# Nylon manjha ban: the NGT order and High Court enforcement

**TL;DR:** Nylon, synthetic, and glass-coated kite string, the kind sold loosely as "Chinese manjha," is illegal across India. The [National Green Tribunal banned it nationwide on 11 July 2017](https://www.livelaw.in/ngt-puts-total-ban-nylon-synthetic-manjha-read-judgment/), under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. Only plain cotton thread, free of glass, metal, or chemical coating, is allowed. Selling, storing, or using banned manjha can draw imprisonment up to five years and a fine up to one lakh rupees under Section 15 of the EPA. When the string kills someone, police now add charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. High Courts in Delhi, Telangana, Allahabad, and elsewhere have repeatedly ordered states and police to actually enforce the ban, because every Makar Sankranti the string keeps slitting throats and killing birds. This piece sets out what the law says, what is banned versus allowed, and why enforcement keeps failing.

---

## On this page

- [The danger: a festival string that kills](#the-danger-a-festival-string-that-kills)
- [The misleading name: "Chinese" string is mostly made in India](#the-misleading-name-chinese-string-is-mostly-made-in-india)
- [Why the string also electrocutes and trips the power grid](#why-the-string-also-electrocutes-and-trips-the-power-grid)
- [The 2017 NGT order that banned it nationwide](#the-2017-ngt-order-that-banned-it-nationwide)
- [What exactly is banned, and what is still allowed](#what-exactly-is-banned-and-what-is-still-allowed)
- [The Environment (Protection) Act and how the ban gets its teeth](#the-environment-protection-act-and-how-the-ban-gets-its-teeth)
- [Criminal liability when the string kills](#criminal-liability-when-the-string-kills)
- [State notifications: a patchwork of bans](#state-notifications-a-patchwork-of-bans)
- [High Court enforcement orders](#high-court-enforcement-orders)
- [Penalties, FIRs, and what actually happens on the ground](#penalties-firs-and-what-actually-happens-on-the-ground)
- [Birds: the other body count](#birds-the-other-body-count)
- [What citizens, sellers, and parents must know](#what-citizens-sellers-and-parents-must-know)
- [Why enforcement keeps failing](#why-enforcement-keeps-failing)
- [Frequently asked questions](#frequently-asked-questions)
- [Researching the order that governs your state](#researching-the-order-that-governs-your-state)

---

## The danger: a festival string that kills

Kite flying in India is old, joyful, and tied to festivals. Makar Sankranti in January, Uttarayan in Gujarat, Independence Day in the north. For most of that history the string was cotton. Someone twisted it, sometimes rubbed a little powdered glass set in rice paste along a short stretch, and flew. If a cotton string snapped and fell across a road, it lay there harmlessly.

That changed when synthetic string arrived. Sold under the loose name "Chinese manjha" or "China dor," it is made from nylon or similar plastic fibre, then coated with crushed glass, metal dust, and strong adhesive. It does not snap. It does not stretch. It holds an edge like a wire. And because it is plastic, it does not rot, so a fallen length stays taut across a street for days.

The result is a string that behaves like a blade strung at neck height. A two-wheeler rider hits it at speed and the throat opens before the brain registers anything. The deaths read the same across states. In Indore, a 20-year-old college student, Himanshu Solanki, [died after a kite string caught his throat near a bridge while he rode out to buy an LPG cylinder](https://www.deccanherald.com/india/madhya-pradesh/sharp-kite-string-claims-college-students-life-in-indore-3356168). In Karnataka's Bidar, a 48-year-old man, [Sanjukumar Hosamani, was killed by a nylon string while riding to bring his daughter home](https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/bidar-biker-killed-by-manja-while-going-to-bring-daughter-home-3862487). Across the country during a single Makar Sankranti, fatal cases have included [four people in Gujarat, a man in Madhya Pradesh, and a 12-year-old boy in Rajasthan whose neck was slit open](https://www.thenewsminute.com/karnataka/karnataka-bans-glass-coated-string-for-flying-kites).

