The Supreme Court today said that youth below 18 years of age cannot participate in the Dahi Handi ritual, part of the Janmashtami festival, in Maharashtra and the height of the human pyramid for it cannot exceed 20 feet, a limit fixed by the Bombay High Court.

A bench comprising justices A R Dave and L Nageswara Rao, which decided to hear the revived petition in October this year, however suspended the operation of two other directions passed by the High Court to regulate the Dahi Handi festival.

The High Court directions, which have been suspended by the apex court, relate to amending the existing law to bar children below 18 years of age from participating in dangerous performances.

It also suspended the direction pertaining to 15 days prior approval from the authorities concerned to check the date of birth certificates of ‘Govindas’ to ensure that no underage children take part in it.

During the hearing, the bench agreed with the High Court directions with regard to the minimum age of participants and the maximum height of the pyramid.

The Supreme Court had, on August 10, revived a plea challenging a Bombay HC order restricting the height of human pyramids to 20 feet for ‘Dahi-Handi’ ritual, saying it needs to hear the PIL petitioner before passing any order.

The court had sought reply of Swati Sayaji Patil, a social worker, who had filed a petition for initiation of contempt proceedings against Maharashtra government in high court for failure to comply with the HC order.

The Maharashtra government had earlier approached the apex court seeking clarification on its 2014 order by which it had stayed the high court decision banning participation of those below 18-years in a popular ‘Dahi-Handi’ ritual.

The high court had on August 11, 2014, while hearing a petition filed by Patil, 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.

The state government had then challenged the high court order in the Supreme Court which had initially suspended the HC order and later dismissed the petition challenging it.

The Maharashtra government had taken a stand that since the apex court had not expressed any opinion on restriction imposed by the HC on the height of human pyramids, it was not bound by its earlier order.

The high court, however, had asked the state government to seek clarification from the Supreme Court on the aspect that its earlier order would be in force unless it had been set aside by the apex court.PTI

The Supreme Court has allowed an estranged couple’s plea for divorce by mutual consent by waiving the waiting period of six months, exercising its powers under the Constitution to do “complete justice”.

A bench of justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman granted the relief to the couple after taking into consideration their several years of litigation, separation after a few days of marriage, and both parties’ desire to move on with life.

The bench also noted that they had amicably settled their disputes and the monetary part of the settlement had been complied with, and all that remained were the criminal cases against each other and the plea for divorce by mutual consent.

Taking on record the submissions made by the parties that they have to move on with their respective lives, the bench said, “We are of the view that it is a fit case to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent by waiving the statutory period of waiting.”

The bench was also of the view that since the parties had settled their disputes amicably, “the interest of justice would be met, in case, the whole disputes are also finally settled” and quashed the criminal cases the couple had lodged against each other and their respective family members.

The couple had submitted before the court that they had lived as husband and wife only for a few days in 2010 when they were married and that “they have exercised their free will and have taken a conscious decision to part and put an end to all other litigation as well”.