Religious Offences in Nepal 2026 — Penal Code Sec 155-158

Article 26(3) prohibits converting another person from one religion to another or any act jeopardising other's religion. Penal Code Sec 158 operationalises this constitutional prohibition.

Up to 2 years' imprisonment plus NPR 20,000 fine under Section 156 of the Penal Code 2074, for words / signs / visible representations deliberately calculated to outrage religious feelings.

Yes, constitutionally. The Preamble and Article 4 of the Constitution of Nepal 2015 describe Nepal as a secular state. However, the constitutional definition of "secular" is narrower than the neutral-state model — secularism in Nepal is defined as protection of "religion and culture being practised since ancient times," preserving the historical religious landscape (predominantly Hindu, with significant Buddhist, Muslim, Kirat, Christian and other communities) rather than treating all religions as equally entitled to growth.

Yes. Section 158 of the Penal Code 2074 expressly provides that foreign offenders convicted under the conversion offence are to be deported from Nepal within 7 days of completing the sentence. The deportation is administrative, executed by the Department of Immigration on referral from the District Court. The deportee may be barred from re-entry permanently or for a stated period. The 7-day rule makes the post-sentence window very tight; engagement with the embassy and pre-sentence planning are critical.

Section 158 covers actively converting another person from one religion to another — through preaching directed at non-adherents, material inducement, social pressure, emotional coercion, or any act intended to result in conversion. The breadth of "any act or conduct that may jeopardise other's religion" extends scope further. Internal religious practice within one's own community is not "conversion." Comparative academic study, journalism and policy commentary are also outside scope. The line between protected expression and prohibited conversion is the principal defence battleground.

Generally no. Section 158 targets converting "another person from one religion to another." Preaching to existing co-religionists in one's own congregation, religious teaching to one's children, internal devotional practice, and community religious gatherings within a recognised denomination fall within Article 26(1) protection. The line is crossed where the activity moves outside the religious community to those who do not adhere to that religion. Charges have been laid where private preaching has had non-co-religionists in the audience, and the defence focuses on audience composition.

Criticism, satire, academic study and policy commentary about religion are generally protected as free expression under Constitution Article 17 (right to freedom of opinion and expression). However, Section 156 of the Penal Code criminalises words or representations made with deliberate intent to outrage religious feelings — this is the boundary line. Reasoned critique falls inside Article 17 protection; deliberately calculated insult or mockery designed to provoke an outraged community response can fall under Section 156. The intent test is decisive.

Charitable activities (schools, hospitals, orphanages, food programmes) run by religious organisations are generally protected, provided the service is delivered without religious conditionality. Where service delivery is conditioned on conversion or expressly used as conversion inducement, Sec 158 exposure attaches. Many Christian and Buddhist organisations operate large education and healthcare networks in Nepal under the protected-service understanding. The Social Welfare Council registration and the underlying not-for-profit framework provide the operational structure.

Increasingly yes. Posts deliberately calculated to outrage religious feelings — caricatures of religious figures, satirical mockery of practices, deliberately inflammatory comparisons — have generated Sec 156 complaints in recent years, particularly during festival seasons. The Electronic Transactions Act 2063 framework also applies to online speech. Defendants face a dual-statute charging. The intent question (deliberate outrage vs commentary / satire) and the audience question (was the post reaching the affected community) are central to defence.

Section 38 of the Penal Code 2074 treats incitement of caste or religious hatred as an aggravating factor that increases punishment for other offences when religious hatred is the motivation. So a violent assault committed in religious-hatred context attracts the base assault penalty plus the aggravation under Sec 38, raising the sentencing band. The aggravator extends across the Penal Code and supplements the specific religious offences in Sec 155-158 with a general motivational aggravator on other crimes.

