Flying Kites With Nylon Manjha To Attract ₹25,000 Penalty, Vendors To Face ₹2.5 Lakh Fine: Bombay High Court

The Court ruled that any individual found flying a kite using nylon manjha would be liable to pay a fine of ₹25,000, while vendors selling or stocking the prohibited material would face a penalty of ₹2.5 lakh.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode, expressed serious concern over the continued and widespread use of nylon manjha despite repeated warnings, judicial directions, and extensive public awareness campaigns. The Court said, "Every year because of use of nylon manjha many people loose their lives or many get injured. Every year through newspapers and other modes, the consequences of use of such manja is being highlighted. 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 to be recovered from the individual, who fly the kite with nylon manjha or vendor, who sales such nylon manjha."

Recalling its earlier order dated December 24, 2025, the Court noted that it had directed authorities to issue public notices reflecting the High Court’s suggestion to impose heavy penalties—₹50,000 on individuals (or parents of minors) using nylon manjha and ₹2.5 lakh on vendors. Pursuant to these notices and widespread media coverage, the Court received several representations from the public. While some suggested increasing or reducing the quantum of fines, none opposed the principle of imposing monetary penalties altogether.

After considering these suggestions, the Court finalized the penalty structure. It ordered, "If any individual is found flying kite with nylon manjha he/she shall be liable to pay fine of Rs.25,000. In case of minor, the amount shall be recoverable from the parents of the minor. Similarly, in case if any vendor who is found with the stock of nylon manja, he/she shall be liable to pay fine of Rs.2,50,000."

Explaining the rationale for holding parents accountable, the Bench emphasized, "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, which would help discourage the inappropriate behaviour. It is the duty of the parents to make known to their child the consequences of his/ her action and to make aware the child what is good and what is bad for him/her and others. It is expected that the parents shall make aware their children about the serious consequences of use of nylon manjha."

In a further measure to ensure effective implementation, the Court directed the Commissioner of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, the District Collector, and the Registrar (Administration) of the Bombay High Court to jointly open a dedicated account titled “Public Welfare Fund.” The QR code details of this account are to be circulated to all districts and police authorities to enable immediate deposit of fines collected from defaulters.

The Court clarified that the funds collected would be exclusively utilized for the medical treatment and rehabilitation of persons injured due to nylon manjha-related incidents.

The Court further added, "If the individual/parents of the minor is not in a position to pay the amount on the spot, the concerned officer shall issue a memo imposing such fine which would be recoverable as land revenue, if such person fails to deposit the amount of fine within 15 days in the above referred account. The concerned Revenue Officer on failure of the person, who is imposed with a fine, to deposit the amount in the account within 15 days shall initiate the proceeding for recovery of such fine as land revenue and recover such amount by following due process of law."

The Court warned of accountability for police authorities as well. It ordered that if any untoward incident involving nylon manjha is reported, the concerned Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of Police must issue a show-cause notice to the jurisdictional police officer, calling upon them to explain why action should not be taken for failure to diligently enforce the High Court’s directions.

The matter has been listed for further consideration on January 20.

Cause Title: Court on its own motion v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Appearance:

Advocate N. Jadhav, to assist the Court

Respondents: Advocates S. M. Ukey, J. B. Kasat, M. I. Dhatrak, S. A. Sahu, S. S. Sanyal, C. B. Dharmadhikari