Deepali Kalia –
The Delhi High Court on June 2nd referred to the lawsuit filed by actress Juhi Chawla against the 5G wireless technology and called it a “Defective plaint” and said that the suit has been filed only for “ Media publicity” and nothing more.
“Did you approach the government with representation? If yes, is there any denial?” the court asked the counsel representing the plaintiffs who replied in negative.
The plaintiffs, Chawla and others were supposed to first approach the government for their rights and only after getting denied they should’ve come to the court, stated Justice J R Midha.
When informed by the plaintiff that they have personal knowledge of paragraphs 1 to 8’ only, the judge said the following, “Plaintiff has no personal knowledge of the plaint. I am surprised. How can it be? Is the suit permissible when the plaintiff has no personal knowledge of the averment? I have not seen a suit where a person says “I don’t know, please conduct an inquiry.”
The court also questioned why as many as 33 parties have been made a party to the plaint.
“It is not the sweet will of the plaintiff to join as many parties and cause of action. Please see the memo of parties. Tell me how you have joined them. Every party cannot be arrayed in the suit,” the judge said.
The court further quizzed the plaintiff on the facts and warned to prosecute them on filing false claims.
The plea filed by Chawla, social worker Veeresh Malik and Teena Vachani, stated that 5G wireless technology could cause serious, irreversible effects on human beings and permanent damage to the earth’s ecosystems.
It stated that if the telecom industry’s initiative to set up 5G technology is not stopped then no living being on the planet will be able to avert exposure to dangerous levels of RF radiations which are 10 to 100 times greater than what exists today for 24 hours and 365 days a year.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and advocate Amit Mahajan, representing the Department of Telecommunications, contended that 5G technology is not prohibited by law and that the plaintiff needs to demonstrate how the technology falls in the category of public nuisance and is a wrongful act.
The counsels representing the respondents termed the suit as an ill-conceived litigation.
“This suit will reveal a complete sell-out by the regulatory agencies who, statutorily, have been tasked to protect the health and life of the public, but whose actions reveal an utter derogation of their own statutory duty in order to advance private interests…,” the plea alleged and sought directions to the authorities to show to the public at large as to how the 5 G tech is safe to humans, animals and every type of living organism, flora and fauna.