r/ConstitutionOfNepal

First thanks for taking part in uncomfortable conversation and still being civil if you are here and being civil

second lets clear something in the back of my head I want capital punishment, but something is not 100% in their hence I am asking question

First lets look at rape itself, sex between 2 consented minors is considered rape should capital punishment be imposed even there (hence I hate blanket statement specially when the discussion is this serious)

next rape where victim is not killed ; assumption k huncha bhaney capital punishment is the harshest of the punishment and should only be reserved for the most heinous of crime and I will argue that this does not fit the criteria don't get me wrong I categorize rape as crime against humanity but morality ra philosophy bata aali tada gayara practicality ko barey ni sochnu parcha punishment should not only to be to punish, it should be to protect others from falling to the same victim in future If someone is raping and the punishment for that is the same as murder then why would a criminal leave its victim alive at the very least if the punishment was not harsh enough then the life of victim can be saved (argument in USA's SC don't remember the case though) ........ also in the same category where victim is alive not all the rape is done by strangers there are multiple cases where the criminal is a relative aba if the punishment is death tya aauta family pressure not to tell create huncha denying any kind of justice whereas if the punishment was not so harsh then something could have been done Furthermore capital punishment in this case where victim lives can be linked to patriarchy and many would consider a setback on womens right as well, but that argument makes sense and doesn't at the same time for me so I am not going there

rape where victim is killed like todays case of 3 year old from my stance 100% should be given capital punishment but reality ma tesko ni lafda cha but since we are discussing if capital punishment should be allowed or not logistic and difficulty of it is irrelevant in this discussion

Now coming back to Capital Punishment itself I don't having it has ever reduced rape case anywhere at the very least not that I am aware of ....... Instead, from my perspective and the actual people that work in the field, having strict punishment bhanda ni effective chai having strong capability to catch the criminal chai is a stronger deterrent to stop such crime (there is a big likelihood that you will not commit a crime if you are more likely to be caught then if there were only stricter punishment) look at India they have capital punishment.......proven absolutely useless

Do you remember election time ma Sobita Gautam ko aauta vid was going viral where she said rape is not that serious of a crime and victim can recover and join the society and the outrage surrounding that ....... that is the real issue until society learns to accept victim they will not come out and since they will not come out the criminal will have a short of like insurance to commit the crime

3-4 din bata yo topic is poping up but I can't really reach an conclusion hence sharing thought hope you all keep the conversation civil

[Warning: Not a lawyer, just interested in this stuff, so this may be wrong. Don’t use the information provided here to do stupid stuff.]

I was going through The Electronic Transactions Act, 2063 (2008), and Section 28 made me wonder:

>28. The Controller to have the Access to Computers and data: (1) The Controller shall, if there is a reasonable ground to suspect that provision of this Act and Rules framed hereunder has been violated, have the power to have the access to any computer system, apparatus, devices, data, information system or any other materials connected with such system.
(2) The Controller may, for the purpose of Sub-section (1), issue necessary directives to the owner of any computer system, apparatus, device, data, information system or any material connected with such system or to any other responsible person to provide technical or other cooperation as he/she deems necessary.
(3) It shall be the duty of the concerned person to comply with such directive issued under Sub-section (2)

This immediately made me wonder: What actually constitutes "reasonable ground" under Sub-section (1)? What does it truly mean to "issue necessary directives... to provide technical or other cooperation"? And when Sub-section (3) states that "it shall be the duty of the concerned person to comply" does that mean you can be legally compelled to hand over your password or forced into a biometric unlock if the Controller deems it "necessary"? This felt like way too much unchecked power for the Controller, so I went digging.

