Torture Law in Nepal (2026): Constitution Art 22 + Penal Code 2074

Torture by State officials is constitutionally prohibited in Nepal, criminally punishable under the National Penal Code 2074, and civilly compensable under the Compensation Relating to Torture Act 2053 (1996). The three-layer framework — constitutional, criminal, civil — reflects Nepal's commitment as a State Party to the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT), which Nepal acceded to on 14 May 1991. The framework is robust on paper; in practice, custodial torture remains a documented concern, with the National Human Rights Commission and civil society organisations recording cases annually. See our criminal-law practice area for related matters.

This 2026 (2083 BS) practitioner's guide is the file every torture-victim's case is built from: the Article 22 constitutional protection in the Constitution of Nepal 2072, the Compensation Relating to Torture Act 2053 civil-compensation mechanism with its 35-day filing window from the act of torture, the criminalisation of torture by State officials under the National Penal Code 2074 (in force 17 August 2018), the NHRC investigation role, the burden of proof and evidentiary standards, the compensation amounts courts have awarded, and the persistent impunity gap between civil remedy and criminal accountability that practitioners navigate.

Alpine Law Associates — Nepal Bar Council-registered criminal and human-rights law team handling torture compensation claims, criminal complaints against State actors, and NHRC engagement for victims and their families.

Speak with our lawyers today →

What is torture under Nepali law?

Under the Compensation Relating to Torture Act 2053 (1996), torture means physical or mental pain or suffering inflicted on a person in custody by a public official, for purposes including obtaining confession or information, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or for any reason based on discrimination. The definition tracks the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) — Nepal acceded to CAT on 14 May 1991, and the domestic statute was designed to implement Nepal's international obligations.

The defining characteristics are: (i) infliction of pain or suffering — physical or mental, severe enough to amount to torture rather than ordinary discomfort; (ii) by a public official or person acting in official capacity — police, security forces, prison staff, immigration officials, military; (iii) with intent — for confession, punishment, intimidation, discrimination; and (iv) typically in custody or detention, though the Act extends to other situations involving State authority. Ordinary assault between private citizens is not "torture" in the legal sense — it is grievous hurt under the Penal Code 2074. The State-actor element is what distinguishes torture from other violence offences.

Constitutional protection — Article 22 of the Constitution 2072

Article 22 of the Constitution of Nepal 2072 (2015) provides the supreme-law prohibition. The text declares that no person who is detained or held in custody shall be subjected to physical or mental torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and that any act done in contravention shall be punishable by law, with the victim entitled to compensation. The provision is a fundamental right under Part 3 of the Constitution, directly enforceable against the State through writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 133 and High Courts under Article 144.

The constitutional protection has three operational consequences. First, any subordinate law or executive practice authorising torture is void as inconsistent with the Constitution. Second, the victim has a direct constitutional cause of action — they need not wait for parliamentary legislation to claim relief. Third, the constitutional guarantee binds all State authorities — police, military, intelligence services, prison administration, immigration — equally; there is no carve-out for national security or anti-terror operations.

Compensation Relating to Torture Act 2053 — civil remedy

The Compensation Relating to Torture Act 2053 (1996) provides the principal civil-compensation framework. Key features of the Act:

• Cause of action. A victim of torture (or a relative for a deceased victim) may file a compensation petition at the District Court within whose jurisdiction the torture occurred.
• Filing window — 35 days. The petition must be filed within 35 days of the act of torture, or 35 days of release from custody where the victim was detained. This is the single tightest procedural constraint on victims.
• Defendant. The Government of Nepal — the State is the defendant for torture by its officials. Individual officials may be named for criminal prosecution but the civil compensation runs against the State.
• Evidence. Medical examination report, witness testimony, custody records, photographs of injuries, expert opinion on physical and psychological consequences. The Istanbul Protocol (UN-recognised standards for documenting torture) is increasingly accepted by Nepali courts.
• Burden of proof. The victim bears the initial burden of establishing torture occurred while in State custody. Once established, the burden may shift to the State to disprove or justify.
• Compensation amount. Determined by the court based on severity, duration, consequences, medical needs, loss of earning capacity, and dignitary harm. Historic awards have ranged from NPR 1 lakh to NPR 5 lakh; current jurisprudence has trended toward higher awards in egregious cases.
• Departmental action. The court can recommend departmental action against the individual official; the executive is required to consider the recommendation.

Criminal liability under Penal Code 2074

The National Penal Code 2074, in force from 17 August 2018, criminalises torture by public officials as a distinct offence, closing what had been a significant gap in the pre-2018 framework. Under the Penal Code, a public official who tortures a person in custody or under State authority commits an offence punishable by imprisonment and fine — the punishment reflects the gravity of the act, the position of the official, and the consequences for the victim. Custodial torture, torture causing serious bodily injury, and torture of vulnerable persons (children, pregnant women, persons with disabilities) attract enhanced punishment.

The criminal prosecution runs through the National Criminal Procedure Code 2074: First Information Report at the police, investigation, charge sheet by the Attorney General, trial at the District Court, appeal to the High Court. The Office of the Attorney General is responsible for prosecution under the State Cases Act. The challenge in torture prosecutions is structural — the alleged perpetrators are typically members of the same State apparatus that investigates, requiring independent fact-finding which the NHRC and civil society organisations partly fill.

The role of the National Human Rights Commission

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), established under the Constitution of Nepal 2072 Article 248-249 and the National Human Rights Commission Act 2068, has a central role in torture cases. Victims (or anyone aware of the incident) can file complaints at the NHRC; the Commission has investigatory powers — summoning witnesses, demanding records, conducting site visits, accessing custodial facilities. The NHRC investigation produces a report with recommendations to the executive, including departmental action against perpetrators and compensation to victims.

