Research On Environmental Crimes And Penal Enforcement In Nepal
I. Legal & Institutional Framework in Nepal
Before diving into cases, here’s a summary of key laws relevant to environmental crime:
The Constitution of Nepal (2015) guarantees the right to a clean and healthy environment (Article 30) and places duties on the State to conserve natural resources.
The Forest Act, 2049 (1993) and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 2029 (1973) (as amended) criminalise illegal logging, trafficking of forest products, illegal possession of wildlife, destruction of protected areas, etc.
The Environment Protection Act, 2076 (2019) alongside associated regulations governs environmental impact assessments (EIA), pollution control, resource extraction, waste disposal, and holds persons criminally liable for negligent or intentional environmental harm.
The Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017) includes penal provisions for offences that harm public health or environment through negligence or intent.
Institutional mechanisms: The Department of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of National Parks & Wildlife Conservation, Nepal Police Wildlife Crime Control units, and courts (including the Supreme Court) play roles in enforcement and adjudication.
Penalties under these laws vary—ranging from fines, imprisonment, confiscation of goods (timber, vehicles, machinery), suspension of licences, and orders for restoration/clean‑up.
II. Case Analyses
Here are six detailed cases showing how Nepal’s courts have dealt with environmental crimes and enforcement.
Case 1: Illegal Sand, Gravel & Stone Extraction in the Chure Region (Sailendra Ambedkar et al. v. Government of Nepal)
Facts:
Multiple writ petitions challenged large‑scale extraction of riverine materials (sand, stone, gravel) from the Chure (Siwalik) range and export of such materials. The petitions contended that these activities threatened biodiversity, watershed function, and the right to a healthy environment.
Issue:
Whether the State’s policy permitting large‑scale extraction/export of riverbed materials, without proper safeguards or EIA, violated the constitutional environmental rights and whether such actions could amount to “ecocide” under the doctrine of widespread irreversible environmental damage.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court (Constitutional Bench) upheld the petitioners’ claim, characterised the contemplated extraction/export as posing severe ecosystem risk, and ordered a halt to export of sand/stone/gravel until legislation aligned with constitutional safeguards. The Court stressed that even state‑authorised extraction cannot be reckless and must comply with scientific EIA processes, the precautionary principle, and sustainable development norms.
Significance:
Recognises environmental rights as constitutional and justiciable.
Establishes that extraction of natural resources can be subject to penal enforcement (i.e., the Court imposed a preventive order).
Signals that environmental destruction qualifies for severe scrutiny; the concept of “ecocide” was invoked.
Sets normative guidance for resource‑use policy and enforcement in Nepal.
Case 2: Illegal Timber Trafficking and Vehicle Confiscation (Nepal Government v. Vehicle Owner Tej Bahadur)
Facts:
The case involved prosecution of illegal timber trafficking under the Forest Act and logging regulation: a tractor registered in Tej Bahadur’s name was used to transport illegal timber. The issue was whether the tractor owner, who had not personally handled the timber or authorised the use, could face confiscation/sanction.
Issue:
Whether mere involvement of a vehicle in illegal timber transport suffices to hold the vehicle‑owner liable or to justify confiscation without proof of the owner’s knowledge/consent.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court noted that the evidence did not establish that Tej Bahadur knew or consented to the use of his tractor for timber trafficking. The Court held acquittal was appropriate and pointed out that confiscation of property requires proven liability. The Court refined earlier precedents that suggested involvement of vehicle alone suffices.
Significance:
Clarifies procedural fairness in environmental crime enforcement—ownership and knowledge matter in sanctioning.
Guards against over‑broad property confiscation in environmental offences.
Illustrates that timber trafficking is treated as a criminal offence under forest legislation with vehicle/transport elements.
Case 3: Private Possession of Illegal Wildlife Parts – (Kumar Paudel writ petition, 074‑WO‑0807)
Facts:
A writ petition was filed alleging discriminatory enforcement of wildlife laws: poor, marginalised persons were prosecuted for illegal wildlife parts, while wealthy individuals openly flaunted trophies/pelts without action. The petition sought governmental action to enforce confiscation and to investigate private possession of illegal wildlife parts.
Issue:
Whether government was failing in its duty to enforce wildlife‑protection laws equally, and whether private possession of illegal wildlife parts (e.g., pelts, hidden trophies) should be subject to penal seizure and prosecution.