Children get hurt too, often badly. In one reported case [a four-year-old boy received more than 100 stitches on his face after the string wrapped his neck and cut deep](https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/punjab-police-arrest-255-people-for-selling-banned-chinese-manjha-473028/amp). Doctors writing in medical journals now describe the wounds in clinical terms. A 2025 forensic study documented the [near-decapitation of a motorcyclist by a kite thread](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00258172251325093), the kind of injury that used to be rare and is now seasonal.

So the legal question is not abstract. The string is a known killer, it is sold openly every January, and the law has tried to stop it for nearly a decade. The rest of this piece is about how that law works, and why the killing has not stopped.

## The misleading name: "Chinese" string is mostly made in India

It helps to clear up the name first, because it shapes how people think about the problem. "Chinese manjha" and "China dor" sound like an imported menace. The truth is more awkward. Despite the name, the sharp nylon string coated with powdered glass that kills every season is [almost exclusively made in India](https://www.voanews.com/a/police-kite-fighting-string-responsible-for-india-festival-deaths/6931342.html), not imported from China.

The traditional craft was different in kind. For generations, manjha meant fine cotton thread coated by hand with a paste of rice glue, tree gum, and finely powdered glass or mild abrasive. That string was sharp enough for a kite fight but biodegradable, and it snapped under real load. The modern killer is a [relatively recent introduction: non-biodegradable synthetic fibre, nylon or similar, coated with powdered glass and metal dust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manja_(string)) to make it sharper and stronger.

The manufacturing is domestic and concentrated. [Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh is a major hub](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manja_(string)) for the production of both traditional and synthetic string, which is why "Bareilly manjha" appears alongside "Chinese manjha" in police seizure reports. The "Chinese" label stuck partly because the cheap synthetic raw material echoed other low-cost imports, and partly because it was convenient shorthand. But for legal purposes the name is irrelevant. The law does not care where the string was made or what it is called. It cares whether the string is synthetic or coated with non-biodegradable material. If it is, it is banned, whether the spool says China, Bareilly, or nothing at all.

This matters for enforcement and for public messaging. Treating the problem as a foreign-import smuggling issue points police at the wrong target. The supply is a domestic manufacturing chain, which is exactly why the courts have pushed investigators toward [manufacturers and importers, not just street sellers](https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/delhi-hc-asks-police-of-steps-taken-to-implement-chinese-manjha-ban-122080400689_1.html).

## Why the string also electrocutes and trips the power grid

The throat-slitting deaths are the most visible harm, but the same string causes a second, quieter category of death and disruption: electrocution.

Because the coating contains metal dust and, in some variants, chemical compounds, the synthetic string [conducts electricity](https://www.deccanherald.com/india/delhi/dl-discoms-chinese-manjha-tripping-3152846). A cotton string is a poor conductor; a metal-laced nylon string is a good one. When a kite or its loose string drifts into overhead high-tension wires, the string completes a circuit, and anyone holding it or standing near it can be electrocuted.

The cases are grim and consistent. A [15-year-old boy in Saharanpur died of electrocution](https://www.seaandjob.com/teen-electrocuted-as-kite-string-touches-high-tension-wire-in-saharanpur/) after the string of a kite he was reaching for touched a high-tension line. In Punjab's Kotkapura, a [19-year-old boy and a 22-year-old woman died of severe burns](https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/chinese-string-kills-2-in-kotkapura-219154) after a Chinese string tangled in power cables.

There is an infrastructure cost too. In Delhi, power distribution companies have recorded [more than 50 incidents of transmission lines tripping in a single day](https://www.deccanherald.com/india/delhi/dl-discoms-chinese-manjha-tripping-3152846) because of conductive manjha fouling the network during festival kite flying, cutting power to thousands of homes. Discoms now issue public warnings before the season.

All of this fed the NGT's reasoning. The string is not just sharp; it is conductive and non-biodegradable, so a fallen length stays in the environment as a live electrical and cutting hazard long after the festival ends. That combination of properties is what placed it squarely within environmental regulation.

## The 2017 NGT order that banned it nationwide

The single most important document is an order of the National Green Tribunal dated 11 July 2017. The NGT is a specialised body set up under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 to decide environmental disputes. It is not a regular court, but its orders bind across the country and carry the force of law.

