‘Clarify with Supreme Court on Dahi Handi bash’
After the state government’s argument that it was not bound by the Bombay high court order restricting height of human pyramids in Dahi Handi celebrations, the high court on Friday asked the governmen
After the state government’s argument that it was not bound by the Bombay high court order restricting height of human pyramids in Dahi Handi celebrations, the high court on Friday asked the government to get a clarification from the Supreme Court on it.
The high court had last year ordered that the height of human pyramids should not exceed 20 feet. The state government challenged the Bombay high court order in the Supreme Court, which initially suspended the order and later dismissed the petition. According to the state government, the apex court did not express any opinion on the restriction imposed by the high court on the height of human pyramids. Hence, they were not bound by the earlier order of the high court.
The issue cropped up when city-based social worker Swati Patil, who is the secretary of Utkarsh Mahila Samajik Sanstha, an NGO, filed a contempt petition alleging that the Maharashtra government and others were not following earlier orders of the Bombay high court on the height of human pyramids during Dahi Handi celebrations.
The high court, on August 11, 2014, while hearing a petition filed by Ms Patil, had ordered that the height of human pyramids should not exceed 20 feet and that children below the age of 18 years should not be allowed to participate in Dahi Handi functions. The state government had challenged the high court order in the SC.
According to the state government, the apex court did not express any opinion on the restriction imposed by the high court on the height of human pyramids. Hence, they were not bound by the earlier order of the high court.
The high court, however, was of the opinion that its earlier order would be in force unless a higher court had set it aside.
Therefore, it asked the state government to get a clarification from the SC about the same as the apex court order was silent on this aspect.