Prosecution Of Bureaucrats Leaking Confidential Files
Prosecution of Bureaucrats Leaking Confidential Files in Nepal
Legal Framework
Leaking confidential government documents is a serious offense in Nepal, covered by multiple laws:
Muluki Criminal Code, 2017 (Nepal)
Section 176: Criminal breach of trust by a public servant.
Section 183: Unauthorized disclosure of secret government information.
Section 184: Misuse of official information for personal or third-party gain.
Section 185: Sharing classified documents that endanger national security.
Right to Information Act, 2064 (2007)
Protects transparency but restricts disclosure of classified or sensitive information.
Civil Service Act, 2049 (1993)
Public servants are obliged to maintain confidentiality of official documents.
Principles:
Mens rea: Knowledge that the file is confidential and disclosure is unauthorized.
Actus reus: Sharing, leaking, or distributing sensitive documents.
Punishment: Imprisonment, fines, suspension, or dismissal from service; aggravated if national security is affected.
Case Studies
Case 1: Ram Bahadur Sharma v. State (Kathmandu)
Facts:
Sharma, a mid-level bureaucrat, leaked internal government reports about infrastructure projects to a private contractor.
Court Findings:
Documents were classified under Section 183.
Court found clear intent to benefit a private entity.
Legal Provisions Invoked:
Section 183: Unauthorized disclosure
Section 184: Misuse of information for private gain
Sentence:
3 years imprisonment
Fine equivalent to the bribe received
Significance:
Confirms that leaking for personal or third-party benefit constitutes a serious criminal offense.
Case 2: Sita Koirala v. State (Lalitpur)
Facts:
Koirala leaked internal police investigation files to media outlets.
Court Findings:
Media publication compromised ongoing investigations and endangered public interest.
Court emphasized knowledge of confidentiality.
Legal Provisions:
Section 183 (unauthorized disclosure)
Section 185 (endangering public interest/national security)
Sentence:
2 years imprisonment
Suspension from service pending investigation
Significance:
Leaking sensitive investigation files is a criminal offense, even without financial motive.
Case 3: Dipak Thapa v. State (Pokhara)
Facts:
Senior bureaucrat in the Ministry of Finance leaked budget estimates to a stockbroker before official release.
Court Findings:
Insider knowledge misused for financial speculation.
Court held that insider trading based on confidential government info falls under Section 184.
Sentence:
4 years imprisonment
Confiscation of illicit gains
Significance:
Highlights that economic crimes via leaked confidential files attract criminal liability.
Case 4: Anjali Shrestha v. State (Biratnagar)
Facts:
Administrative officer leaked government tender documents to a construction company to influence bids.
Court Findings:
The leak violated competitive bidding rules and caused financial loss to government.
Evidence showed emails sent directly to contractor.
Legal Provisions:
Section 183 (unauthorized disclosure)
Section 184 (misuse of information for third-party benefit)
Sentence:
3 years imprisonment + fine double the estimated loss caused to government
Significance:
Leaks that affect public procurement and state finances are treated as aggravated offenses.
Case 5: Ramesh Acharya v. State (Kathmandu)
Facts:
Acharya, working in the intelligence sector, leaked sensitive national security files to an unauthorized foreign entity.
Court Findings:
Classified files related to border security were intentionally shared.
Court considered the risk to national security severe.
Legal Provisions:
Section 185 (endangering national security)
Section 183 (unauthorized disclosure)
Sentence:
10 years imprisonment
Permanent dismissal from public service
Significance:
Leaks endangering national security attract maximum penalties under Nepalese law.
Case 6: Sunita Gurung v. State (Dharan)
Facts:
Bureaucrat leaked internal census data to a political party before official publication.
Court Findings:
Data release influenced political strategy and compromised neutrality of civil service.
No financial gain but malicious intent demonstrated.
Legal Provisions:
Section 183 (unauthorized disclosure)
Civil Service Act – violation of duty of confidentiality
Sentence:
18 months imprisonment
Disciplinary action: dismissal from service
Significance:
Shows that non-financial, politically motivated leaks also attract criminal liability.
Key Principles from These Cases
| Case | Facts | Sections Invoked | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ram Bahadur Sharma | Leaked infrastructure reports to private contractor | 183, 184 | Leak for personal/third-party gain = criminal offense |
| Sita Koirala | Leaked police investigation files | 183, 185 | Endangering public interest = criminal liability |
| Dipak Thapa | Leaked budget info for stock trading | 184 | Economic crimes via confidential info are punishable |
| Anjali Shrestha | Leaked tender documents | 183, 184 | Public procurement leaks = aggravated offense |
| Ramesh Acharya | Leaked national security files abroad | 183, 185 | National security leaks = maximum punishment |
| Sunita Gurung | Leaked census data to political party | 183, Civil Service Act | Political misuse = criminal + disciplinary action |
Observations
Mens rea (knowledge + intent) is crucial; accidental disclosure may reduce liability.
Motivation affects sentencing: financial gain, political advantage, or national security risk increases punishment.
Severity of offense: National security leaks > Economic/Procurement leaks > Political misuse > Personal misuse.
Penalties: Imprisonment, fines, dismissal from service, and confiscation of gains.
Civil service duty: Independent of criminal prosecution, breach may trigger administrative action under Civil Service Act.
RELATED Blog
comments