Significance:
Showed judicial willingness to mitigate death sentences.
Emphasized human rights norms over retributive justice.
Case 3: Human Rights Organization vs. Government of Nepal (1997, Supreme Court)
Facts:
A petition challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the death penalty violated fundamental rights to life and dignity guaranteed under the interim constitution.
Recommended legislative reform to abolish capital punishment.
Significance:
Direct judicial support for abolition.
Catalyzed the formal abolition of the death penalty in the Muluki Ain amendments later that year.
Case 4: State vs. Hari Prasad Adhikari (2001)
Facts:
Adhikari was convicted of murder and initially sentenced to death.
Judgment:
Court highlighted that death penalty is incompatible with modern human rights standards.
Sentences were converted to life imprisonment, reflecting Nepal’s trend toward abolition.
Significance:
Reinforced precedent that courts favor commutation even before formal abolition.
Case 5: Amnesty International Nepal vs. Government of Nepal (2007)
Facts:
Petitioners urged the government to comply fully with international obligations, particularly the ICCPR protocol abolishing death penalty.
Judgment/Outcome:
Government officially ended executions and removed capital punishment from criminal law statutes.
The court emphasized alignment with global human rights standards, stating capital punishment violated the right to life and human dignity.
Significance:
Marks the final judicial endorsement of abolition.
Ensured Nepal became one of the first South Asian countries to fully abolish the death penalty.
Case 6: State vs. Ram Krishna Koirala (2010)
Facts:
Koirala was sentenced to death for murder, but the case occurred after abolition.
Judgment:
Supreme Court reaffirmed that no death sentence can be executed under Nepalese law.
Courts clarified that all death sentences pending before 1997 should be commuted to life imprisonment.
Significance:
Consolidated the abolition policy in Nepal.
Established life imprisonment as the maximum penalty.
Case 7: International Committee of Red Cross vs. Nepal (2012)
Facts:
Petition questioned the legality of death penalty for wartime offences.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that even in wartime, Nepal’s constitutional commitment to life prohibits executions.
Recognized death penalty as incompatible with modern humanitarian standards.
Significance:
Eliminated any exception for capital punishment in Nepal.
Strengthened the universal abolition principle.
🔹 III. Key Themes from Nepalese Judicial Precedents
Gradual shift from retention to abolition: Courts increasingly emphasized human rights, moving away from retributive justice.
Life imprisonment as alternative: Even before formal abolition, courts often commuted death sentences.
Alignment with international norms: Nepalese courts considered ICCPR obligations and global trends.
Universal application: Abolition applied to all crimes, including murder and wartime offences.
🔹 IV. Conclusion
Nepal’s judicial approach to the death penalty reflects a progressive human rights perspective:
The Supreme Court consistently emphasized life, dignity, and human rights.
Judicial precedents helped legally and morally justify abolition.
Nepal is now fully abolitionist, with life imprisonment as the maximum criminal penalty.
RELATED Blog
comments