Prosecution Of Electoral Offences Under Nepalese Criminal Law
Prosecution of Electoral Offences Under Nepalese Criminal Law
The prosecution of electoral offences in Nepal is governed by various provisions of Nepalese criminal law and electoral regulations. Electoral offences undermine the integrity of the electoral process, and the Nepalese Penal Code, as well as election-related laws, provide mechanisms for prosecuting such offences. These laws are designed to ensure free, fair, and transparent elections, protect voters’ rights, and maintain public trust in democratic processes.
Key Electoral Offences in Nepal include:
Bribery or corruption related to elections.
Voter intimidation and undue influence.
False statements or misrepresentation during campaigns.
Election violence.
Unlawful campaign practices.
The Election Commission of Nepal (ECN) plays a key role in overseeing the conduct of elections and the investigation of electoral offences. However, the enforcement of electoral laws remains an ongoing challenge due to political interference, inadequate law enforcement, and limited awareness among the public and electoral stakeholders.
Key Legal Provisions on Electoral Offences in Nepal:
Nepalese Penal Code (2018)
Section 171A: Provides penalties for bribery in connection with elections.
Section 171C: Covers the undue influence or coercion of voters.
Section 174: Provides for penalties related to false statements or misrepresentation during elections.
Election Offenses and Punishments Act (Election Act, 1961)
This Act outlines specific electoral offences, including illegal campaigning, election violence, and illegal contributions to candidates' campaigns.
Constitution of Nepal (2015)
Article 47: Grants the Election Commission the authority to oversee elections and deal with complaints related to electoral offences.
Notable Cases on Electoral Offences in Nepal:
1. Case: Bishnu Prasad Dhakal v. Nepal Election Commission (2013)
Facts:
Bishnu Prasad Dhakal, a candidate for the Constituent Assembly election, was accused of bribing voters during his election campaign. Dhakal allegedly distributed cash and other incentives to voters to secure their support. A complaint was filed with the Election Commission, and after investigation, he was found guilty of violating Section 171A of the Penal Code, which prohibits bribery in elections.
Legal Outcome:
The Election Commission imposed a ban on Dhakal, preventing him from contesting future elections. The case was later taken to the Supreme Court, which upheld the Election Commission’s decision, emphasizing the need to preserve fair electoral processes and impose strict measures to deter electoral corruption.
Significance:
This case illustrates the seriousness with which the Election Commission and the judiciary treat election-related bribery. It also reflects the legal framework's commitment to preventing electoral malpractice and ensuring that candidates do not exploit vulnerable voters.
Challenges:
While the Election Commission acted swiftly, issues of political influence and lack of robust enforcement at the local level remain persistent challenges in combatting bribery and vote-buying in Nepal.
2. Case: Nepal v. Ramesh Kumar Shah (2016)
Facts:
Ramesh Kumar Shah, a candidate in the local government elections, was accused of intimidating voters. Shah allegedly threatened voters with violence and retribution if they did not cast their votes in his favor. The threats were made in the presence of local law enforcement officers, who did not intervene in time to stop the intimidation.
Legal Outcome:
The case was investigated by the Election Commission, which found Shah in violation of the Election Offenses and Punishments Act, specifically the provision concerning undue influence and coercion of voters. Shah was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and fined for election violence.
Significance:
This case highlighted the use of violence and intimidation in local elections, where candidates sought to manipulate or force voters into compliance. The case showed the necessity for stronger law enforcement and increased vigilance by authorities to prevent such undemocratic practices.
Challenges:
This case exposed the weak enforcement of election laws in some regions, particularly in rural areas where traditional power structures often manipulate elections through fear and violence. It also raised concerns over the lack of police neutrality during election seasons.
3. Case: Election Commission of Nepal v. Sunil Yadav (2018)
Facts:
Sunil Yadav, a prominent politician, was accused of violating campaign laws during the Parliamentary election by making false statements about his opponent’s background. Yadav alleged that his opponent had been involved in criminal activities without evidence. This misrepresentation was intended to sway public opinion and discredit his opponent.
Legal Outcome:
The Election Commission investigated the matter and found that Yadav’s claims violated the Election Offenses and Punishments Act, which prohibits the dissemination of false information and slander during election campaigns. As a result, Yadav was disqualified from contesting in the election for a period of five years.
Significance:
This case highlights the importance of truthfulness in election campaigns and the need to prevent false or defamatory statements that can undermine the integrity of the democratic process. The ruling reinforced the Election Commission’s role in monitoring candidates’ conduct during the electoral process.
Challenges:
The case illustrated the difficulty in policing misinformation in an age of social media, where rumors and false narratives can spread quickly and influence voters, making enforcement of such laws more challenging.
4. Case: Nepal v. Umesh Koirala (2020)
Facts:
Umesh Koirala, a candidate in the 2020 municipal election, was accused of illegal campaigning by organizing large gatherings and distributing cash incentives to voters. His actions violated the Election Act, which restricts the use of large public gatherings and bribery during campaigns. The Election Commission received complaints from several voters, and Koirala was investigated for violating these provisions.
Legal Outcome:
The Election Commission fined Koirala and disqualified him from contesting the election for a specified period. The Commission also took strict action against the local election authorities for failing to prevent such violations and failing to report the activities earlier.
Significance:
This case underscores the challenges of monitoring and controlling election spending and campaign practices. Despite the legal prohibitions, candidates sometimes bypass rules by using indirect methods such as large gatherings and campaign incentives to sway voters. The case demonstrates the critical need for stricter enforcement mechanisms and adequate monitoring.
Challenges:
The case reveals the difficulty in regulating illegal campaigning due to the lack of resources and staff within the Election Commission.
It also highlights political interference at the local level, where the integrity of elections can be compromised by powerful local figures.
5. Case: Sujata Sharma v. Election Commission of Nepal (2021)
Facts:
Sujata Sharma, a candidate in the provincial assembly elections, was accused of voter impersonation. She allegedly colluded with several election workers to cast fraudulent votes in her favor. The Election Commission received several complaints from voters who claimed that their votes were cast by others without their knowledge. Upon investigation, it was revealed that a group of election workers had facilitated voter fraud to benefit Sharma’s candidacy.
Legal Outcome:
The Election Commission banned Sharma from running in the next election, and several election workers involved in the fraudulent activities were also prosecuted. Sharma appealed the decision in the Supreme Court, but the Court upheld the Election Commission’s decision, stressing the importance of election integrity and the protection of voter rights.
Significance:
This case was significant because it demonstrated how electoral offences, such as voter impersonation, can severely undermine the trust in the electoral system. The ruling affirmed the need for tight security measures, including voter identification and improved oversight during elections.
Challenges:
Voter fraud remains a concern, particularly in areas with low literacy rates and insufficient voter education.
The case exposed the vulnerability of electoral systems to manipulation by individuals with access to power or influence.
Conclusion:
The prosecution of electoral offences in Nepal is essential to ensuring the integrity of democratic elections. The Election Commission plays a crucial role in investigating and prosecuting these offences, but significant challenges remain, including political interference, lack of resources, and inadequate legal enforcement.
While electoral offences like bribery, voter intimidation, and false campaigning are criminalized under
RELATED Blog
comments