The matter came before the Tribunal as a petition concerned with the harm caused by synthetic kite string to people, birds, and the environment. Animal-welfare groups, including [PETA India, pushed the case](https://www.petaindia.com/blog/syntheticnylon-manja-banned-peta-push/). A bench headed by the then NGT Chairperson, Justice (retired) Swatanter Kumar, heard it. The lead case is recorded as [Khalid Ashraf v. Union of India, Original Application No. 384 of 2016](https://www.livelaw.in/ngt-puts-total-ban-nylon-synthetic-manjha-read-judgment/).

The order's core direction is simple. It imposed a [total ban on the manufacture, sale, storage, purchase, and use of manjha or thread made of nylon or any synthetic material, and of any thread coated with glass or other non-biodegradable material](https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-ngt-bans-nylon-synthetic-manjha-across-india-2499391). The Tribunal directed every State government and Union Territory to prohibit those activities. In the language quoted from the order itself, there shall be a total ban on the manjha or thread for kite flying which is made of nylon or any synthetic material or is coated with synthetic substance and is non-biodegradable.

Two features make the order powerful. First, it is nationwide. It does not stop at one state's border; it tells all states and UTs to act. Second, it covers the entire chain. It is not only the seller who is caught. Manufacture, import, storage, sale, purchase, and use are all prohibited. In principle, the buyer flying the string is breaking the law just as much as the trader who sold it.

The order had an earlier interim stage. Before the final ruling, the NGT had passed an [interim ban on nylon thread and synthetic or cotton thread coated with glass powder or other hazardous compounds](https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/india-bans-glass-coated-kite-strings-1.1953478). The 11 July 2017 order made the prohibition final and national.

It is worth being precise about one thing that gets lost in headlines. The NGT did not ban kite flying. It did not even ban all manjha. It banned a category of dangerous, non-biodegradable string. What remains lawful is set out next.

A word on why the NGT, an environmental tribunal, was the body to decide a question that looks like public safety. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is triggered by harm to the environment. Synthetic manjha qualifies on two grounds. It is non-biodegradable, so it persists as plastic waste tangled in trees, wires, and water bodies. And it is a documented killer of wildlife, slashing thousands of birds every season. Those environmental harms are what let the NGT act, and they are why the penalty runs through an environmental statute rather than a public-order one. The human deaths, terrible as they are, were in a sense the additional reason; the legal hook was the environment. That framing also explains the breadth of the remedy. The Tribunal was directing pollution control boards and state governments, the machinery of environmental regulation, to act, not merely the police.

## What exactly is banned, and what is still allowed

The single most common confusion is that people think "manjha" itself is illegal. It is not. The law draws a line based on what the string is made of and what it is coated with.

| String type | Legal status under the NGT order | Why |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Nylon / synthetic thread ("Chinese manjha", "China dor") | Banned everywhere | Non-biodegradable, extremely sharp, does not snap |
| Any thread coated with glass, metal dust, or hazardous chemicals | Banned | The coating is what cuts; non-biodegradable |
| Plain cotton thread, uncoated | Allowed | Biodegradable, snaps under load, low injury risk |
| Cotton thread with glass coating | Banned in some states (e.g. Delhi); restricted nationally | The glass edge still cuts |

The Tribunal was clear that it had [not banned traditional cotton manjha or cotton thread for kite flying during festivals and recreation](https://thebetterindia.com/culture/makar-sankranti-cotton-vs-chinese-manjha-10992737). What it permitted was kite flying with cotton thread free from any sharp, metallic, glass, or adhesive thread-strengthening material. The danger was never the kite or the act of flying. It was the engineered cutting edge and the plastic that refuses to break down.

Some states have gone further than the national order. The Delhi government, for instance, has [banned all forms of manjha including cotton thread coated with glass](https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/chinese-manja-karnataka-allows-only-cotton-thread-to-fly-kites-3248038), so within Delhi kite flying is permitted only with plain, uncoated cotton string. Karnataka similarly allows only cotton thread. This is allowed because a state can be stricter than the national floor; it cannot be more lenient.

