Research On Obscenity, Morality And Penal Codes In Nepal
1. Jitin Limbu Public Protest Case (2018)
Facts:
Jitin Limbu staged a public protest at Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, by partially exposing himself to protest a government policy.
Police charged him under Clause 122 of the Muluki Criminal Code for “vulgar public behavior” and violating public morality.
Legal Issues:
Whether nudity in a public protest could constitute obscenity under Nepali law.
Balancing freedom of expression against public decency and morality.
Decision:
The court held that public exposure intended to shock or attract attention could constitute a violation of public decency.
Limbu was fined, with emphasis on the intent to create public disturbance rather than any sexual intent.
Significance:
Demonstrated that public morality provisions can be applied to protests.
Intent and context were crucial; nudity alone was insufficient to prove obscenity, but public disturbance tipped the scale.
2. Supreme Court — Naga Sadhus’ Religious Nudity Case (2025)
Facts:
A writ petition challenged the presence of naked Naga sadhus at the Pashupatinath Temple during Mahashivaratri, claiming their nudity was obscene.
Legal Issues:
Whether religious nudity constitutes obscenity under Section 121 of the Penal Code.
Balancing freedom of religion against public morality.
Decision:
Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling nudity in religious devotion is not automatically obscene.
Context, purpose, and tradition were key considerations; long-standing cultural practices could not be treated as immoral.
Significance:
Landmark ruling establishing that “obscenity” requires sexual intent or moral corruption, not mere nudity.
Strengthened protection for cultural and religious practices under constitutional rights.
3. 2010 Birgunj Hotel Case — Foreigners Arrested for “Obscene Acts”
Facts:
Five Indian nationals were arrested in Birgunj for performing what was considered “obscene acts” (dancing skimpily dressed in a hotel).
Legal Issues:
Whether acts confined to a private hotel could still violate public morality laws.
Decision:
Arrests were made under local obscenity laws; authorities justified enforcement citing disturbance to social norms and potential public harm.
The accused faced temporary detention and fines.
Significance:
Illustrates enforcement of morality provisions even in semi-private spaces.
Highlights the role of cultural norms in defining “obscene” acts.
4. Digital Pornography & Online Access Policy (2019)
Facts:
Government attempted to block online pornography, citing Section 121 of the Penal Code.
Public debate emerged on whether accessing sexual content constitutes obscenity.
Legal Issues:
Balancing freedom of expression with social morality.
Applicability of obscenity laws to digital media.
Outcome:
Enforcement was inconsistent; policy highlighted tensions between protecting morality and respecting digital rights.
Courts indicated that context, consent, and intent matter when determining criminality.
Significance:
Set precedent for digital-age application of morality laws.
Raised questions about overreach and the subjective nature of obscenity.
5. Child Protection & Obscenity Interface Case
Facts:
A minor was shown sexually explicit material, leading to criminal complaint under obscenity provisions.
Legal Issues:
Whether exposure of minors to sexual material constitutes obscenity.
Protection of children vs. freedom of expression.
Decision:
Court convicted the offender for creating or distributing obscene material to a minor.
Emphasized that obscenity combined with harm or exploitation of minors attracts stricter penalties.
Significance:
Reinforced that obscenity is treated more seriously when it impacts vulnerable groups.
Demonstrated the intersection of morality, child protection, and penal law.
6. Publication of Controversial Erotic Material — Hypothetical/Illustrative Case
Facts:
An author publishes a book with graphic sexual content; complaint filed under Section 121 for obscenity.
Legal Issues:
Does the work have redeeming literary, artistic, or educational value?
Does it tend to arouse sexual desire or corrupt public morality?
Outcome (Illustrative Reasoning):
Court would examine the dominant character of the work, intent, audience, and context.
If determined to be artistic/literary, exemption applies; otherwise, criminal liability may be imposed.
Significance:
Highlights how courts balance artistic freedom with public morality.
Demonstrates the nuanced interpretation required in literary and media cases.
7. Public Nudity During Cultural Festivals
Facts:
Some cultural festivals involve partial nudity or provocative performances. Complaints filed citing obscenity laws.
Legal Issues:
Distinguishing cultural/religious practice from criminally obscene acts.
Outcome:
Courts generally uphold cultural practices if the dominant intent is not sexual.
Enforcement focused on acts with clear sexual arousal or exploitation intent.
Significance:
Reinforces that obscenity is intent- and context-dependent.
Protects cultural expression while maintaining public decency standards.
Key Observations Across Cases
Intent and Context Are Crucial – Obscenity requires sexual intent or moral corruption; nudity alone is insufficient.
Religious and Cultural Practices Are Protected – Courts recognize exemptions for tradition and devotional acts.
Digital Enforcement Is Emerging – Online sexual content is a growing domain for application of morality laws.
Protection of Vulnerable Groups – Exposure of minors or exploitation leads to stricter liability.
Balancing Rights – Freedom of expression and religion must be weighed against public morality.
These seven cases (or case-types) illustrate how Nepalese law interprets obscenity and morality, how penal provisions are applied, and how courts balance legal enforcement with fundamental rights.
RELATED Blog
comments