Since I am not a lawyer and don’t have time to go through legal mumbo-jumbo, I gathered some sources [Warning: AI Generated]:

>1. Passwords and the Right Against Self-Incrimination
Under Article 20(7) of the Constitution of Nepal, any person accused of an offense has a fundamental right against self-incrimination, meaning they cannot be compelled to testify against themselves.
The Communication of a Fact: The Supreme Court of Nepal has held that the constitutional boundary of self-incrimination turns on whether a police action compels the accused to communicate a fact (which is testimonial and strictly protected) or merely provide a physical sample (which is non-testimonial and not protected).
No Forced Passcodes: Because a phone password or passcode resides in your mind and memory, forcing you to reveal it is considered compelling testimonial communication. Therefore, the government cannot legally force you to disclose your passcode, and you are within your constitutional rights to refuse.
2. Biometrics as Physical Evidence
In contrast, Nepalese law treats biometric unlocking (such as fingerprints or facial scans) differently:
Physical Traces Are Not Protected: The right against self-incrimination does not extend to physical evidence.
Compelled Biometrics: An accused person can be legally required to provide physical and biological samples—such as fingerprints, handwriting specimens, or blood samples—because these are classified as physical traces rather than forced testimonies. Because biometrics are classified as physical identifiers rather than mental knowledge, authorities can, in limited circumstances, legally compel you to provide your fingerprint or face to unlock a device.
3. Judicial Warrant Requirements to Search a Phone
Even if the police successfully unlock your phone (whether through biometrics or voluntary consent), they cannot conduct a search of its contents without a judicial warrant.
Supreme Court Precedent: In the landmark case Advocate Baburam Aryal v. Government of Nepal, the Supreme Court of Nepal established that digital devices—including cell phones, computers, and digital accounts—strictly require search warrants or prior judicial authorization for data extraction.
Privacy Violations: Accessing Call Detail Records (CDRs) or searching a device’s internal data without a court-issued warrant violates privacy protections under Section 297 of the National Criminal Code, 2074 and the constitutional Right to Privacy under Article 28.

What I got from this is that the Controller's (or any state institution's) power has been restricted by Supreme Court precedent and they can't go around digging without warrants. Things that reside in your mind are protected by Article 20(7) (Right Against Self-Incrimination) of the Constitution of Nepal. However, since biometrics are classified as physical identifiers, authorities can force you to provide a biometric scan to unlock a device. Even then, they cannot go around digging through the contents before obtaining a judicial warrant (similar to legal stuff in many other countries).

TLDR: The Mamas probably will ignore the search warrant stuff, but legally speaking, if you want to be sure they don't dig through your device without a warrant, use a password instead of biometrics. Authorities are allowed to compel biometric unlocks, but searching the unlocked device still legally requires a search warrant. If you use a password or "things that reside in the mind," no one can legally force you to reveal it but they can get a warrant to conduct digital forensics on the device and attempt to crack it (similar to legal stuff in many other countries).

Don't use this information to do stupid stuff. I have seen people taking pictures near army bases or sensitive security sites, where the officer on duty asks to go through their phone. In those circumstances, they have reasonable suspicion. If you start yapping about 'your rights' or some shit, they could probably legally detain you and obtain a court warrant. They aren't interested in digging through your personal life, they just want to verify if you took photos of a sensitive facility. Don't play stupid games.

Current Nepalese Legal System treats human beings as property of whichever party is running the government. where law treats people guilty until proven innocent.

They claim restricting foreign investments, controlling prices, and limiting travel serve as compassionate measures to retain national wealth, prevent social harm, and shield vulnerable groups from abuse. They claim that the state must override individual autonomy to ensure "the collective welfare of society".

Any valid legal system must recognize the individual as an independent, rational being who owns their own life and the product of their labor.

The Nepalese state overrides ownership by forbidding a salaried worker from investing their savings in foreign markets to secure their future (Act Restricting Investment Abroad, 1964, Section 3).

It criminalizes the possession and trading of cryptocurrencies, stripping individuals of the choice to protect their wealth through voluntary mediums of exchange (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1962, Section 12).

It bans adult women from traveling to specific countries for employment, legally reducing them to incompetent wards (Department of Immigration directives under the Foreign Employment Act, 2007).

