Bombay High Court Cracks Down on Nylon Manjha: Heavy Fines Imposed to Protect Lives and Wildlife Under Article 21

Introduction

In a bold move to address the persistent threat posed by nylon manjha—the sharp, synthetic kite strings responsible for numerous injuries, deaths, and environmental harm—the Bombay High Court has issued stringent directives through its Aurangabad and Nagpur benches. On January 9, 2026, the Aurangabad bench, comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, lambasted the Maharashtra government's "continued failure of governance" for undermining the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Just days later, on January 12, 2026, the Nagpur bench, led by Justices Anil S. Kilor and Raj D. Wakode, escalated enforcement by imposing immediate fines of ₹25,000 on individuals caught using nylon manjha (recoverable from parents if involving minors) and ₹2.5 lakh on vendors stocking it. These orders, stemming from separate suo motu public interest litigations (PILs) initiated in 2021 based on media reports of tragic incidents, underscore the court's frustration with superficial state efforts and aim to dismantle the illegal supply chain. The rulings not only heighten penalties but also mandate special task forces, victim compensation funds, and accountability for police officers, signaling a zero-tolerance approach ahead of festivals like Makar Sankranti where kite-flying peaks.

This dual-bench intervention highlights the intersection of public safety, environmental protection, and constitutional duties, potentially setting a precedent for proactive judicial oversight in non-statutory bans. By integrating constitutional mandates under Articles 48A (environmental protection) and 51A(g) (duty to protect wildlife), the court has elevated the nylon manjha issue from a seasonal nuisance to a fundamental rights violation, urging authorities to move beyond "episodic, reactive" measures.

Case Background

The cases originated as suo motu PILs triggered by recurring newspaper reports of accidents involving nylon manjha, a glass-coated synthetic thread banned in Maharashtra since 2012 due to its razor-like edges that sever power lines, injure two-wheeler riders, and entangle birds and animals. The Nagpur PIL (Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation No. 1 of 2021) was filed in 2021 against the State of Maharashtra and various respondents, including police commissioners, municipal corporations, and district collectors. Similarly, the Aurangabad proceedings arose from cognizance of injuries and fatalities, with the bench noting that "reported cases represent only a fraction of actual harm caused."

Key parties include the State of Maharashtra as the primary respondent, represented by Additional Government Pleaders like S.M. Ukey (Nagpur) and S.K. Tambe (Aurangabad). Amicus curiae advocates such as N. Jadhav (Nagpur) and Satyajeet S. Bora (Aurangabad) assisted the court, while representatives from municipal bodies (e.g., Advocates J.B. Kasat and M.I. Dhatrak for Nagpur entities) and the Union government (Deputy Solicitor General A.G. Talhar) appeared. No traditional appellant-respondent dynamic exists, as these are court-initiated matters, but the state and local authorities defended their enforcement actions.

The disputes escalated annually during kite-flying seasons, with media highlighting incidents like two-wheeler riders suffering grievous cuts, birds dying from strangulation, and even fatalities from severed wires. Despite repeated court orders since 2021—demanding raids, awareness campaigns, and supply chain disruptions—the benches observed unabated violations. The legal questions centered on: (1) Whether administrative inaction constitutes a breach of Article 21's right to life and personal liberty; (2) The efficacy of non-legislative measures like fines and task forces in enforcing bans absent specific statutes; and (3) The state's obligation to protect humans, birds, and animals under constitutional environmental provisions. Timeline-wise, the Nagpur matter saw a pivotal order on December 24, 2025, proposing initial fines, followed by public notices and suggestions, culminating in the January 12 ruling. The Aurangabad case, listed periodically, reached a flashpoint on January 9 amid pre-Makar Sankranti concerns.

Arguments Presented

Given the suo motu nature, arguments were not adversarial but focused on the state's compliance reports versus the court's scrutiny of their inadequacy. In the Aurangabad proceedings, the state and local authorities submitted affidavits detailing "special drives" and raids during festivals, claiming challenges due to the lack of dedicated legislation. They argued that enforcement was hampered by the clandestine nature of manufacturing and online sales, with assurances of inter-departmental coordination and public awareness. However, the bench dismissed these as "repetitive and generic," pointing to a pattern of "assurances tendered... once the immediate spotlight fades, enforcement recedes into inertia." Amicus curiae Advocate Satyajeet S. Bora likely emphasized the human and ecological toll, urging sustained action against upper supply chain tiers.

In the Nagpur PIL, respondents like the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and police authorities highlighted difficulties without statutory backing, noting that previous orders had led to some seizures but not deterrence. Advocate N. Jadhav, as amicus, probably advocated for innovative penalties to fill the legislative void. The state contended that annual media-highlighted incidents prompted reactive measures, but the bench countered that "despite this, there is no change in the situation," justifying deterrent fines. Public suggestions post-December 2025 notices varied—some called for reduced fines or imprisonment—but none opposed imposition, reinforcing the court's view that parental responsibility and vendor accountability were essential. Factual points included yearly deaths/injuries to humans, birds, and strays, with the court stressing that ignorance of the ban is no defense.