The practical takeaway for a buyer is short. If the string is plastic, it is illegal. If it has a gritty, glassy feel from coating, it is illegal. If it is plain cotton with no coating, it is allowed. The name on the spool does not matter; the material does.

## The Environment (Protection) Act and how the ban gets its teeth

An NGT direction needs a statute behind it to carry a penalty. That statute is the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, usually shortened to the EPA. This is the umbrella environmental law of India, passed after the Bhopal gas disaster, giving the central government broad power to protect and improve the environment.

The NGT treated non-biodegradable synthetic manjha as an environmental hazard, which brings it within the EPA framework. State notifications banning the string are issued or referenced under the EPA, and breaching them is breaching the Act.

The penalty provision is [Section 15 of the EPA](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/24023684/). It reads, in substance, that whoever fails to comply with or contravenes any provision of the Act, or any rule, order, or direction issued under it, is punishable with imprisonment up to five years, or a fine up to one lakh rupees, or both. If the contravention continues, an additional fine up to five thousand rupees can be imposed for every day it continues after conviction. And if it carries on beyond one year after conviction, the imprisonment can extend to seven years.

So the chain is: NGT order, implemented through state notifications under the EPA, enforced through Section 15 penalties. That is why news reports about manjha seizures routinely say the accused were [booked under the Environment Protection Act](https://www.scoopwhoop.com/news/ngt-imposes-complete-ban-on-nylon-synthetic-deadly-manja/), and why the five-year, one-lakh figure keeps appearing. It comes straight from Section 15.

One caution on the citations you will see in the press. Some reports loosely say offenders are booked under "Section 5" of the EPA. Section 5 is the provision that empowers the central government to issue directions; it is not the penalty section. The actual punishment flows from Section 15. The distinction matters if you are drafting or defending, because the charge has to name the right provision.

## Criminal liability when the string kills

The EPA deals with the environmental wrong, the selling and using of banned string. When the string actually injures or kills a person, the criminal law comes in on top.

For most of this saga, the relevant law was the Indian Penal Code, with cases registered under Section 304A (causing death by a rash or negligent act) and Sections 336, 337, and 338 (acts endangering life or causing hurt by negligence). Police often filed these against unknown persons, because the flyer whose string fell across the road is usually never traced.

Since 1 July 2024, the new criminal codes apply, and the IPC has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The equivalents have shifted but the logic is the same:

- [Section 125 of the BNS](https://sudhirrao.com/section-125-bns-section-125-of-bharatiya-nyaya-r2a/) covers rash or negligent acts that endanger human life or personal safety, the successor to the old endangerment offences.
- [Section 105 of the BNS](https://lawrato.com/bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita/bns-section-105) covers culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is cognizable, non-bailable, and triable by a Court of Session, and it carries up to life imprisonment or up to ten years with a fine where there is intent, and up to ten years where the act is done with knowledge but without intent.

The line between the two charges turns on knowledge. The old IPC Section 304A, and its negligence successor in the BNS, fit the classic manjha death well: nobody intended to kill, a stray string fell across a road, and a rider died. That is rash and negligent, not homicidal. The harder question is the seller, or the flyer who knowingly uses banned conductive string in a crowded area near roads. There, an argument exists that the act was done with knowledge that it was likely to cause death, which is the threshold for culpable homicide under Section 105 of the BNS. Indian courts have, in other contexts, treated knowing creation of a lethal hazard as more than mere negligence. Whether prosecutors press that distinction in manjha cases is largely a matter of will, and so far they rarely have.

Whether a manjha death is charged as a negligence offence or as culpable homicide depends heavily on the facts and on the prosecutor. Selling banned string knowing it can kill, and a death following, can support a more serious charge than an anonymous fallen string on a road. In practice, most deaths still get registered as negligence cases against unknown persons, which is part of why convictions are rare. The seller is often easier to prosecute than the flyer, and the seller faces both the EPA penalty and any criminal charge that attaches to the sale.

If you want the fuller picture of how the new codes changed Indian criminal procedure and substantive offences, see our explainer on the [new criminal laws: BNS, BNSS, and BSA](/blog/new-criminal-laws-bns-bnss-bsa).

