The Bombay High Court has questioned the authorities over their failure to curb the use of nylon manjha, a kite-flying thread that often causes serious injuries to people and animals because of its sharp edges. .By way of separate orders, the Aurangabad and Nagpur benches expressed serious dissatisfaction with the authorities’ actions to prevent the manufacture and use of the thread."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 Aurangabad bench said in an order passed on January 9.Meanwhile, the Nagpur bench on Monday directed that any individual caught flying a kite with nylon manjha must pay a fine of ₹25,000. In case of minor, the amount shall be recoverable from the parents of the minor, it clarified.Similarly, in case any vendor is found with nylon manjha stock, he/she shall be liable to pay a fine of ₹2.5 lakh, the Court further ordered..The Nagpur bench passed the order on January 12 in a suo motu PIL initiated in 2021 on the basis of newspaper reports. A Bench of Justices Anil S Kilor and Raj D Wakode observed that despite many efforts and orders, rampant use of nylon manjha still continues.“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 bench noted..The judges said that every year, people lose their lives or are injured due to nylon manjha and such incidents are often reported in the media. “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,” the Court added.Therefore, it warned that concerned police officers would be held accountable for future incidents. "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 bench said..Similarly, the Aurangabad bench on January 9 recorded serious dissatisfaction with how authorities have dealt with nylon manjha despite a clear ban. In a suo motu PIL, a Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S Venegavkar said, “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.”.The bench called this approach "episodic, reactive, and ritualistic" and criticized the focus on small players saying,“Merely prosecuting petty vendors or users does not discharge this obligation.”The Court called out the conspicuous absence of a serious attempt to dismantle the illegal supply chain. “There is little or no evidence of action against manufacturers, bulk suppliers, wholesalers, financiers or organized networks engaged in this clandestine trade,” the bench said..It also flagged the continued availability of nylon manjha on online marketplaces including social media platforms, observing that the enforcement which ignores the online dimension in today's digital commerce era is plainly ineffective."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 added.The Court also said that the affidavits filed by the State and local bodies were repetitive, generic and lacked any indication of sustained, intelligence-driven or technology-enabled enforcement..Thus, it directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to immediately constitute a State-level Special Task Force to tackle offences involving manufacture, storage, sale, online marketing, and use of nylon manjha.It further ordered the State to create a victim compensation fund and a policy for future manjha-related injury claims within four weeks.The Court cautioned that continued non-compliance or mere "cosmetic compliance" will invite stringent orders, including personal accountability of senior officers..For Nagpur:Advocate N Jadhav appeared as amicus curiae.Additional government pleader SM Ukey appeared for State.Advocate JB Kasat appeared for Nagpur and Amravati municipal corporationAdvocate MI Dhatrak appeared for Chandrapur municipal corporation and Bhandara and Gondia municipal councils.Advocate SA Sahu appeared for Superintendent of Nagpur rural police.Advocate SS Sanyal appeared for the Gadchiroli police.Advocate CB Dharmadhikari appeared for district collector Amravati.For Aurangabad:Advocate Satyajeet S. Bora appeared as amicus curiae.Additional government pleader SK Tambe appeared for State. Deputy soliticor general AG Talhar appeared for Union.[Read orders].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