The legal framework assumes guilt by default. It's like they have no conception of "Innocent until proven guilty".

Individuals must prove their harmlessness to a regulator before moving their own capital or their own bodies.

The government systematically punishes productive citizens for their ambition by imposing extortionate taxes on vehicles and banning luxury imports (Export-Import Control Act, 1957, Section 3, and the annual Finance Act).

The state guts the essence of private ownership by freezing land plotting and dictating how owners subdivide or dispose of their legitimately acquired real estate (Land Use Act, 2019, Section 4, and Land Use Regulations, 2022).

Bureaucratic interference does it best to try and block digital platforms under the guise of social harmony, denying individuals the absolute right to consume and associate with chosen information (Telecommunications Act, 1997, Section 47, and Cabinet Directives).

Arbitrary minimum thresholds on foreign direct investment dismantle economic freedom, using force to prevent a willing local entrepreneur from accepting capital from a willing foreign investor (Foreign Investment and Technology Transfer Act, 2019, Section 3).

It mandates trade operations and capping margins at twenty percent, transforming private enterprises into heavily chained servants of the bureaucracy (Black-marketing and Some Other Social Offenses and Punishment Act, 1975, Section 3).

Every one of these statutes forces the citizen to beg for permission before producing or trading.

Constitutional guarantees mean nothing when the daily operational laws systematically violate the right to life, liberty, and property.

https://preview.redd.it/su8jd3f5zj2h1.jpg?width=945&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=340b4eec4c03bd83e8af5ac209d27b1105c6d3b4

Every decade, someone argues that Nepal needs economic reform because it will produce growth, reduce poverty, lift incomes. These things are true. And every decade, the argument dies when a recession comes, or inequality rises, or a politician promises a better distribution of whatever GDP we managed to produce. We start over. The cycle repeats.

Kina? Because the whole thing aproaches it from pragmatic prospective and not pincipled prospective.

Kina? because of this one unexamined premise jun our society embraces as a bramhashatya: A social system must justify itself by what it delivers to the collective. Once you accept that, ofcourse another social system does that more on paper, or that the current one does it unequally then whole thing gets diverted implicitly and feri arko decade ma restart the cycle.

Instead, we need a principled case. Because the moral is the practical.

A principled argument, made and held, changes the ground on which every future political argument stands. Once we establish that each person's productive effort belongs to him by right, every new regulation, every new license, every new fee must defend itself against that standard. The burden of proof shifts. The political class must justify each act of coercive intervention, not assume its legitimacy by default.

Over 2.5 million of us left Nepal in three years. Remittanses now account for nearly 29% of GDP. Each person who left made a judgment: my effort produces a better return somewhere that does not consume it before I see it. That judgment is the principled case stated in action.

Here is an attempt to make a principled case.

• Man's mind is his basic means of survival. Everything each of us needs, every piece of food on the table, every roof over a head, every medicine that works, had to be discovered by someone's mind and produced by someone's effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival. A theory describes a possibility. This describes what is already happening every time any human being stays alive.
• Because this is true, the right to act on your own judgment and keep the product of your effort is not a policy preferrence. It is a condition of existence required by human nature. The Newar merchant who crossed the Himalayas to Lhasa with a caravan of 100 yaks did not need a philosophical argument. He needed two things: a counter party willing to trade, and the freedom to set terms. That right belonged to him because he was a thinking, producing human being. Not because a government granted it.
• Capitalism is the only social system built on the recognition of that right. Every person keeps what they earn. Every trade happens on terms both parties accept. No man or group may use force against another to take what he did't earn. The governent's only legitimate function is to protect this principle, not to manage commerce, not to license your labor, not to extract its share from every productive transaction before you see yours.
• The moral justification for this system does not lie in what it delivrs to "society." It lies in what it is: the only system consonant with man's rational nature, the only one whose ruling principle is justice. If capitalism also happens to produce more wealth than any alternative, that is a consequence of getting the principle right. The consequence is not the justification. The nature of man is the justification.