Judgment:
On 30 May 2023, the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the Government (Prime Minister’s Office, Home Ministry, Forest & Environment Ministry) to implement laws fully and consistently; to issue public notice for private collections to be declared; and to investigate illegal possession regardless of social status.
Significance:
Landmark in wildlife crime enforcement: holds state accountable for enforcement gaps and social inequality in application of environmental laws.
Strengthens penal enforcement for wildlife crime (possession, trafficking) and introduces accountability for private trophy‑collections.
Enhances deterrence by high‑level judicial order.
Case 4: Infrastructure Projects in Protected Areas – (Writ Petition challenging Sections 5A & 6(1A) of NPWC Act, 2029)
Facts:
Petitioners challenged amendments which allowed large‑scale infrastructure (roads, hydropower) inside national parks/protected areas under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. The claim was that such amendments contravened constitutional right to environment (Article 30) and eroded protected‑area integrity.
Issue:
Whether statutory amendments opening protected areas to major infrastructure violated environmental protection obligations and whether such acts could be considered environmental crime or trigger penal liability by enabling damaging acts.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court annulled those sections (5A and 6(1A)), holding them inconsistent with constitutional protection of environment and direction that protected areas cannot be opened for arbitrary development without EIA and proper legislative sanction.
Significance:
Confirms that legislative changes facilitating environmental harm can themselves be invalidated.
Reinforces that damage to protected areas is a serious environmental offence.
Provides basis for penal enforcement in cases of harmful developments in protected zones.
Case 5: Summary of Environment‑related Judgments – Fewa Lake Case (Bhagwati Pahari v. PM, DN 10086)
Facts:
Petition challenged a memorandum of understanding for a cable‑car project around Fewa Lake (Pokhara) whose construction threatened lake ecology, heritage area, wild flora/fauna.
Issue:
Whether development impacting a protected water body with ecosystem and heritage significance constituted environmental harm warranting enforcement and penalties.
Judgment:
Court held that the Lake and adjacent ecosystem deserved protection; it required EIA, public consultation, and that rights of environment and heritage must be respected. Orders were given to suspend or regulate the project.
Significance:
Demonstrates enforcement beyond forests/wildlife—waterbody/heritage ecology crimes.
Reinforces environmental crime outside obvious poaching/logging—also includes destructive development.
Case 6: Illegal Sandalwood Trafficking Case (Homnath Adhikari & Others, Rasuwa District)
Facts:
The case addressed illegal trafficking of sandalwood (a forest product) in Rasuwa District; the defendants were prosecuted under forest/trafficking laws. The issue was whether ownership of land plus recovery of sandalwood from that land created liability without proof of consent.
Issue:
How to establish criminal liability for forest product trafficking when items are found in or near defendant’s land but not in control, or proprietorship is uncertain.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that mere land‑ownership did not automatically impose guilt for trafficking; the prosecution must show consent/possession/control. The court insisted on proving the actor's involvement beyond mere proximity or found material.
Significance:
Clarifies burden of proof in environmental crime prosecutions involving forest product trafficking.
Ensures fairness while allowing forest crimes to be prosecuted.
III. Key Observations & Enforcement Trends
Environmental crime is increasingly treated as a serious criminal matter: Logging, wildlife trafficking, illegal extraction of natural resources, development inside protected zones all attract penal sanctions and court oversight.
Judicial activism: The Supreme Court is playing a major role in enforcement by granting writs, setting preventive orders, interpreting constitutional environmental rights, and ordering executive accountability.
Burden of proof & fairness: Courts emphasise proper evidence linking defendants to crime (e.g., knowledge, control, consent) rather than broad liability.
State accountability: Cases (like private wildlife parts possession) hold state agencies to enforce laws equally and address enforcement gaps.
Preventive and deterrent dimension: Orders like halting extraction/export of river‑bed material, annulling harmful statutory amendments, suggest that environmental crime enforcement is not just reactive but also preventive.
Challenges remain: While many legal principles are clear, actual investigation, prosecution, sentencing vary. Enforcement agencies often have capacity issues; local offices may lack resources; coordination across agencies is sometimes weak.
IV. Conclusion
Nepal’s framework for environmental protection is robust; the courts are actively using constitutional and statutory mandates to prosecute environmental crimes and hold both private actors and government accountable. The landmark cases above illustrate the evolution of penal enforcement—from traditional forest/poaching crimes to development‑driven ecological harm, private trophy possession, and resource extraction. Still, effective enforcement depends on strong institutional capacity, evidence‑gathering, and sustained political will.
RELATED Blog
comments