Section 160 of the Penal Code 2074 criminalises discriminatory treatment on grounds of religion (alongside caste, gender, ethnic origin and other listed grounds). Up to 3 years' imprisonment for the principal offence. The section covers refusal of public services, denial of access to public places, and unequal treatment in employment / education on religious grounds. It complements Article 18 of the Constitution (equality and non-discrimination) and the Caste Discrimination Act 2068. Forum is the District Court.

Defences focus on: (1) absence of intent to convert — the activity was internal religious practice or charitable service without conversion conditionality; (2) audience composition — the addressees were existing co-religionists, not non-adherents; (3) protected expression — the activity was academic, journalistic or policy commentary; (4) consent / voluntary conversion — the convert acted on their own conviction without inducement (though the section's breadth limits this defence); (5) constitutional challenge under Article 26(1) freedom and Article 17 expression. Constitutional challenges have not yet succeeded.

Religious offences are State Cases under the Criminal Procedure Code 2074 — filed at the District Court by the Public Prosecutor (Sarakari Wakil) on Nepal Police's investigation file. The complainant is typically a member of the affected religious community, the local administration, or police on their own motion. The investigation phase can involve search of premises, seizure of religious materials, and interrogation. The District Court trial follows standard criminal procedure; appeal lies to the High Court within 35 days and ultimately to the Supreme Court on points of law.

The NHRC investigates religious-freedom complaints under its constitutional mandate (Article 248-249). Where a defendant alleges that a Sec 158 charge violates Article 26(1) protection or that police conduct breached fundamental rights, the NHRC can investigate and issue a report. The NHRC report does not bind the criminal court but is influential and can be cited in appeals. NHRC also receives complaints from religious minorities about systemic enforcement patterns and reports to government on policy. The NHRC has flagged concerns about Sec 158 enforcement in recent years.

A constitutional challenge to Section 158 would need to argue inconsistency with Article 26(1) (freedom of religion) and Article 17 (freedom of expression). The argument runs that Article 26(3) authorises a narrow prohibition on actual coercive conversion, but Section 158's "any act or conduct that may jeopardise other's religion" exceeds that authority. No such challenge has succeeded to date; the Supreme Court has not ruled the section unconstitutional. Civil-society organisations and international bodies have flagged the case for repeal, but the political consensus around the section has remained stable.

Nepal does not have a statute formally called "blasphemy law," but Section 156 of the Penal Code 2074 — outraging religious feelings — functions practically as a blasphemy provision. CSW and the ICJ have compared Sec 156 to Pakistan and Bangladesh blasphemy laws, particularly given the lower threshold of "outraging feelings" rather than direct insult. Section 156 prosecutions are less frequent than Sec 158 cases but have been used against social-media speech, comedians, and journalists in recent years. Defence focuses on the intent and audience requirements.

The Penal Code 2074 limitation schedule applies, with the specific period depending on the section and the maximum penalty. Sources cite a 3-month complaint window for religious offences under Section 159 of the Penal Code framework, which would be shorter than many other criminal offences. Consult counsel for the precise limitation applicable to a specific charge; the question of when the offence is "discovered" by the complainant (particularly for ongoing proselytisation) affects the running of the limitation.

Wrongful Sec 158 accusations — driven by family disputes, community friction, or political pressure — do occur. The defence focuses on the absence of conversion activity, the protected nature of the underlying conduct (internal religious practice, charitable service), and the absence of inducement. Documentation of the activity (event attendance lists, content of preaching, charitable-service records), witness statements from genuine attendees, and the religious organisation's policy documents help disprove the charge. Engage counsel immediately on any police contact.

Immediately on contact from the Nepal Police in any religious-offence investigation — Sec 158 charges escalate quickly, particularly for foreign nationals facing the 7-day deportation rule. Also where a social-media post has drawn a Sec 156 complaint; where damage to a worship place has occurred and a Sec 155 charge is being assembled; and where institutional or community-level disputes around religious practice are running. A lawyer engages with the public prosecutor, the District Court, the embassy (for foreign nationals), and the NHRC where fundamental-rights issues are at stake.