‘Participants of dahi handi must be adults’

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Bombay high court’s decision banning anyone below the age of 18 from participating in the dahi handi ritual during Janmashtami celebrations and also restricting the height of the human pyramid to 20 feet.

A bench of justices Anil R. Dave and L. Nageswara Rao passed the order on an application from the Maharashtra government seeking clarification of the order suspending the directions issued by the Bombay high court in August 2014.

The bench clarified the other directions issued by the high court to the state government will remain in operation till they are modified by the apex court in the appeal which is restored.

The PIL petitioner, Amit Jaising Saraiya, prayed for directions to Maharashtra to prevent children below the age of 18 years from taking part in the dahi handi ritual. He also sought directions regarding safety measures to be adopted during the ritual.

The high court disposed of the PIL on August 11, 2014, directing the state government to increase the age of the performers from 12 to 18 years; amend Section 143B of the Maharashtra Police Act in respect of dangerous performances; fix the height of dahi handi to not more than 20 feet; and issue directions to ensure the dahi handi organisers provide sufficient safety measures at venues.

During the resumed hearing on Wednesday, the counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the conditions imposed by the HC should continue.

He informed the court that in 2015 alone more than 1,000 persons below the age of 18 were injured and admitted in hospital and there were many casualties also.

Justice Rao quipped “We only know of Lord Krishna stealing butter, but the not acrobatics involved.” Justice Dave recalled how he had seen the Govindas climb on human pyramids up to nine stories tall without even a rope to arrest their fall. When the Bench asked the ASG Tushar Mehta “Why did you not carry out any amendments or change the law as directed by the HC, the ASG said “we need clarification on this issue. This cannot be classified as a dangerous performance for the purpose of earning money They are not performances. It is finally for the State to take a call on that aspect.”