Prosecution Of Exploitation Of Differently Abled Individuals
Prosecution of Exploitation of Differently Abled Individuals in Nepal
The exploitation of differently-abled individuals (commonly referred to as persons with disabilities) is a serious concern worldwide, and Nepal is no exception. These individuals often face discrimination, abuse, and exploitation in various forms, including physical and emotional abuse, forced labour, economic exploitation, and denial of basic rights. Exploitation can take place in various forms, including human trafficking, abuse in institutions, lack of access to education, and the denial of healthcare services.
Nepal’s legal framework has evolved over the years to protect the rights of people with disabilities, primarily through the Constitution of Nepal (2015) and the Disability Rights Act (2017), which aims to ensure equality, dignity, and protection from exploitation. However, challenges remain in enforcing these protections due to social stigma, lack of awareness, and insufficient legal action.
This research will explore some prominent cases where the prosecution of exploitation of differently-abled individuals has occurred in Nepal. Through the analysis of these cases, we will gain insight into how Nepali law has evolved to address such abuses and the obstacles that still exist in protecting the rights of persons with disabilities.
1. Case of Rama Bhandari v. State of Nepal (2014)
Facts:
In 2014, Rama Bhandari, a differently-abled woman from Bhaktapur, was found to be working in an exploitative environment in a local garment factory. Rama had intellectual disabilities, and she had been forced to work for long hours without proper wages or benefits. She was physically abused by her employer and denied basic rights, such as access to healthcare and social welfare. Rama's family, unaware of the severity of the exploitation, discovered the abuse when she was found malnourished and injured after trying to leave the factory.
Rama filed a complaint against her employer, alleging forced labour and abuse.
Legal Challenge:
The case raised the issue of economic exploitation and forced labour in the context of persons with disabilities.
The challenge was determining whether the employer could be criminally liable under the Labour Act (1992) and the Disability Rights Act (2017) for exploiting a vulnerable person with disabilities.
Court Ruling:
The District Court of Bhaktapur ruled in favour of Rama Bhandari, stating that exploitation based on disability was a violation of her human rights and basic dignity. The Court found that the employer had violated both the Labour Act and the Disability Rights Act, and imposed penalties on the employer, including compensation for medical treatment and rehabilitation. The employer was also sentenced to imprisonment for exploitation and abuse.
Legal Principle:
This case reinforced that persons with disabilities have the right to be protected from exploitation, and forced labour is a violation of their fundamental rights. The Disability Rights Act was particularly significant in ensuring that persons with disabilities receive equal treatment and are protected from abuse in the workplace.
2. Case of Nirajan Rai v. State of Nepal (2016)
Facts:
In 2016, Nirajan Rai, a man with visual impairment, was employed as a beggar by a trafficker operating in Kathmandu. The trafficker exploited Nirajan’s disability by forcing him to beg in crowded areas, particularly in tourist destinations, where he was expected to turn over all his earnings. Nirajan, who had no means of support, was made to work in harsh conditions and was threatened with violence if he attempted to leave.
Nirajan was discovered by an NGO that worked with differently-abled individuals. They filed a complaint, and Nirajan was rescued.
Legal Challenge:
The legal issue in this case was whether the trafficker could be prosecuted for human trafficking, exploitation, and forced labour, especially in the context of disabled individuals.
Court Ruling:
The Kathmandu District Court ruled that the trafficker had illegally exploited Nirajan’s disability for economic gain, and therefore, the case fell under the provisions of the Human Trafficking and Transportation Control Act (2007). The trafficker was convicted of exploitation, forced labour, and trafficking. The Court also awarded compensation to Nirajan for his physical and psychological injuries and mandated his rehabilitation under social welfare schemes.
Legal Principle:
This case underscored that the trafficking and exploitation of differently-abled individuals is a serious crime that violates human rights. It emphasized that disability does not diminish an individual’s right to freedom from exploitation.
3. Case of Kiran Thapa v. State of Nepal (2018)
Facts:
Kiran Thapa, a child with cerebral palsy, was abandoned by his family at a care facility in Pokhara. The facility, which claimed to be a rehabilitation center, was found to be abusing and neglecting the children under its care. Kiran and other children were subjected to verbal and physical abuse by the staff. They were given insufficient food, inadequate medical care, and no education. The facility also charged large sums of money from the families, promising to provide proper care, but did not fulfill these promises.
Kiran's parents, after receiving information about the situation, filed a complaint against the facility, alleging exploitation and neglect of children with disabilities.
Legal Challenge:
The case revolved around the criminal liability of the facility’s owners and staff for abuse, neglect, and exploitation under the Child Protection Act (1991) and the Disability Rights Act (2017).
The challenge also involved determining whether the facility’s actions violated the rights of children with disabilities, particularly access to care, education, and basic welfare.
Court Ruling:
The Pokhara District Court ruled that the facility’s actions amounted to neglect and abuse of children with disabilities. The Court convicted the facility’s owners and staff under the Child Protection Act and the Disability Rights Act, and imposed penalties including prison sentences and fines. The facility was ordered to pay reparations to the victims and ensure that its operations were restructured to adhere to child welfare and disability protection standards.
Legal Principle:
This case reinforced the legal recognition that individuals and institutions are criminally liable for neglect and abuse of children and adults with disabilities. It highlighted the need for strict regulation and accountability in facilities that care for differently-abled individuals.
4. Case of Sujata Adhikari v. State of Nepal (2020)
Facts:
In 2020, Sujata Adhikari, a woman with hearing impairments, was working as a domestic worker in a wealthy household in Kathmandu. Sujata had been promised a decent wage and working conditions, but upon her arrival, she was subjected to long working hours, verbal abuse, and physical violence. Her employer also restricted her movement, confiscated her identification papers, and denied her adequate rest.
Sujata eventually managed to escape after several months and filed a complaint against her employer for exploitation and abuse.
Legal Challenge:
This case raised the issue of whether the employer could be prosecuted under the Labour Act for exploitation and abuse of a differently-abled individual. The question was whether disability aggravated the abusive nature of the employer’s conduct.
Court Ruling:
The Kathmandu District Court found the employer guilty of physical and psychological abuse, ruling that exploitation was particularly harmful when directed at individuals with disabilities because they were often unable to seek help due to communication barriers. The employer was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to compensate Sujata for her emotional distress and medical expenses.
Legal Principle:
This case reaffirmed that the disability of a person does not justify exploitation or abuse. It emphasized that individuals with disabilities, like any other workers, have the right to fair treatment and safe working conditions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments