Child labor exploitation in the state MP's house overshadowed by social media battle

There are two cases in the background of this 'virtual war' in which the Supreme Court's order is also attached and the ruling party UML is accused of obstructing its implementation.

UML's Lumbini state assembly member Rekha Kumari Sharma rescued a girl from the house of the city because of labor exploitation. And, the metropolis also filed a petition with the police to investigate and arrest Sharma for the crime of enslaving children. However, after Sharma was not arrested, Kathmandu Mayor Shah made an angry comment on social networking site Facebook saying that UML had interfered in it. On the complaint of UML that the comment was indecent, Facebook removed it from the network.

On Wednesday, he wrote in opposition to that, "Don't blow up the post, hold the government accountable." If I am wrong, catch me, if not, catch me guilty.

Even after he wrote this, the 'war' between him and Oli's supporters on social media is still going on. Some are even predicting that the abuse, vulgar comments and unfollowing campaigns are obscuring the root issue of child labor exploitation. After all, what are the facts and background of the allegations against Shah? To understand this, it is necessary to look at the events from the second week of last May.

On May 14, Kathmandu Metropolitan City rescued a 14-year-old girl based on complaints of torture, beating and child labor. Before rescuing him, the intern student of the metropolis had filled out a form to analyze the situation and data of children living in the homes of people other than their parents and relatives in the school where he was studying. While filling the form, the girl studying in class 7 revealed that she was hired by MP Sharma as a domestic worker, she used to cook food, wash clothes, do flower garden gardening, sweep/mop and Sharma used to beat her with hand and pipe. She also disclosed that she has been working in Sharma's house since she was unconscious and Sharma was entrusted to her house with the guarantee of upbringing and education by her parents. She revealed in the Supreme Court that the girl did not meet her parents for the next 6 years.

The girl also disclosed that once Sharma threatened her by saying that she would 'burn her mouth' for spoiling her work. The girl was rescued by a team sent from the metropolis after complaining that Sharma made her work at home and beat her.

After being rescued, the city kept the girl in a protection home. The family wanted to take over the girl who was in the protection home of the metropolis. But the girl refused to stay with the family. Meanwhile, on May 27, the girl's father filed a writ of custody in the Supreme Court with the demand that she should be taken into custody against the metropolis saying that she was being held hostage in a shelter.

On June 30, the metropolis filed a complaint against UML MP Sharma at the District Police Complex Teku on the allegation of torturing the girl. In the report given by Shanta Pahari, the child welfare officer of the metropolis, Sharma employed a minor as an offense under subsection 2 (e) of section 66 of the Children Act 2075 and an offense under section 163 of the Civil Code, 2074. It has been demanded that the punishment should be according to the accusation of the crime of enslavement.

Section 66 of the Children's Act, subsection 2 (e), makes it an offense to "inflict physical injury or harm, terrorize or threaten, disdain, neglect, discriminate, exclude or hate, isolate or inflict mental pain". Those who commit such an offense can be fined up to 50,000 rupees and imprisoned for up to one year.

Similarly, in Section 163 of the Criminal Code, 2074, it is written that 'no one shall make or cause any person to be a slave or servant, keep him in such a position, employ him or do any other similar behavior'. It is written in the act that those who commit such an offense will be imprisoned for five to ten years and fined from 50 thousand to 1 lakh rupees.

Mahanagara has insisted that Sharma should be punished both times. Thus, MP Sharma took an injunction order from the Patan High Court, Lalitpur on May 31 last, fearing that he would be arrested after the metropolis filed a petition against him. The High Court issued an order not to arrest MP Sharma without reason.

Judges Kumar Chudal and Sunil Kumar Pokharel differed on whether to issue or dismiss the writ of custody issued by the girl's father in the Supreme Court. The joint bench of Chudal and Pokhareldway called the girl in the bench and interrogated her before passing the order on June 9. During interrogation, she told that she was treated inhumanely in Sharma's house. It was said that she agreed to stay in the protection home without going with her father as she did not know her father, who had never come to meet her since leaving her at Sharma's house.

Based on all these cases and facts, Judge Pokharel said that it is appropriate to keep her in a protection home according to her wishes for the greater good of the girl, and Judge Pokharel gave an opinion that the writ should be dismissed. Chudal said, he had ordered that the writ should be issued saying that the girl should be sent to her father. After the order conflicted between the two, the writ for Chinofano went to the full bench. Accordingly, on June 28, the joint bench of Judges Sapna Malla Pradhan, Nahkul Subedi and Tek Prasad Dhungana ordered that since the writ petitioner came to the court to take custody of the daughter herself, they cannot be deprived of the right to take custody of the daughter. However, since the girl has stated that she wants to complete her studies in a protection home and not with her parents, the order was issued that until she becomes an adult, her education should be arranged according to her wishes and best interests.

After the Supreme Court's order, on 23rd July, the Patan High Court cleared the way for investigation by saying that the claim in the injunction writ petition of MP Sharma was not sufficient. After the verdict of the Supreme Court and Patan Court, the Kathmandu Metropolitan City sent a letter to District Police Complex, Kathmandu on August 9 to bring MP Sharma under the scope of investigation. But the metropolis has accused the police of not showing interest in the investigation even after a long time has passed since the decision of the Supreme Court and Patan.

SP Navraj Adhikari, Spokesperson of District Police Complex, Kathmandu, has responded that the police have not failed in the investigation and are proceeding with the investigation in accordance with the law. 'We are investigating, the police have not failed in the investigation,' he said, 'the police are doing their job, there is no error in the investigation.' are He said that even though UML did not get permission from the court to arrest MP Sharma and conduct further investigation, they are proceeding with the investigation in accordance with the law.

We haven't received permission to arrest yet. Even if no arrests have been made, we are proceeding with the investigation in accordance with the law," says the SP officer. "There is no bias in this matter.

In the meantime, Balendra Sah, head of Kathmandu Metropolitan City, posted on social media X accusing UML and police to protect MP Sharma. Metropolitan Chief Shah also took a swipe at Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli for having to remove the post later.

Dheeraj Joshi, head of Kathmandu Metropolitan City, head of Balendra Shah Secretariat, has accused the police of delaying the investigation against the parliamentarian and the political party is protecting the accused.

After the cancellation of the writ, the investigation against the MP has not happened. There is pressure from political parties to stop the investigation," he says. "We are not asking for arrest and detention. Advancing research means Shouldn't MPs go to the police and investigate?'

Although there is no request or bias from the mayor of any political party, he admits that the maximum controversy is with the UML. He said that after the Supreme Court's order, on July 2, the girl's parents had already filed a document to be under the protection of the metropolis. He said that there were two advocates who debated with the metropolis as the opposition.

'What the child's parents told us is that raising children is difficult. He said he will give it to the city. Now the problem is that the Supreme Court has entered into this case. The High Court has said that the claim is not enough to say that it is not a crime,' he said, 'Orally, we have repeatedly asked the head of the metropolis, the secretariat to proceed with the investigation. But the response comes from the police that we are watching and we are working.