In recent times, two stars have become talking points because of what the courts said about them. One is Hindi film star Juhi Chawla while the other is Tamil films’ superstar, Vijay.
The Delhi high court chided Juhi Chawla last month while the Madras high court’s division bench sided with Vijay this month. Of course, Vijay was aggrieved by the single bench decision and, therefore, made an application before a division bench which, to his good fortune, saw his viewpoint and ruled that what the single bench judge had said about Vijay was uncalled for.
A brief background about both the cases and the judgements:
Juhi Chawla had filed a petition against the rollout of the 5G technology in India. In her petition, the actress had sought a scientific study on any adverse effects of radio frequency radiation emitted by cellular telecommunications using 5G technology on “health, life, organ or limb of adult or child, or to flora and fauna” before its official rollout in the country. Her petition sought to direct the government, and the Science and Engineering Research Board in particular, to certify that deployment of 5G technology for cellular communications posed no reasonable risk or hazard. The plea also urged the authorities to rope in the Indian Council of Medical Research, the Central Pollution Control Board and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to conduct their respective studies on the issue.
The Delhi high court on June 2, 2021 termed the petition filed by Juhi Chawla as “defective” and “not maintainable” and done for “media publicity”. Describing her move as “very shocking”, Justice J.R. Midha wondered why the actress had not made a representation to the government before rushing to the court. Two days later, on June 4, the judge slapped a cost of Rs. 20 lakh on her, saying that the plea was filed to gain publicity. In support of its inference that the petition was a mere publicity gimmick, the court said that this was evident as Juhi had shared the video conference link for the court hearing on social media, and had actually invited people to attend the hearing.
In the case of Vijay, his petition dated back to 2012 when he imported a Rolls Royce car from England. A single bench of the Madras high court earlier this month imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh on the actor for challenging a levy of entry tax on his imported car, saying that such a big star is “expected to pay tax promptly and punctually”, and actors who are seen by their fans as real heroes “can’t be just reel heroes”! The court dismissed the 2012 petition. Justice S.M. Subramaniam, in his order dated July 8, 2012 said, “In a state like Tamil Nadu, where such actors have become rulers, they are not expected to behave like just reel heroes. Tax evasion is to be construed as an anti-national habit, attitude and mindset and unconstitutional.” The order was released on July 13, 2021.
However, the order of the single bench was stayed by a division bench of the Madras high court on July 27 insofar as the adverse comments against Vijay were concerned and a cost of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on the actor for challenging the levy of entry tax! Vijay had appealed to the division bench as he was aggrieved by the “unjust and derogatory” remarks made by the single bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam on July 13 against him and against the community of actors in general while dismissing his petition, and made it amply clear to the division bench that he was not challenging the entry tax demand. In other words, the actor was only challenging the scathing observations in the judgement of the single bench.
In the case of Juhi Chawla, the judge slapping a cost of Rs. 20 lakh on the actress on the ground that the plea had been filed by her to gain publicity was a bit too harsh. A token cost could have served the same purpose. After all, it wasn’t as if Juhi had wasted hours and hours of the court. Her petition was dismissed in the first hearing itself. One believes that the actress promptly paid up the Rs. 20 lakh she was asked to pay. Probably, had she also appealed against the allegations made by Justice J.R. Midha against her intentions, she may have succeeded in getting the cost reduced to, say, Rs. 1 lakh and the comments against her may, perhaps, have been found to be very harsh by the division bench of the Delhi high court. Vijay did the right thing when he did not accept the insult hurled at him, that too unnecessarily, by the single bench of the Madras high court. He pointed out to the court that although he was asked to pay a cost of Rs. 1 lakh for challenging the levy of entry tax on the imported car, others who challenged the tax were not similarly asked to pay anything for challenging the tax. The court understood that it is every citizen’s fundamental right to avail of legal remedies and all Vijay had done was that.
It is very sad that the actions of film people in general and film stars in particular are often viewed with suspicion. And this, in spite of the fact that film people have always shown solidarity and come forward to support good and noble causes. Even during the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic, the contributions and donations which the film people made were immense. They have also been helping the needy tirelessly and that is for everybody to see. Just because they make films and are part of the glamour industry and, therefore, constantly under the lens, they can’t be targeted by everyone. The public often ridiculing film people on social media is bad enough. The media often needlessly going hammer and tongs against film people should never be taken lying down by the film industry. But if even the judiciary treats the film industry people with a yardstick that’s very different from that used for other people, it is time to wake up!