Nepal's controversial civil code challenged in the court

Nepal's criminal and civil code, which came into effect recently and curtails press freedom among others, has been challenged in the Supreme Court.

The petition, filed by advocate Yagyamani Neupane yesterday, claimed that various provisions of the Muluki Civil Code, 2017 and Muluki Criminal Code, 2017 which came into effect from August 17 are contradictory to the Nepal's Constitution.

The Office of the Prime Minister and the Council Ministers, the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Federal Parliament, Federal House of Representatives, and Federal Upper House have been made defendants, according to the court sources.

Claiming that the constitution does not prohibit anyone from taking the picture of anyone, the petitioner sought the apex court order to make Section 295 (1) of the Criminal Code which prohibits taking pictures compatible with the constitution. Article 19(1) of the Constitution has ensured the right to take picture of anyone under the rights of the freedom of media.

The petitioner also sought nullification of Section 126 of the Criminal Code, under which begging by beggars for their livelihood has been prohibited, saying it infringes upon the beggars' right to food as guaranteed by the Article 36 of the constitution.

The new code has provisions to fine and jail people who are found begging in the street.

Apart from these, the petitioner also claimed that Section 231 of the Criminal Code which allows taking action against medical doctors needs to be nullified.

The petitioner has asked the apex court to make suitable provisions instead of the current one claiming that this provision contradicts with articles 17(1), 30 and 35 of the constitution. The new code has provision to doctors up to three years of imprisonment in case of death of patient out of negligence, the sources said.

Stressing that Section 119 of the Criminal Code prohibits publicity of prostitution, which has not been criminalised in any existing law. Also, the petitioner has asked the court to nullify it. The petitioner also asked the apex court to make it suitable keeping in mind the public morality and dignity under Article 17(1)(F) and 38(3) of the constitution.

Stating that movable and immovable property are equally important, the petitioner has asked the apex court to transfer both types of property through attorney-in-fact by giving power of attorney as Section 154 of Civil Code has permitted to transfer only the immovable assets by attorney-in-fact in contrary to the constitution, it said.