Bollywood actress Juhi Chawla has finally broken her silence clarifying her stance on the much-talked-about 5G lawsuit initiated by her. Chawla who was fined Rs. 20 lakh fine by the Delhi High Court for abusing the process of law has released a video on Instagram asking people to decide ‘if it was a publicity stunt’.
Here’s what the actress had to say.
Chawla began the video defending her petition saying all she wanted was a certification that said 5G is safe for humankind, the environment and the animals. Her previous RTIs from 2019 and 2020 demanded studies on the harmful effects of 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G but to no avail.
Juhi Chawla then narrated the reason that led her to raise her voice against the unmonitored and untested deployment of 5G and other cellular technologies. Chawla said that in 2010 she saw 14 cellular towers suddenly crop right across her home at the Sahyadri Guest House.
Quoting a report from the Tehelka magazine, she said it is then that she got to know of the harmful effects of cellular radiation on human health. That is when she decided to call up agencies who could help her find out if she and her family were affected by radiation from cell towers.
The agency called then submitted a report specifying the various areas of her home which recorded harmful levels of radiation. Allegedly these radiations could lead to multiple health issues such as headaches, memory loss and irregular blood pressure.
Juhi Chawla then chased multiple organizations and parliamentary committees to discuss the issue. She then started giving presentations, filed PILs and petitions seeking removal of the towers outside her home. As per Chawla, it was found that 13 out of 14 towers were illegally installed and were removed.
This was when her campaign snowballed and people from across the country started seeking her advice on how to fight against the cell towers cropping up outside their homes.
She also quoted case studies from Mumbai which proved the rise in cases of cancers in buildings that were in close proximity of the cell phone towers. Chawla also attached the details of the cases filed by her, RTI responses and concluded the video by asking if she did anything wrong by raising a question regarding the safety of mankind and the environment.
Bad press but heartwarming responses
Chawla, emotional about the experience, in a statement, said, “Whatever transpired in June, left me feeling hurt and confused. On one hand, I received some bad press and publicity, on the other, I received heartwarming messages from unknown people telling me they were genuinely and completely in support. One such message was from a group of farmers in Maharashtra which brought tears to my eyes, they wished to carry out a voluntary drive to collect a small sum of money from each of their 10,000 farmer community to help me pay the hefty penalty, I had been fined with.”
“Moments like these made me grateful that no matter what, I had lent a voice to the health concerns of many, many simple people of my country. When the storm died down, and I could see more clearly, I became calm and strong because I realized what an important, timely, relevant and impacting question I had raised. Had it not been so, would the world have erupted the way it did?!” she added.
“All this while I remained silent because I believe silence has its own deafening sound, but now I’d like to bring forth some very important and shocking details of happenings, in my 11-year journey of discovering EMF radiation, its health effects and the glaring ignorance of certain authorities in this regard. I hope you can make some time to watch this video,” Chawla said further in her statement.
Juhi Chawla circulated video conferencing link of her hearing
The court after fining the actress had remarked that the petition was filed to gain publicity which was clear with Chawla circulating the video conferencing link of the hearing on her social media accounts. This had led to the hearing being disrupted by unknown miscreants who sang songs from the actress’s movies.
Moreover, the court had also noted that the plaint was defective and not maintainable. It ruled that Chawla did not comply with the mandate under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It additionally said that the plaint was not verified.
