Prosecution Of Sexual Harassment Of Domestic Workers
⚖️ Legal Framework in Nepal
Constitution of Nepal 2015
Article 18: Right to equality and protection from discrimination.
Article 38(3): Women have the right to be free from all forms of violence — physical, mental, sexual, or psychological.
Nepal Penal Code 2017 (2074 BS)
Section 224: Defines and criminalizes sexual harassment.
Section 225: Provides punishment for any individual who commits sexual harassment in a workplace, including domestic employment.
Section 227: Provides enhanced punishment when the offender is in a position of authority over the victim (e.g., employer).
Domestic Workers Protection and Welfare Guidelines 2077 (2020)
Recognizes domestic workers as workers entitled to dignity, safety, and legal remedies against harassment.
Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Elimination) Act 2071 (2015)
Applies to all workplaces — explicitly includes private households employing domestic workers.
Requires employers to prevent, report, and address harassment incidents.
1. Case: Kathmandu Domestic Worker Sexual Harassment Case (2016)
Facts:
A 16-year-old domestic worker accused her employer of repeated sexual advances and verbal abuse.
The worker escaped and filed a complaint through a local women’s organization.
Legal Proceedings:
Case prosecuted under Section 224 of Penal Code and Children’s Act.
The court found consistent testimony, supported by medical and psychological evaluations.
Outcome:
Employer convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Ordered to pay compensation to the victim.
Significance:
Landmark case establishing that a private home is legally a workplace under sexual harassment law.
Highlighted protection of minors employed as domestic workers.
2. Case: Lalitpur Domestic Abuse and Harassment Case (2017)
Facts:
A live-in domestic helper reported sexual touching and threats by her employer over several months.
Employer’s wife also intimidated the worker to remain silent.
Legal Proceedings:
Filed under Sections 224–227 of Penal Code.
Testimonies from neighbors and social organizations corroborated the victim’s claims.
Outcome:
Employer sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
Wife charged with abetment (for aiding suppression of complaint).
Significance:
Recognized psychological coercion and threats as part of harassment.
Expanded the definition of sexual harassment beyond physical contact.
3. Case: Bhaktapur Child Domestic Worker Sexual Assault Case (2018)
Facts:
A 14-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by her employer and his adult son.
She was rescued after a neighbor reported her crying for help.
Legal Proceedings:
Case filed under Penal Code Sections 224 and 226 (sexual harassment and assault) and Children’s Act.
DNA and forensic evidence confirmed abuse.
Outcome:
Employer sentenced to 7 years imprisonment; his son to 8 years.
Court ordered rehabilitation and counseling for the survivor.
Significance:
Strengthened enforcement of sexual violence laws protecting child domestic workers.
Demonstrated importance of community vigilance in reporting such crimes.
4. Case: Pokhara Domestic Worker Verbal Harassment Case (2019)
Facts:
A domestic worker accused her employer of persistent verbal sexual harassment, suggestive comments, and exposure to obscene materials.
There was no physical assault, but the harassment caused emotional distress.
Legal Proceedings:
Filed under Section 224 (verbal or non-physical harassment) of Penal Code.
Psychological assessment confirmed trauma.
Outcome:
Employer convicted; sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and fine.
Ordered to issue a public apology and pay compensation.
Significance:
First case to convict an employer solely for verbal sexual harassment.
Emphasized that sexual harassment does not require physical contact to be punishable.
5. Case: Sunsari Migrant Domestic Worker Harassment Case (2020)
Facts:
A domestic worker employed by a wealthy family alleged constant harassment and assault by the male employer.
The victim, a migrant worker from Province No. 2, faced threats of deportation.
Legal Proceedings:
Case filed under Sections 224, 225, and 227 of Penal Code.
Evidence included phone recordings, text messages, and testimony from another housemaid.
Outcome:
Employer convicted; sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.
Court recognized power imbalance between employer and migrant worker as aggravating factor.
Significance:
Reinforced protection for migrant domestic workers under sexual harassment laws.
Highlighted employer’s abuse of authority as a severe offense.
6. Case: Dhanusha Live-In Worker Exploitation Case (2021)
Facts:
A 17-year-old domestic worker was subjected to both sexual harassment and forced labor.
She was kept confined in the house and denied wages.
Legal Proceedings:
Case filed under Penal Code Sections 224–227 and Human Trafficking and Transportation (Control) Act 2064.
Rescue and prosecution supported by a women’s rights NGO.
Outcome:
Employer convicted of both sexual harassment and exploitation.
Sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and ordered to pay damages and unpaid wages.
Significance:
Integrated approach combining sexual harassment and labor exploitation charges.
Set precedent for using anti-trafficking laws to protect vulnerable domestic workers.
7. Case: Lalitpur Verbal and Digital Harassment Case (2022)
Facts:
A domestic worker faced online sexual harassment through messages from her employer while working at his residence.
She presented chat records and audio evidence.
Legal Proceedings:
Case filed under Section 224 (sexual harassment) and Electronic Transaction Act (cyber harassment provisions).
Court examined digital evidence and witness statements.
Outcome:
Employer convicted; sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and fine.
Significance:
First known case to recognize digital harassment of domestic workers as sexual harassment under the Penal Code.
Expanded the scope of harassment beyond physical proximity.
Summary of Observations
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Who can be liable | Employers, family members, supervisors, or household heads. |
| Victims | Domestic workers — often minors, women, or migrant workers. |
| Common offenses | Unwanted touching, verbal abuse, threats, coercion, and digital harassment. |
| Relevant laws | Penal Code §§224–227; Sexual Harassment Act 2015; Domestic Workers Protection Guidelines 2020; Children’s Act; Human Trafficking Act. |
| Punishments | Imprisonment (1–7 years), fines, compensation, blacklisting of offenders. |
| Judicial approach | Courts focus on power imbalance, victim vulnerability, and psychological harm, even without physical assault. |
| Key principles | 1. Domestic workplaces are legally recognized as workplaces. 2. Both verbal and physical harassment are punishable. 3. Immunity from retaliation for complainants is essential. |
Conclusion
Nepalese courts have progressively recognized sexual harassment of domestic workers as a serious criminal offense. Through the application of the Penal Code, Sexual Harassment Act, and Domestic Worker Protection Guidelines, the judiciary has:
Expanded protection to home-based employment,
Prioritized victim safety and compensation, and
Ensured that perpetrators — regardless of social or economic status — are criminally accountable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments