The Bombay High Court has ordered a Rs 25,000 fine on anyone caught flying kites using nylon manjha, calling it a serious threat to human life and animals. Vendors selling the banned thread will face a hefty Rs 2.5 lakh penalty, with police officers also being held accountable for enforcement failures.
The Bombay High Court has strongly questioned the State authorities for failing to effectively stop the manufacture, sale and use of nylon manjha, a dangerous kite-flying thread that has repeatedly caused serious injuries and deaths to people, birds and animals due to its sharp edges.
In two separate orders passed by its Aurangabad and Nagpur benches, the High Court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the casual and ineffective manner in which the authorities have been handling the issue, despite an existing ban on nylon manjha.
While hearing a suo motu public interest litigation, the Aurangabad bench, in its order dated January 9, made serious observations on the impact of administrative failure. It noted that the continued inaction of authorities has serious constitutional consequences.
The bench said,
“This continued failure of governance directly impacts the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The danger posed by nylon manja is not confined to human beings alone; it results in horrific injuries and deaths of birds and other living creatures, whose protection flows from the constitutional mandate under Articles 48A and 51A(g),”.
The Court highlighted that every year, multiple incidents are reported where people suffer grievous injuries or even lose their lives due to nylon manjha, yet there has been no sustained effort to stop its use at the source.
It pointed out that enforcement action usually intensifies only after major incidents or court hearings, and then quickly fades away.
The Aurangabad bench strongly criticised this pattern of governance, observing,
“Whenever a serious incident is reported in the media or the matter is listed before this Court, assurances are tendered, raids are conducted and so-called special drives are undertaken. Once the immediate spotlight fades, enforcement recedes into inertia.”
Calling such an approach unacceptable, the bench described it as “episodic, reactive, and ritualistic”, and said that merely catching small vendors or users does not solve the problem.
It made it clear that
“Merely prosecuting petty vendors or users does not discharge this obligation.”
The Court further expressed concern over the complete lack of action against the larger and more powerful players involved in the illegal trade.
It noted,
“There is little or no evidence of action against manufacturers, bulk suppliers, wholesalers, financiers or organized networks engaged in this clandestine trade,”.
The Aurangabad bench also took note of the fact that nylon manjha continues to be freely available on online marketplaces and social media platforms. It observed that ignoring online sales in today’s digital economy makes enforcement meaningless.
In this context, the Court stated,
“The State cannot plead helplessness on the ground of technological complexity; rather, it must proactively deploy technical expertise and exercise its statutory powers against intermediaries operating within its jurisdiction,”.
It further criticised the affidavits filed by the State and local authorities, saying they were repetitive and vague, without showing any real, intelligence-based or technology-driven enforcement on the ground.
As a result, the Aurangabad bench directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to immediately set up a State-level Special Task Force to deal with offences related to the manufacture, storage, sale, online promotion and use of nylon manjha.
It also ordered the State Government to create a victim compensation fund and frame a policy to deal with future injury claims arising from manjha-related incidents within four weeks.
The Court issued a clear warning that continued non-compliance or merely symbolic action would lead to strict orders, including fixing personal responsibility on senior officers.
Meanwhile, the Nagpur bench of the High Court passed even stronger directions in a suo motu PIL initiated in 2021 based on newspaper reports highlighting repeated injuries caused by nylon manjha. In its order dated January 12, the bench noted that despite repeated court directions and enforcement drives, the illegal use of nylon manjha continues unabated.
Observing that the absence of a specific statute or regulation has made enforcement difficult, the bench said,
“In absence of any statute or regulation framed by the State Government in this regard the authorities are also facing difficulties to some extent to deal with this serious issue,”.
The judges further noted that the problem has remained unchanged for years despite frequent media reports of deaths and injuries. Expressing frustration, the Court observed,
“Despite this, there is no change in the situation which prompted this court to adopt a different mode and thereby impose deterrent punishment by way of fine,”.
To send a strong message, the Nagpur bench directed that any person caught flying a kite using nylon manjha would have to pay a fine of ₹25,000. In cases involving minors, the fine will be recovered from their parents. The Court further ordered that any vendor found storing or selling nylon manjha would be liable to pay a fine of ₹2.5 lakh.
The bench also warned that police officers would be held personally accountable for future incidents. It directed,
“If any untoward incident because of nylon manja is reported, the concern Police Officer of that zone or area, within whose jurisdiction such incident is reported, shall be served with the notice by the Commissioner of Police/ Superintendent of Police as to why the action shall not be taken against such Officer for not performing the duties diligently in compliance with the orders of this Court. Such matter shall be reported to this Court alongwith action taken against such officer,”.
The Nagpur bench made it clear that accountability would not stop at lower levels and that failure to enforce the Court’s directions would invite strict consequences.
In the Nagpur matter, Advocate N Jadhav appeared as amicus curiae, while Additional Government Pleader SM Ukey represented the State. Advocate JB Kasat appeared for the Nagpur and Amravati Municipal Corporations.
Advocate MI Dhatrak represented the Chandrapur Municipal Corporation and the Bhandara and Gondia Municipal Councils. Advocate SA Sahu appeared for the Superintendent of Nagpur Rural Police, Advocate SS Sanyal for the Gadchiroli Police, and Advocate CB Dharmadhikari for the District Collector, Amravati.
In the Aurangabad matter, Advocate Satyajeet S. Bora appeared as amicus curiae, Additional Government Pleader SK Tambe represented the State, and Deputy Solicitor General AG Talhar appeared for the Union of India.
Through these strong observations and directions, the Bombay High Court has sent a clear message that the ongoing menace of nylon manjha can no longer be tolerated and that both the State and its officers will be held strictly accountable for protecting human life, animal welfare and constitutional values.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Jana Nayagan
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
