Hyderabad: Telangana high court on Friday directed the state govt to enforce a total ban on Chinese manja during the Sankranti festival, with particular emphasis on the kite flying day.
Directing the home secretary, director general of police and forest secretary to implement the order strictly, Justice B Vijaysen Reddy said the deadly Chinese manja, which causes fatal injuries to people, birds, and animals, does not originate from China and instead, is locally manufactured using glass particles, synthetic materials, and other harmful substances.
The judge gave this interim direction while hearing a petition filed by a Kachiguda businessman, Sanjay Narayan Punjari, who sought a ban on this thread in line with a 2017 ruling by the National Green Tribunal. This ruling, which has not been challenged in any legal forum for the past seven years, has attained finality.
The petitioner’s counsel, P Sree Ramya, pointed out that the NGT’s order, which directed all state govts to implement the ban on the manufacture and sale of nylon threads (commonly known as Chinese manja), has not been properly enforced. She submitted a circular from the Central Pollution Control Board that also called for a complete ban on the thread.
Sree Ramya highlighted several incidents of the manja has causing severe injuries, including slitting throats, and fatalities to humans, birds, and animals, and noted that the thread is environmentally harmful due to its non-biodegradable nature. “Our plea is not against kite flying, but rather against the use of the dangerous manja. Normal, biodegradable threads can be used for kite flying,” she argued.
Justice Vijaysen Reddy emphasised that the real danger lies in the Chinese or nylon manja, which is made with glass particles and synthetic materials. “Unlike regular threads, this synthetic thread does not break but instead causes severe injuries, including slitting throats,” the judge said.
Sree Ramya further argued that the manufacture and sale of the synthetic manja violate the Environment Protection Act of 1986, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960, Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972, and several sections of the Indian Penal Code.
The judge said he would review the matter again on Jan 31.
Directing the home secretary, director general of police and forest secretary to implement the order strictly, Justice B Vijaysen Reddy said the deadly Chinese manja, which causes fatal injuries to people, birds, and animals, does not originate from China and instead, is locally manufactured using glass particles, synthetic materials, and other harmful substances.
The judge gave this interim direction while hearing a petition filed by a Kachiguda businessman, Sanjay Narayan Punjari, who sought a ban on this thread in line with a 2017 ruling by the National Green Tribunal. This ruling, which has not been challenged in any legal forum for the past seven years, has attained finality.
The petitioner’s counsel, P Sree Ramya, pointed out that the NGT’s order, which directed all state govts to implement the ban on the manufacture and sale of nylon threads (commonly known as Chinese manja), has not been properly enforced. She submitted a circular from the Central Pollution Control Board that also called for a complete ban on the thread.
Sree Ramya highlighted several incidents of the manja has causing severe injuries, including slitting throats, and fatalities to humans, birds, and animals, and noted that the thread is environmentally harmful due to its non-biodegradable nature. “Our plea is not against kite flying, but rather against the use of the dangerous manja. Normal, biodegradable threads can be used for kite flying,” she argued.
Justice Vijaysen Reddy emphasised that the real danger lies in the Chinese or nylon manja, which is made with glass particles and synthetic materials. “Unlike regular threads, this synthetic thread does not break but instead causes severe injuries, including slitting throats,” the judge said.
Sree Ramya further argued that the manufacture and sale of the synthetic manja violate the Environment Protection Act of 1986, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960, Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972, and several sections of the Indian Penal Code.
The judge said he would review the matter again on Jan 31.
