01 July 2021
The High Court in Delhi dismissed Bollywood actress-turned activist Juhi Chawla’s lawsuit challenging the 5G networks rollout in India.
Judges cited that the plaint was “not based on any special damage” suffered by the plaintiff by electromagnetic radiation or by cellular technology and imposed a fine of Rs20 lakh, because it held that the petition was filed for publicity.
Chawla filed a suit against the implementation of 5G in India alleging harmful effects of radio frequency radiation.
In a plea filed with the Delhi High Court, she claimed that 5G will lead to RF exposure to all the living beings on earth which will be 100 times more than the current level and lead to serious, irreversible effects on humans.
Chawla said 5G should not be rolled out in India until it is certified safe after a thorough research finding on the subject.
Her plea in the court cited clinical and experimental evidence of damage to DNA, cells and organ systems in plants and animals and human diseases like cancer and diabetes being caused by electromagnetic pollution which is generated by wireless mobile phone technology.
The case was filed to get the government to certify to the public that 5G technology is safe to humankind, animals and every type of organisms, from flora, to fauna. Juhi also wants the government to conduct an efficient research, without participation of private interest, and furnish the report and declare whether or not the implementation of 5G in India would be safe.
“We are not against the implementation of technological advancements,” Chawla said. “On the contrary, we enjoy using the latest products that the world of technology has to offer, including in the field of wireless communications. However, whilst using the latter kind of devices, we are in a constant dilemma, because after doing our own research and studies regarding the RF radiation from wire-free gadgets and network cell towers, we have sufficient reason to believe that the radiation is extremely harmful and injurious to the health and safety of the people.”
The case was heard June 2.