## State notifications: a patchwork of bans

The NGT told every state to ban the string. States act through their own notifications, usually issued under the EPA or under local police powers. Because each state moves at its own pace and in its own words, the result is a patchwork rather than a single clean rule.

The Animal Welfare Board of India advised all states and UTs to amend their notifications under the EPA, and notifications with similar directions have been issued by, among others, the [governments of Chandigarh, Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Telangana, and Tripura](https://www.thenewsminute.com/karnataka/karnataka-bans-glass-coated-string-for-flying-kites). Delhi's notification dates back to [August 2016, banning the sale, production, and storage of synthetic manjha](https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/india-bans-glass-coated-kite-strings-1.1953478), pre-dating the final NGT order. Tamil Nadu has imposed a [complete ban on manjha thread citing safety](https://www.deccanherald.com/india/tamil-nadu/tamil-nadu-imposes-complete-ban-on-manjha-thread-citing-safety-precaution-2751044). Goa banned the string after a [PETA India appeal](https://www.petaindia.com/blog/goa-bans-deadly-kite-strings-following-peta-indias-appeal/). Karnataka allows only cotton thread.

Around festival season, local administrations often add a layer using powers to prohibit assemblies and dangerous activity, the old Section 144 CrPC orders, now under the corresponding provision of the BNSS. These are short-term, area-specific prohibitions that let police seize stock and act fast in the run-up to Sankranti or Uttarayan.

For someone trying to know the exact rule that binds them, the answer is location-specific. The national floor is the NGT order plus the EPA. On top of that sits your state's notification, which may be stricter. And during the festival window there may be a local prohibitory order as well. All three can apply at once.

## High Court enforcement orders

Here is the heart of the problem and the reason this topic keeps returning to the High Courts. The ban exists. The penalty exists. The string is still sold and still kills. So families, activists, and the courts themselves have pushed the High Courts to force enforcement of a ban that is already on the books.

The pattern repeats across states.

**Delhi.** The Delhi High Court has been the most active. It has heard public-interest petitions seeking strict enforcement, asked the Delhi Police what steps it has taken, and made pointed directions. In one set of directions the Court stressed that [FIRs that are registered should not remain paper FIRs](https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/02/14/delhi-high-court-issue-directions-to-control-menace-of-chinese-manjha-legalnews-legalresearch-legalawareness/) and that proper investigation must follow. The Court has directed the Delhi Police to [continue regular registration of cases to avoid injuries and deaths](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-register-cases-injuries-deaths-chinese-manjha-delhi-police-240724). On compensation, Justice Subramonium Prasad, [pained by the number of people losing life and limb despite the orders, directed the Delhi government to frame a relief policy for victims within eight weeks](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-chinese-manjha-victim-compensation-256685) and asked the police to file a status report on action taken against manufacturers and sellers from 2017 to 2024. More recently a division bench has been hearing a fresh PIL seeking strict enforcement, with [responses sought from the Delhi government, the Union, and the Commissioner of Police](https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/delhi-hc-asks-police-of-steps-taken-to-implement-chinese-manjha-ban-122080400689_1.html).

**Telangana.** Ahead of Makar Sankranti, the Telangana High Court directed the [immediate and strict implementation of the 2017 NGT order banning the use of Chinese manjha and synthetic thread for kite flying](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/telangana-high-court/makar-sankranti-telangana-high-court-directs-implementation-of-2017-ngt-order-banning-use-of-chinese-manjhasynthetic-thread-for-kite-flying-280581). The Court treated the NGT order as binding and told the state to enforce what already existed rather than wait for fresh deaths.

**Allahabad.** Amid the kite-flying season, the Allahabad High Court asked the [Uttar Pradesh government to enforce the prohibition on Chinese manjha](https://www.deccanherald.com/india/uttar-pradesh/amid-kite-flying-season-allahabad-hc-asks-up-govt-to-enforce-prohibition-of-chinese-manjha-3864085).

