<p>Dismissing a petition by Juhi Chawla, challenging the roll out of 5G telecom, the Delhi High Court, called it an attempt to gain publicity. The dismissal itself, is unsurprising, apart from the imposition of a fine, which is meant to disincentivise similar litigations. Most of such petitions fail, because the Court demands, conclusive proof of harm. In civil actions, evidentiary proof is required to meet to standard of balance of probabilities, rather than, the higher threshold of conclusive proof. The Court exercises its discretion, in public interest litigations, to set an unachievable evidentiary bar, to dissuade frivolous petitions, thus reflecting the Court’s own appreciation of citizenship claims, in scientific controversies. Nevertheless, litigation continues unabated. Reasons for pursuing such actions, include, the realisation of the political nature of ascribing risk categories, the lack of administrative avenues to mount public challenges to categorisation decisions and procedural openings, assiduously devised by the National Green Tribunal and the Central Public Information Commission, despite lacking formal and direct jurisdiction on the issue. A minority of High Courts have also supported strengthening procedural transparency and regulatory accountability on this issue. I focus on the judicial construction of risk discourses when confronted with citizen demands for accountability and care from the State and its implications for civic participation in risk regulation, specifically in the context of controversies over technological risks.</p>