Introduction:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court while hearing a suo motu public interest matter concerning the illegal manufacture sale and use of Chinese nylon thread commonly known as manjha expressed serious concern over the continued injuries and deaths caused by the banned material and strongly criticised the State machinery for its ineffective enforcement, the case titled In Re Suo Motu v State of MP was taken up by a Division Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi after repeated media reports highlighted fatal accidents especially during the Makar Sankranti festival, the petition originated from news published in a local newspaper which reported several incidents where people riding two wheelers and pedestrians suffered severe injuries including throat cuts due to the sharp nylon thread used for kite flying, during the hearing the Bench made strong oral observations stating that even court staff had suffered injuries and that despite claims of action by the authorities the reality on the ground reflected continued violations and loss of life, the judges remarked that their hearts were bleeding after seeing published photographs of injured victims and questioned how such incidents were still occurring despite a nationwide ban imposed by the National Green Tribunal in 2018, the Court noted that the situation was particularly alarming in the Indore division where the frequency of accidents appeared significantly higher than in other parts of the State and contrasted this with Gujarat where kite festivals are equally popular but similar accident reports were not seen, the matter thus became a serious judicial examination of not only the enforcement failure but also the absence of long term preventive strategies to deal with a known and recurring public safety hazard.

Arguments:

During the hearing the State attempted to justify its actions by stating that enforcement drives were conducted and that awareness campaigns were being carried out to educate the public about the dangers of Chinese manjha, the State also submitted that the banned thread was not manufactured within Madhya Pradesh and was primarily produced in Delhi then transported through Rajasthan before entering the State, it was further argued that despite the ban people continued to buy the thread at double or triple the price because it does not break easily and gives a competitive advantage in kite flying contests, the State suggested that stronger public awareness programs would help reduce demand and discourage illegal sales, however the Court was not convinced by these submissions and observed that mere awareness was not enough when people even need policing to follow basic safety measures such as wearing helmets despite knowing their benefits, the Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Vivek Sharan assisted by Advocate Akash Sharma placed detailed and practical suggestions before the Court aimed at tackling the problem at multiple levels, the Amicus argued that enforcement was largely reactive and mostly triggered by court orders rather than proactive governance, it was suggested that a compensation policy must be formulated for victims who suffer injuries or death due to nylon manjha similar to directions earlier issued by the Chhattisgarh High Court, the Amicus further recommended that nylon manjha should be classified as hazardous plastic waste because it is non biodegradable and emits toxic fumes when burnt and that seized material should not be stored in police stations but disposed of through proper environmental protocols, another important suggestion was the introduction of a secret reward system for citizens who provide credible information about manufacturing storage or sale of banned manjha similar to directions earlier issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Amicus also urged suspension of licenses of transport agencies found carrying banned thread since the supply chain operates across States, it was additionally argued that enforcement must not be limited to last minute actions before festivals but should be continuous throughout the year, intervenors also pointed out that most seizures and raids were conducted only after High Court directions which indicated lack of independent administrative vigilance, they stressed that unless economic incentives and logistical networks are dismantled the ban will remain ineffective regardless of awareness programs, thus the arguments before the Court reflected a clash between administrative explanations and judicial demand for structural and preventive enforcement.

Judgment:

After considering the submissions and reviewing the continued occurrence of accidents despite earlier interim orders the High Court recorded that enforcement remained inadequate and that casual or seasonal actions were failing to prevent repeated injuries and deaths, the Bench noted that even after interim directions issued on January 12 2026 accidents had continued to occur which clearly showed that the problem was not being addressed with seriousness or urgency, the Court reiterated that sale and use of Chinese nylon thread attracts criminal liability and that persons found selling or using such thread can be prosecuted under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 which corresponds to Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code dealing with causing death by negligence, the Court further clarified that if minors are found using such thread their guardians may also be held responsible, the judges observed that the Court cannot remain a silent spectator when public safety is repeatedly compromised and that constitutional courts are duty bound to intervene where executive failure results in avoidable loss of life, the Court rejected the suggestion that awareness alone could solve the issue and stated that strict policing and sustained surveillance were indispensable, while acknowledging that the manufacturing of the thread may be outside State boundaries the Court held that this does not absolve the State of its responsibility to control sale and use within its jurisdiction, the Bench took serious note of the supply chain and interstate transport and indicated that coordination with transport authorities and neighboring States was essential, accepting the suggestions placed by the Amicus as valuable the Court directed the respondent authorities to prepare a comprehensive policy addressing all relevant aspects including compensation to victims hazardous waste classification disposal protocols citizen informer schemes transport monitoring and inter departmental coordination, the Court specifically directed that the Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh must personally oversee the formulation of such policies and ensure coordination among police transport municipal and environmental departments, it was ordered that the authorities must continue to strictly implement the interim directions already in force and submit a detailed policy framework before the Court, the matter was directed to be listed in the week commencing March 9 2026 for further monitoring, thus the High Court transformed the case from a mere enforcement review into a policy driven judicial supervision aimed at long term prevention and accountability, reinforcing the principle that when administrative inertia leads to recurring public harm courts can compel structured governance responses.