What these orders have in common is striking. The courts are not creating a new ban. They are confronting governments and police with an existing ban that is being ignored, and ordering them to do their job. This is exactly the role of a High Court under its writ jurisdiction: to compel a public authority to perform a legal duty. If you want to understand the constitutional machinery the courts use here, our pieces on [Article 226 and writ jurisdiction](/blog/high-courts-article-226) and on [how to file a writ petition](/blog/how-to-file-writ-petition) explain how a citizen can ask a High Court to force the State to act.

The NGT itself continues to be approached. In a recent matter it [issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board on a plea seeking compensation for a youth's death caused by Chinese manjha in Varanasi](https://24law.in/story/ngt-issues-notice-to-uppcb-on-plea-seeking-compensation-for-varanasi-youth-s-death-caused-by-chinese), which shows the same fight running in parallel through the green court and the constitutional courts.

## Penalties, FIRs, and what actually happens on the ground

On paper the deterrent is heavy: up to five years in jail and a one-lakh fine under EPA Section 15, plus criminal charges if someone is hurt. In practice, enforcement is a seasonal crackdown rather than a steady regime, concentrated in the weeks before the kite festivals.

The numbers from a single city show the scale of the trade and the limits of the response. Ahead of Sankranti 2026, Hyderabad police ran a focused four-day drive and [seized 2,150 bobbins of banned string worth about 43 lakh rupees, registering 29 cases and arresting 57 people](https://www.sakshipost.com/news/telangana/hyderabad-police-seize-chinese-manja-worth-43-lakh-ahead-sankranti-476511). Over the preceding month the same city registered 132 cases, seized 8,376 bobbins worth 1.68 crore rupees, and arrested 200 people. In Punjab during one season, police [registered 234 FIRs and arrested 255 people](https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/punjab-police-arrest-255-people-for-selling-banned-chinese-manjha-473028/amp) for selling the banned string. In Gujarat, [banned string worth 1.84 crore rupees was seized from a single godown in Surat](https://deshgujarat.com/2025/04/09/banned-chinese-kite-string-worth-%E2%82%B91-84-crore-seized-from-godown-in-surat/).

Those figures cut both ways. They prove police can find the string when they look. They also prove how much of it is in circulation, and how the supply just keeps coming.

Two systemic weaknesses come through clearly. The first is the paper-FIR problem the Delhi High Court named: cases get registered to show numbers, then go nowhere. The second is institutional indifference at the local level. After the Indore death of the 20-year-old student, [three policemen were fined for dereliction of duty](https://www.deccanherald.com/india/madhya-pradesh/collegians-death-due-to-manja-on-makar-sankranti-three-mp-cops-fined-for-dereliction-of-duty-3359161). The victim's family alleged something worse: that they [went to three police stations and were made to delete mobile videos showing the manjha](https://www.deccanherald.com/india/madhya-pradesh/sharp-kite-string-claims-college-students-life-in-indore-3356168). A jurisdiction dispute over which station should record the case delayed the response while the young man's life ran out.

When a death does lead to a compensation claim, the route now exists. The Delhi State Legal Services Authority has confirmed that [manjha victims fall within the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme](https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-chinese-manjha-victim-compensation-256685), and the High Court has pushed the government to frame a dedicated relief policy. That is a real improvement, driven entirely by litigation by the families of the dead.

## Birds: the other body count

The human toll gets the headlines, but the string kills far more birds than people, and that was a central reason the NGT acted in the first place.

During the kite season the sky over cities fills with cutting string. Birds fly into it or get tangled, and the glass-coated edge slices wings, severs nerves, and breaks bones. Many die where they fall; the lucky ones reach a rescue centre. The scale is grim. [More than 4,000 birds in Ahmedabad and nearly 1,000 in Mumbai were injured during a single Makar Sankranti](https://www.conbun.com/blog/how-kite-flying-festivals-cause-injuries-to-hundreds-of-birds-every-year). The Jivdaya Charitable Trust in Ahmedabad reported attending to [2,394 injured birds in one season, of which 490 died](https://news.wildlifesos.org/manjha-menace-bird-injuries-on-the-rise-due-to-kite-flying/).

