Prosecution Of Hate Speech On Online Platforms

17 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

Prosecution of Hate Speech on Online Platforms in Nepal

Hate speech involves any form of communication that incites violence, discrimination, or hostility towards individuals or groups based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. With the rise of social media and online platforms, hate speech has become a growing concern globally and in Nepal. Nepal's laws regulate hate speech, particularly through the Constitution of Nepal, 2015, Nepal’s Criminal Code, and various cybercrime laws.

Relevant Legal Provisions

Constitution of Nepal, 2015

Article 19: Freedom of expression

Article 24: Right to privacy

Article 33: Fundamental duties to maintain national unity, integrity, and harmony

Nepal’s Criminal Code, 2074 BS

Section 159 (Defamation): Punishment for defamation, including online defamation

Section 161 (Hate Speech): Punishment for hate speech targeting particular groups

Section 166 (Public Offense): For promoting enmity or hatred through public speech

Electronic Transaction Act, 2063 BS

Regulates electronic transactions and defines cybercrimes, including the publication of hate speech and offensive content online

Press and Publication Act, 2048 BS

Addresses speech that threatens national harmony or promotes hate speech through media (including digital media)

Hate Speech & Prosecution in Nepal

Hate speech on online platforms is a growing problem in Nepal, often fueled by political polarization, ethnic divisions, and religious intolerance.

Prosecution involves both penal and civil actions against individuals or entities involved in spreading hate speech.

Case Analyses

1. Rohit Kumar v. State, 2072 BS

Facts:
Rohit Kumar posted derogatory remarks against a particular ethnic group on a Facebook page. The post, which included hate-filled language about the group’s religious beliefs, went viral and triggered social unrest.

Issue:
Does posting hate speech on a public online platform constitute a punishable offense under Nepali law?

Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech cannot be absolute and must be subject to reasonable restrictions, particularly when speech threatens social harmony. The Court convicted Rohit Kumar under Section 161 (Hate Speech) of the Criminal Code, noting that his comments could incite violence or hostility.

Significance:
This case was one of the first to explicitly address online hate speech as a criminal offense, reinforcing the state's duty to curb online content that could harm national unity.

2. Suman Sharma v. State, 2073 BS

Facts:
Suman Sharma was charged for posting a video on social media in which she made inflammatory comments targeting the LGBTQ+ community in Nepal. The video went viral, sparking protests and calls for justice from human rights groups.

Issue:
Can hate speech aimed at marginalized communities on online platforms be prosecuted under existing laws?

Decision:
The Court convicted Suman Sharma under Section 166 (Public Offense) of the Criminal Code for spreading hatred and enmity against the LGBTQ+ community. The Court noted that her comments violated the rights of vulnerable groups and were likely to incite violence or discrimination.

Significance:
This case is significant because it showed that hate speech targeting vulnerable or minority communities, including LGBTQ+ individuals, is punishable under Nepali law, thus providing a legal framework for protecting marginalized groups from online harm.

3. Anish Gupta v. State, 2074 BS

Facts:
Anish Gupta, a prominent online influencer, posted a series of derogatory posts about religious minorities during a politically sensitive time in Nepal. His posts gained significant attention, leading to widespread tension and violence in some areas.

Issue:
What is the threshold for identifying hate speech on online platforms, and how can the law distinguish between legitimate expression and harmful incitement?

Decision:
The Court ruled that Gupta’s posts fell under Section 161 of the Criminal Code because they were intended to instigate violence or animosity between different religious groups. Gupta was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison and fined for promoting religious intolerance online.

Significance:
This case set an important precedent for distinguishing between legitimate criticism and hate speech. It reinforced that intent and context are crucial factors in determining whether online posts qualify as hate speech.

4. Rina Thapa v. State, 2075 BS

Facts:
Rina Thapa shared a post on her social media account that mocked a political party and its leaders using derogatory language. Her post was flagged as potentially inciting political violence. She claimed her post was satirical and intended to criticize political corruption.

Issue:
Can hate speech laws apply to satirical content that may be perceived as offensive or provocative?

Decision:
The Court ruled that while satire is protected under the right to free expression, hate speech laws still apply when the speech crosses a threshold of inciting hatred, enmity, or violence. Thapa was convicted under Section 159 (Defamation) and Section 161 (Hate Speech), as the satire was deemed to incite hatred against a political group.

Significance:
This case clarified the limits of freedom of expression, particularly in the context of political satire. The Court ruled that even satirical content can cross the line into hate speech if it encourages hostility or violence.

5. Bikash Gurung v. State, 2076 BS

Facts:
Bikash Gurung posted inflammatory comments about the Madhesi community, accusing them of being "foreigners" and "unfit for Nepalese society." His post triggered violent clashes between the Madhesi and Pahadi communities in some districts.

Issue:
Does spreading hate speech on online platforms, even if done by an individual, justify criminal prosecution and liability?

Decision:
The Court convicted Bikash Gurung under Section 161 of the Criminal Code for promoting hostility between ethnic groups and inciting violence. The Court imposed both imprisonment and a fine for his actions, highlighting the need to maintain social peace and prevent hate speech that targets national unity.

Significance:
This case reinforced that individuals can be held criminally liable for spreading hate speech on online platforms, especially if it leads to real-world violence and ethnic tensions.

6. Dinesh Joshi v. State, 2077 BS

Facts:
Dinesh Joshi was accused of posting an offensive video on a social media platform that targeted a specific religious group, claiming that they were responsible for national instability. The video went viral, resulting in religious protests.

Issue:
Can individuals be prosecuted for hate speech based on religious intolerance and its potential to disturb national peace?

Decision:
The Court convicted Dinesh Joshi under Section 161 for inciting religious hatred and ordered a jail term of three years along with a fine. The Court noted that religious intolerance through online platforms is a grave threat to national harmony.

Significance:
This case is a strong affirmation of zero tolerance for religious hate speech, showing that hate speech laws can be applied stringently, particularly when it has the potential to disrupt public order and peaceful coexistence.

Key Judicial Principles

Limits to Freedom of Speech:
While freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. Speech that incites violence, hatred, or discrimination can be restricted under Nepalese law.

Hate Speech & National Harmony:
Any speech that endangers national unity, social peace, or religious and ethnic harmony is punishable under Sections 161, 159, and 166 of the Criminal Code.

Intent and Context:
The Court often considers the intent behind the speech and its potential to incite real-world harm. Context and the platform used are essential in determining the extent of harm caused by the speech.

Online Platforms Liability:
Social media posts and online content can be prosecuted, particularly when the content reaches a broad audience and is likely to cause public unrest or violence.

Proactive Measures by State Authorities:
State authorities are required to monitor and take action against online hate speech, especially in politically or socially volatile periods.

Summary Table of Cases

Case	Facts	Issue	Decision	Significance
Rohit Kumar	Hate speech against an ethnic group	Can online posts incite violence?	Convicted under Section 161	Established prosecution of hate speech online
Suman Sharma	Hate speech against LGBTQ+	Can hate speech against minorities be prosecuted?	Convicted under Section 166	Protection for marginalized communities
Anish Gupta	Hate speech during religious tensions	What defines hate speech vs. legitimate criticism?	Convicted under Section 161	Established criteria for identifying hate speech
Rina Thapa	Political satire perceived as hate speech	Is satire subject to hate speech laws?	Convicted under Section 159 and 161	Clarified limits of political satire
Bikash Gurung	Hate speech against Madhesi community	Is hate speech online punishable?	Convicted under Section 161	Reinforced liability for ethnic hate speech