Bombay High Court Pulls Up Maharashtra Govt For Its 'Episodic' Action Against Nylon Manjha Menace; Issues Slew Of Directives

The Bombay High Court recently came down heavily on the Maharashtra Government for its failure to take serious and strict action against the illegal sale of nylon manjha which continues to be a menace as despite an 'unequivocal ban' on its sale, the same is freely available and widely used, hurting citizens and even birds.

A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten Venegavkar said that the State's action against the menace of nylon manjha is 'episodic' and inconsistent with its own constitutional obligations.

"We are constrained to record our serious dissatisfaction with the manner in which the authorities have addressed the issue. The record reveals a disturbing pattern. 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 judges observed in the order pronounced on January 9.

The judges noted that the instant issue, which arose from a Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation in 2020, is pending and the various affidavits filed by the State from time-to-time do not inspire confidence.

"They are repetitive, generic and bereft of any indication of sustained, intelligence-driven or technology-enabled enforcement. 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 judges remarked.

The judges expressed displeasure and were disturbed over the incidents placed on record which included the grievous neck injury caused to a minor child requiring 20 stitches and the injury caused to a motorcyclist. These incidents, the bench said cannot be dismissed as isolated occurrences.

"Judicial experience compels us to observe that such reported cases represent only a fraction of the actual harm caused. The risk posed by nylon manja is inherent, foreseeable, and well￾documented. The State, being fully aware of this danger, is under a non-delegable duty to prevent such harm. Merely prosecuting petty vendors or users does not discharge this obligation. What is conspicuously absent from the record is any serious attempt to dismantle the illegal supply chain. There is little or no evidence of action against manufacturers, bulk suppliers, wholesalers, financiers or organised networks engaged in this clandestine trade," the bench said.

The judges emphasised the alarming trend of the continued availability of nylon manja on online marketplaces and social media platforms. "In an era dominated by digital commerce, enforcement that ignores the online dimension 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," the bench opined.

Therefore, the judges constituted a 'Special Task Force' (STF) exclusively to deal with offences relating to the manufacture, storage, transportation, sale, online marketing and use of nylon manja. The Task Force shall be headed by an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police and shall include officers from the Cyber crime wing and other specialised units.

In its slew of directives, the bench also ordered all Commissioners of Police and Superintendents of Police to ensure continuous surveillance and intelligence-based operations. Action shall be directed primarily against the upper tiers of the supply chain, including manufacturers, financiers, bulk distributors and organised networks, and not merely against end-users or street-level vendors.

Further, a direction is issued to all the Municipal Corporations and local authorities to conduct continuous inspections of shops, godowns and markets. Where prohibited nylon manja is found, authorities shall not restrict themselves to seizure alone, but shall initiate, cancellation of licences, sealing of premises and prosecution of the persons concerned in accordance with law.

Besides other directives, the State is also ordered to pay within four weeks, an amount of Rs 2 lakh each to the three persons including a minor, who sustained severe injury due to use of nylon manjha. The State is also asked to constitute a compensation fund for future such instances.

The matter is now placed for compliance, after a period of eight weeks.

Appearance:

Advocate Satyajeet Bora is the Amicus Curiae in the Case.

Additional Government Pleader SK Tambe represented the State Authorities.

Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) AG Talhar represented the Union of India.

Advocates AP Bhandari and KN Lokhande represented Other Respondents.

Case Title: The Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Judicature of Bombay vs State of Maharashtra (Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation 8 of 2020)

Click Here To Read/Download Order