Gujarat now runs a statewide campaign, Karuna Abhiyan, to rescue and treat injured birds during Uttarayan, with thousands of volunteers and dedicated veterinary teams. Speaking about the medical setup, Jivdaya Charitable Trust veterinary surgeon Dr Utsav Prajapati [described surgical theatres, OPD, and ICU readied to treat birds injured by kite strings during the festival](https://thebetterindia.com/169780/ias-hero-ahmedabad-uttarayan-kite-flying-bird-rescue-treatment/). In one coordinated effort, volunteers in Ahmedabad [saved as many as 4,506 birds](https://thebetterindia.com/169780/ias-hero-ahmedabad-uttarayan-kite-flying-bird-rescue-treatment/) in a season.

The bird angle is not a sentimental footnote. It is part of the legal foundation. Because the harm to wildlife and the environment is what brought the matter into the NGT's jurisdiction at all, the bird deaths are the reason this is an environmental case and not merely a public-order one.

## What citizens, sellers, and parents must know

The law is now clear enough that ignorance is no defence. Here is the practical position for each group.

**If you are buying string.** Buy only plain cotton thread with no coating. Any nylon, plastic, or coated string is illegal to buy, and the NGT order makes the purchaser, not only the seller, an offender. Cotton costs more, around [500 rupees a spindle against roughly 250 for synthetic](https://www.deccanherald.com/india/delhi/chinese-manjha-dealer-arrested-with-50-rolls-from-northeast-delhi-3127063), but it is the only lawful and safe choice.

**If you are selling.** Stop stocking synthetic and coated string entirely. The penalty under EPA Section 15 is up to five years and one lakh rupees, and the festival-season drives target sellers first. Storage alone is an offence; you do not have to make a sale to be caught. Online listing and delivery of banned string is now a specific enforcement target, with the Delhi High Court directing investigation of [manufacturers, importers, and online retailers](https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/delhi-hc-asks-police-of-steps-taken-to-implement-chinese-manjha-ban-122080400689_1.html), and arrests already made for [online sale of the string](https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/delhi/three-arrested-for-online-sale-of-chinese-string-530224).

**If you are a parent.** Talk to children before the season. The string is marketed for the strength that makes it deadly. Several states' police now [counsel minors directly](https://www.deccanherald.com/india/telangana/hyderabad-police-intensifies-crackdown-on-chinese-manja-amid-sankranti-festivities-3859747) because so many flyers and victims are young.

**If you are a victim or a victim's family.** A death or serious injury from the string can support an FIR under the BNS, and in Delhi a compensation claim under the victim compensation scheme. Preserve evidence first. The Indore family's experience, where police allegedly pressed them to delete the videos that showed the manjha, is a warning: photograph the string and the wound, note witnesses, and if a station refuses to record the case, go to a senior officer or move the High Court. If the police refuse to register the case or do nothing, the High Court's writ jurisdiction is the remedy; the manjha PILs are precisely such cases. A refusal to register an FIR is itself reviewable, and the courts have shown they will intervene. If a defective or falsely-described product is involved in a sale, the [Consumer Protection Act 2019](/blog/consumer-protection-act-2019) may also offer a route, though the primary remedies here are criminal and constitutional.

## Why enforcement keeps failing

A ban that has been national since 2017, backed by a five-year jail term, should have ended the trade. It has not. The reasons are worth naming, because they are what every fresh High Court order is trying to fix.

First, demand is real and price-driven. Synthetic string is cheaper, stronger, and wins kite fights. As long as flyers want an edge and the cheaper string delivers it, a market exists. Even where the ban bites, sellers report a [season where kite shops in walled-city markets saw sales dip and then reopen](https://www.deccanherald.com/india/delhi/chinese-manjha-dealer-arrested-with-50-rolls-from-northeast-delhi-3127063) as supply found its way back.

Second, enforcement is seasonal and reactive. The crackdowns cluster in the fortnight before the festival. The supply chain, manufacture and stockpiling, runs year-round and is barely touched outside that window. The Surat godown seizure happened in April, off-season, which is the exception that proves the point.

Third, the offence is hard to pin on the person who causes a death. A fallen string has no owner you can find. So the criminal cases that follow a death usually name unknown persons and quietly die, while the easier targets, the sellers, face only the EPA penalty and rarely a custodial sentence.