Overall, the "arguments" revealed a gulf: authorities portrayed a resource-constrained, well-intentioned effort, while the court viewed it as "episodic, reactive, and ritualistic," failing constitutional duties and ignoring digital marketplaces.

Legal Analysis

The court's reasoning rooted the rulings in constitutional imperatives, treating nylon manjha's dangers as direct encroachments on fundamental rights. Central to both benches was Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, extended by precedents like Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) to encompass a safe environment free from health hazards. The Aurangabad bench explicitly linked administrative lapses to this right, stating that "this continued failure of governance directly impacts the right to life under Article 21." It also invoked Article 48A (Directive Principle for environmental protection) and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty to protect wildlife), drawing from Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), which integrated these into enforceable rights via Article 21. This holistic approach distinguishes nylon manjha not as a mere tort but a systemic violation affecting humans ("horrific injuries and deaths") and non-humans (birds' protection as a "constitutional mandate").

No specific statutes govern the ban—stemming from a 2012 government notification—but the court bridged this gap by authorizing fines recoverable as land revenue, akin to executive enforcement under general police powers (CrPC Sections 144/149 for prohibitions). The Nagpur bench's innovative measures, like QR code payments and WhatsApp complaint lines, reflect practical application of judicial activism, similar to M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) for pollution control. Distinctions were made: enforcement must target "manufacturers, bulk suppliers, wholesalers" rather than just "petty vendors," critiquing superficial raids. Online availability was flagged as "alarming," mandating nodal officers for platform takedowns under IT Act, 2000, provisions—echoing Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) on intermediary liability.

The rulings differentiate reactive (post-incident drives) from proactive (intelligence-led operations) governance, emphasizing deterrence over prosecution. Implications include heightened accountability: police officers face notices for jurisdictional lapses, potentially invoking contempt proceedings. While no direct precedents on manjha were cited, the analysis builds on PIL jurisprudence (e.g., S.P. Gupta v. Union of India , 1981) for locus standi in public harms.

Key Observations

The court's orders are replete with pointed critiques and directives that encapsulate its rationale. From the Aurangabad bench: "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)."

On enforcement shortcomings: "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. Such an approach is episodic, reactive, and ritualistic, and wholly inconsistent with the constitutional obligations of the State."

The Nagpur bench emphasized parental duty: "It is the duty of the parents to teach their children about the responsible behaviour and self control, from which the children can learn about the consequences and taking responsibility of their own action... It is expected that the parents shall make aware their children about the serious consequences of use of nylon manja."

On deterrence: "Despite the same, 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." Regarding accountability: "If any untoward incident because of nylon manja is reported, the concern Police Officer... shall be served with the notice... as to why the action shall not be taken against such Officer for not performing the duties diligently."

These observations, drawn verbatim from the judgments, highlight the court's shift toward systemic reform.

Court's Decision

The Aurangabad bench's January 9 order directed the Maharashtra Director General of Police to form a State-level Special Task Force (STF) led by an Inspector General, including cyber crime units, to combat manufacturing, storage, sale, online marketing, and use of nylon manjha. It mandated a comprehensive action plan within four weeks, focusing on "upper tiers of the supply chain" via surveillance and inter-agency coordination. Civic bodies must conduct ongoing inspections of shops and markets, while authorities are to launch pre-festival awareness campaigns. Critically, the state must create a victim compensation fund within four weeks and frame a policy for injury claims; interim relief of ₹2 lakh each was ordered for three victims (a boy and two men), recoverable from perpetrators. A nodal officer will monitor e-commerce for content takedowns. Non-compliance risks "stringent orders, including fixation of personal accountability of senior officers," with the next hearing in eight weeks.

The Nagpur bench's January 12 ruling formalized fines: ₹25,000 per individual (or parents for minors) for flying kites with nylon manjha, escalating to ₹50,000 and ₹75,000 for repeat offenses; ₹2.5 lakh per violation for vendors stocking it. Fines deposit into a 'Public Welfare Account' managed by a committee (District Collector, Municipal Commissioner, High Court Registrar), funding victim treatments. Immediate cash recovery via QR codes is preferred; unpaid amounts within 15 days become land revenue arrears. Dedicated WhatsApp groups for complaints and public notices in newspapers (January 13-14, 2026) were ordered, with ignorance no defense. Police face show-cause notices for incidents in their jurisdiction, reportable to the court. Affidavits on actions due by January 16, with hearing on January 20.

Practically, these decisions transform enforcement: Nagpur Police issued advisories aligning with the orders, enabling reports via 112 or WhatsApp (8976897698), and assuring informant confidentiality. Commissioner Ravinder Kumar Singal urged public cooperation. Implications extend beyond Maharashtra—potentially inspiring similar PILs elsewhere—and fortify judicial tools for non-criminal hazards. Future cases may cite these for fining in environmental/public safety PILs, deterring violations during festivals (e.g., reduced Makar Sankranti incidents) and promoting ethical parenting. By tying fines to welfare, the court balances punishment with remediation, fostering a culture of compliance. However, success hinges on implementation; "cosmetic compliance" could invite further scrutiny, evolving jurisprudence on state accountability under Article 21.