The NHRC's role is investigative and recommendatory, not adjudicatory — it cannot order compensation or impose criminal punishment. But its reports carry significant weight: they are admissible evidence in subsequent civil and criminal proceedings, they shape public-pressure dynamics, and they form the documentary record cited by international monitoring bodies. Filing an NHRC complaint in parallel with the District Court compensation petition is standard practice; the NHRC investigation can support the evidentiary case in court.

The 35-day filing window — the tightest constraint

The 35-day filing window under the Compensation Relating to Torture Act 2053 is the single procedural constraint that defeats most torture petitions. The window runs from the act of torture, or from the date of release from custody where the victim was detained. Where the victim is incapacitated by injury, hospitalised, or under continuing threat from the same State actors, meeting the 35-day window is operationally difficult.

Practitioners pre-position the file by securing medical documentation immediately on release, filing NHRC complaints which create independent record-keeping, and drafting the petition concurrently with medical investigation. Where the 35-day window is missed, the civil compensation route is closed — but the criminal prosecution under Penal Code 2074 and the constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 133 remain available with their own limitation periods. Counsel facing a missed-window case shifts the strategy to those alternative tracks.

Custodial torture — the aggravated category

Torture occurring in custody — police lock-up, prison, military camp, immigration detention — is the most documented and most legally significant category. The State has heightened duties toward persons in custody: protection from harm by State actors, protection from harm by fellow inmates, provision of medical care, access to legal counsel, and contact with family. Custodial torture aggravates the offence under Penal Code 2074 and supports higher compensation under the Compensation Act 2053.

Evidence in custodial cases is structurally challenging: the alleged perpetrators control the custodial facility, the victim is isolated from independent witnesses, and contemporaneous medical examination may be delayed. Effective evidence-gathering requires immediate post-custody medical examination at an independent facility, family interviews recording the victim's condition on release, and where possible the NHRC's site-visit power triggering an independent record. The Istanbul Protocol provides the international standard for medical documentation of torture, and Nepali courts increasingly accept Istanbul Protocol-compliant reports as expert evidence.

The impunity gap — civil compensation without criminal prosecution

The persistent challenge in Nepali torture practice is what the NHRC and civil society describe as the impunity gap: courts increasingly award civil compensation under the Compensation Act 2053, but criminal prosecution of individual State actors under the Penal Code 2074 remains rare. The reasons are structural — prosecution requires the Attorney General to charge officials of the same State apparatus, internal disciplinary processes may resolve cases short of criminal referral, and witness intimidation undermines criminal trials.

Closing the impunity gap was one of the policy goals behind enacting the National Penal Code 2074. The Code's specific torture offence, separate from ordinary assault provisions, was designed to provide a dedicated criminal track. Civil society and NHRC continue to monitor whether the legislative reform translates to prosecution outcomes. For practitioners, the practical approach is to file both civil compensation petitions and criminal FIRs, accept that the civil award is the more reliable outcome, and use the criminal track for cases with stronger evidence and witness cooperation.

International framework — CAT and the Universal Periodic Review

Nepal acceded to the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) on 14 May 1991, accepting the obligations to: criminalise torture, prevent torture by law-enforcement training and oversight, provide effective remedies to victims, ensure prompt and impartial investigation, and provide rehabilitation. Nepal has not yet ratified the Optional Protocol to CAT (OPCAT), which would subject Nepal to international inspection of detention facilities. Nepal also participates in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the UN Human Rights Council, where torture practices are regularly examined.

The international framework supports the domestic regime in three ways: it provides interpretive guidance for Nepali courts construing the Constitution and statutes, it creates external monitoring pressure on the Government, and it provides international civil society and treaty bodies as additional pathways for victims and advocates.

Common evidence and litigation strategies

• Immediate post-incident medical examination. The single most important step — examination by an independent doctor within hours of release, documenting injuries with photographs, measurements, and clinical findings consistent with the type of torture alleged.
• Istanbul Protocol-compliant reports. Where available, retain a forensic medical expert trained in Istanbul Protocol standards. Compliant reports carry significantly more weight in court than ordinary medical certificates.
• Custody records and witness statements. Obtain custody-entry and exit records, statements from fellow detainees, family members who saw the victim before and after custody, and any independent witnesses.
• NHRC complaint as parallel record. File the NHRC complaint promptly to create an independent investigation record that supports the District Court petition.
• Constitutional writ as supplementary remedy. Where the 35-day window is missed or compensation is inadequate, the constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 133 at the Supreme Court can address ongoing violations and structural relief.
• Cross-link with related offences. Where torture results in death or grievous hurt, prosecution under homicide or grievous hurt provisions of the Penal Code 2074 runs alongside the torture-specific offence.

How can Alpine Law Associates help with torture cases?

Alpine Law Associates handles torture cases across the three-layer framework. Our criminal and human-rights law team takes cases from the moment of release from custody — coordinating the medical examination, NHRC complaint filing, preparation and filing of the District Court compensation petition within the 35-day window, and the parallel criminal FIR. We engage Istanbul Protocol-compliant medical experts where appropriate, file constitutional writs at the High Court and Supreme Court for cases involving ongoing violations or systemic patterns, and coordinate with civil-society partners on cases with international dimensions.

For victims' families in death-in-custody cases, we run the case as combined torture plus homicide proceedings under the Penal Code 2074 with parallel civil compensation. As a full-service law firm in Nepal, we coordinate torture work with related unlawful detention, victim protection, and fundamental rights engagements in a single counsel relationship.

Speak with our lawyers today →

Last reviewed: April 2026