New Delhi. The Delhi High Court has dismissed Bollywood actress Juhi Chawla’s petition against the 5G technology rollout, as well as imposed a fine of Rs 20 lakh on Juhi Chawla. The High Court rejected the plea of Juhi Chawla regarding the evaluation of fees. Court ordered to deposit the difference of fees within a week.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by actress Juhi Chawla against 5G technology and also imposed a fine of ₹ 20 lakh. The court said that it seems that this petition was filed for publicity and that is why Juhi Chawla also shared the link of the hearing on social media.
The court has also directed the Delhi Police to take strict action as per law against the person who sings the song in loud voice during the last hearing of the court.
The Delhi High Court, while dismissing Juhi Chawla’s petition, said that the petitioner had misused the legal process and due to this, imposed a fine of ₹ 20 lakh on her.
The court, in its order, also asked the Delhi Police to identify the person who creates disturbance during the hearing and takes appropriate action against him. Giving the verdict on Juhi Chawla’s petition, the Delhi High Court said that there is only some such information in her petition which is correct, the rest are only speculations and doubts have been expressed.
Along with this, the court has also directed Juhi Chawla’s lawyer to deposit the court fee which is made in this case along with the rules in the court because the court fee which was deposited while filing the case is in accordance with the rules. It was quite low.
Significantly, film actress Juhi Chawla had raised questions regarding the testing of 5G technology by filing a petition in the Delhi High Court. It was said in the petition that a study should be done on this matter whether humans, animals and nature are not being harmed due to this technology. During the hearing, when the court asked for the answer that on what basis did he express this doubt?
If there is any information, study or report regarding this, then the answer was given or not. Arguing that he has approached the court to get the same information, on which the court had commented that the court expects that if any visits are being made in the court, it will be with full facts and information. Only to be filed, not to waste the time of the court.