'Heart Is Bleeding': MP High Court Slams Ineffective Enforcement Of Chinese Manjha Ban, Notes Court Staff Also Injured

While hearing a suo motu petition concerning the illegal manufacture, sale and use of Chinese nylon thread (manjha), the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday (January 16) expressed deep anguish over the continued failure of the State to effectively enforce the ban. 

The division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi said that although media reports indicated that the State government took action, the measures were clearly insufficient. 

"We are disturbed by use of this nylon thread. Even my staff, steno, has received injuries because of it; he was on a bike. So many news says State is taking steps, but it is not sufficient...Till yesterday also there was a news, our heart is bleeding in the manner in which the photos were published," the judges orally remarked.

The PIL was initiated suo motu based on the reports published in Indore Times, a local newspaper, which highlighted multiple fatal accidents and serious injuries caused by Chinese manjha, particularly during the Makar Sakranti Festival.

In the previous order, the court held that anybody found selling or using the said thread may be prosecuted for the commission of offence under Section 106(1) of BNS, 2023 (304-A of the IPC). It further clarified that if any minor was found using the Chinese Nylon Thread, then his guardian may also be made responsible. 

Today, the Court noted that the problem appeared to be more severe in the Indore division compared to other regions of the State. Drawing a comparison with Gujarat, the court observed that although kite-flying festivals are celebrated there as well, no similar accident reports were seen. 

In response, the State clarified that Gujarat had banned the sale and use of the Chinese manjha in 2018. It further submitted that people continued to purchase the thread at double or triple the price, as it does not break easily and provides a competitive advantage in kite flying competitions. 

The Amicus Curiae placed detailed suggestions before the Court, including:

• Formulation of compensation policy for victims in case of injury or death, based on directions issued by the Chhattisgarh High Court
• Classification of nylon manjha as hazardous plastic waste, considering its non-biodegradable nature and toxic emissions, and ensuring that seized thread is not stored in police stations and is disposed of responsibly. 
• Introduction of a secret reward system for citizens providing information regarding the manufacture, storage, and sale of banned manjha in line with directions issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court
• Suspension of the license of transport agencies found transporting the banned thread, given its interstate supply chain
• Adoption of proactive enforcement measures rather than last-minute action just before the Makar Sakranti festival 

The intervenors also pointed out that most enforcement measures were taken by the authorities only after the High Court's directions and not proactively. 

Upon inquiry regarding the manufacturing of the Chinese manjha, the State informed that the banned thread is primarily manufactured in Delhi, transported through Rajasthan and thereafter enters Madhya Pradesh. 

The State suggested public awareness programs. However, the bench noted that mere awareness drives are insufficient and that strict enforcement was necessary. 

The court orally remarked, "Here we need police enforcement even for making people wear helmet; even though everyone knows that helmet is for their safety."

The court, in its order, recorded that despite interim orders passed on January 12, 2026, accidents and casualties continued to occur. It also took note of the National Free Tribunal's 2018 order imposing a nationwide ban on nylon and synthetic manjha, including Chinese manjha. 

Accordingly, the court directed,

"After hearing counsels for the parties, we direct the respondent authorities to prepare a policy and to submit before the court on the following issues. We direct that the authorities will continue to implement strictly our interim orders passed on previous day and the Chief Secretary of MP will look into all these suggestions and will frame a policies and various schemes by coordinating with different departments. We list the matter in the week commencing March 9, 2026". 

Case Title: In Re Suo Motu v State of MP [WP-48092-2025]

Amicus Curiae: Senior Advocate Vivek Sharan with Advocate Akash Sharma

For State: Deputy Advocate General Sudeep Bhargava