Fourth, local policing falls short. The Indore case, with its deleted videos and jurisdiction dispute, and the fining of officers for dereliction, shows what the High Courts keep confronting: not an absence of law, but an absence of will at the station level.

Fifth, there is an awareness gap that the ban alone cannot close. Many buyers do not know that the purchase and use of the string, not just its sale, is an offence. Many flyers think "Chinese manjha" is a smuggled product they cannot be blamed for using, when in fact the law makes the user liable and the string is domestically made. The police drives that now include counselling minors and families are an attempt to attack demand, not just supply, because seizures alone have never been enough. Until the cheaper synthetic string carries real social cost as well as legal risk, the market will keep finding buyers.

The courts have read the situation correctly. They are not legislating; they are supervising. Every direction to file a real status report, to stop paper FIRs, to frame a compensation policy, is an attempt to convert a written ban into an enforced one. Whether it works depends on the same governments and police forces that have under-enforced it for years. The ban is nearly a decade old. The fact that High Courts are still issuing fresh enforcement directions every festival season is the clearest sign that the gap is not in the law, but in the will to apply it.

## Frequently asked questions

**Is Chinese manjha legal anywhere in India?**
No. Nylon, synthetic, and glass or metal-coated string is banned nationwide by the NGT's order of 11 July 2017, and the ban applies in every state and Union Territory. There is no part of India where it is legal to make, sell, store, buy, or use it.

**Is all manjha banned, or only Chinese manjha?**
Only the dangerous kind. Plain cotton thread with no coating remains legal for kite flying. The ban targets nylon and synthetic string and any thread coated with glass, metal, or chemicals. Some states such as Delhi go further and ban even glass-coated cotton.

**What is the punishment for selling banned manjha?**
Under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, imprisonment up to five years, a fine up to one lakh rupees, or both. Continuing breaches attract a further daily fine, and a contravention persisting beyond a year after conviction can draw up to seven years.

**What happens legally if someone dies from a kite string?**
On top of the EPA penalty for the banned string, police can register a case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, usually Section 125 for rash or negligent endangerment, and in some cases Section 105 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In practice many deaths are registered against unknown persons because the flyer cannot be traced.

**Can I claim compensation if a family member was killed by manjha?**
In Delhi, yes. The High Court has held that victims fall within the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme and directed the government to frame a dedicated relief policy. Other states vary. The NGT has also entertained pleas seeking compensation for manjha deaths.

**Why does the ban still fail every year?**
Because demand is price-driven, enforcement is concentrated only around festivals, the person who causes a death is rarely traceable, and local policing is inconsistent. The string is cheaper and stronger, so the market survives despite the law.

**What can I do if police refuse to act on manjha?**
A High Court writ petition under Article 226 can compel the police and the State to enforce the existing ban. The manjha PILs in Delhi, Telangana, and Allahabad are exactly such cases, and they have produced binding directions to register cases, investigate properly, and frame relief policies.

## Researching the order that governs your state

The legal position on manjha is a layered one. There is the national floor, the NGT order of 11 July 2017 read with Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act. There is your state's own notification, which may be stricter. There may be a festival-season prohibitory order from your local administration. And there is the criminal law, now the BNS, that applies when the string injures or kills. To advise correctly, or to file correctly, you need all four layers for your specific jurisdiction, plus the latest High Court directions, which change every season.

That is the kind of multi-source legal question Niyam is built for. Niyam is a legal-AI research tool for India that searches Supreme Court and High Court judgments, statutes, and tribunal orders together, so you can pull the NGT order, the EPA provision, your state notification, and the current High Court enforcement directions into one place, with sources you can verify, instead of stitching them from scattered news reports.

You can start for **100 rupees**. Create an account at [app.niyam.ai/register](https://app.niyam.ai/register) and ask it your own state's manjha position, or any Indian legal question, and check the citations yourself before you rely on them.

*This article is for general information and is not legal advice. The law on manjha differs by state and changes around each festival season. For a specific case, consult a qualified advocate and verify the current notifications and orders that apply to you.*