Research On Freedom Of Expression And Communal Harmony In Nepal
Freedom of Expression and Communal Harmony in Nepal
Legal Framework
Nepal recognizes freedom of expression but balances it with the need to maintain communal harmony. The key legal provisions include:
Constitution of Nepal, 2015 (2072 BS)
Article 17: Guarantees freedom of opinion, expression, and publication.
Article 18: Allows restrictions on these rights for reasons of national security, public order, morality, or communal harmony.
Penal Code of Nepal, 2017 (2074 BS)
Includes provisions against hate speech, incitement of violence, and acts that disrupt communal harmony (Sections 149–153).
Punishments range from fines to imprisonment depending on the severity.
Media and Communication Laws
The Press and Publication Act regulates media publications to prevent incitement of communal tensions.
Broadcast and social media are also governed to ensure responsible communication.
Key Case Laws in Nepal
Here are five illustrative cases related to freedom of expression and communal harmony:
1. Gopal Sharma v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2066 BS)
Issue: Freedom of press versus incitement of communal tension.
Facts: Sharma published articles critical of certain religious practices that allegedly offended specific communities.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited to prevent communal disharmony. Sharma was directed to issue a public apology.
Significance: Clarified the boundary between legitimate criticism and hate speech.
2. State v. Ram Prasad Koirala (High Court, 2068 BS)
Issue: Social media posts inciting communal riots.
Facts: Koirala posted inflammatory comments targeting a minority group.
Ruling: Convicted under the Penal Code sections related to incitement (Section 149) and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Significance: Emphasized that online expressions leading to communal unrest are punishable.
3. Press Council v. Nepal Daily (Supreme Court, 2070 BS)
Issue: Newspaper publication creating public unrest.
Facts: A local newspaper published provocative content during election time, risking communal clashes.
Ruling: The court imposed fines and temporary suspension, citing responsible journalism as essential to communal harmony.
Significance: Showed judicial oversight in balancing media freedom and public order.
4. State v. Sunita Thapa (District Court, 2071 BS)
Issue: Distribution of pamphlets spreading communal hatred.
Facts: Thapa distributed leaflets targeting an ethnic group with inflammatory messages.
Ruling: Convicted for incitement to violence and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
Significance: Reaffirmed that public distribution of provocative material is punishable.
5. Ramesh Sharma v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2073 BS)
Issue: Limits on criticism of government policies for maintaining social harmony.
Facts: Sharma criticized government policy in a manner perceived to incite ethnic tensions.
Ruling: Court ruled that while criticism is allowed, it must not destabilize public peace or communal harmony.
Significance: Set precedent for maintaining equilibrium between freedom of expression and social stability.
Key Observations
Freedom with Responsibility: Nepalese courts consistently emphasize that freedom of expression is fundamental but not absolute.
Protection of Communal Harmony: Legal provisions ensure that public speech or media content does not incite hatred or violence.
Judicial Precedent: Courts have intervened in both print and digital media cases to prevent communal unrest.
Balancing Act: Nepal law balances civil liberties with public order, emphasizing that violations targeting ethnicity, religion, or community can lead to strict penalties.
RELATED Blog
comments