Delhi High Court Proposes To Reduce Cost Imposed On Juhi Chawla In Suit Against 5G Rollout To ₹2 Lakh

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday proposed to reduce the cost of Rs. 20 Lakhs imposed on Bollywood actress and environmentalist Juhi Chawla and others while dismissing the civil suit against 5G Roll, to Rs. 2 lakhs.

A bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh was hearing a plea filed by Chawla and others challenging the single judge decision which had dismissed the civil suit as being defective and not maintainable with a cost of Rs. 20 lakhs.

The development came after the Court heard Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid appearing on behalf of the appellants.

"What we propose to do is, we will reduce the cost. We will not completely waive it. We will make it Rs. 2 lakhs but that comes with a condition. Considering your client is a celebrity and has presence in public, she should do public work also. Her position may be utilised in society for some public work also," the Court said.

The bench proposed that a programme may be conducted wherein the DSLSA can get in touch with Juhi Chawla and the actress can be featured while promoting the cause. 

However, while proposing the aforesaid, the Court clarified that it was not touching upon the findings made in the impugned order and was considering only the limited point of imposition of cost.

Therefore, on instructions, Khurshid apprised the Court that the actress would be honoured to participate and help the DSLSA in making efforts to bring justice in the society.

Khurshid also suggested to voluntarily offer the court fees, which will be returned as the plaint was rejected, towards the DSLSA. He added that the appellants would be moving an application regarding the return of court fees after which the amount will be transferred voluntarily by them to the DSLSA.

Accordingly, the Court issued notice to Member Secretary of Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA). Considering the fact that the plaint had been returned to the appellants and their primary ground was with regards to imposition of cost of Rs. 20 Lakhs, the Bench ordered thus:

"Issue notice to Member Secretary of DSLSA, Mr. Kanwal Jeet Arora, returnable on 27th January."

While the Court was not inclined to issue notice to other respondents, the Court asked the Member Secretary of DSLSA to appear before it on Thursday.

During the course of hearing today, Khurshid submitted before the Court that Juhi Chawla, being a public concerned person, had filed a suit highlighting the impact of 5G rollout on human body. He referred to an international decision wherein concerns were expressed over the issues of 5G rollout by a Court in America.

He however added that unfortunately the public issue was diluted due to the hyper technical difficulties in the impugned order passed by the Single Judge with regards to the law of pleadings.

Perusing the single judge order, the Bench was of the view thus:

"…the point is, exemption from payment of court fees, why should there be an exemption in a matter like this? It's not that your client cannot afford to pay the fee. Everyone pays that amount when one approaches the High Court."

"We will not overlook those technical aspects. Everyone has to follow the discipline of Court."

Adding that the Court fees has been paid in the matter, Khurshid said that a good cause may not be drowned because of the mistakes based on technical and practical issues.

The appeal emerges from the civil suit which was filed by Juhi Chawla and others seeking directions to restrain the Central Government from taking any steps for the roll-out of 5G telecommunication services in the country, including, but not limited to steps for spectrum allocation, licensing, etc. on grounds of long and short term harm to human, animal and plant life and detrimental impact on the environment at large.

The appellants have challenged the impugned order on the ground of being erroneous and arbitrary for the reason that a plaint is either rejected or returned and can only be dismissed once it has been allowed to be registered as a suit by the Court.

It is also the case of the appellants that the Single Judge went ahead to impose cost without any formal application made by the respondents to such effect. 

The appellants have also questioned the 'adverse comments' made by the Single Judge viewing the same to have been filed to garner publicity.

The appeal has been filed through Advocates Aadya Mishra and Deepak Khosla.

About the Single Judge Order

The Court had held that the Plaintiffs' suit was valued at at Rs. 2 crore for jurisdiction, therefore, the valuation had to be the same for Court fee. Over Rs 1 lakh should have been paid. Challenge to the Court Fee Act is not permitted under CPC.

The Court had further held that notice under S.80 CPC is a mandatory provision and the Plaintiffs' contention that it is an empty formality is rejected.

The Court had also said that the Plaintiffs have failed to make out a case for leave to institute the suit or to sue in representative capacity. Therefore, the plaint was held to be defective and not maintainable.

"They (plaintiffs) have abused and misused process of law. Plaintiffs are directed to deposit cost of 20 lakhs within one week. DSLSA to utilise it for cause of victims of road accidents. If any proceedings are instituted, this judgement be produced before the court. It appears plaintiffs have filed this suit for publicity, which is clear by the plaintiff 1 sharing links of the hearing on her social media, which lead to multiple disruptions in the hearing", the Court had noted in the order.

Case Title: Juhi Chawla and others v Science and Engineering Research Board and others