Fining abusive officials is the only way to compensate victims

The arrest of MIDS professor A Kalaiyarasan raises several questions that go beyond the clarifications offered by State ministers. Are local police personnel empowered to detain individuals over social media posts without first issuing a summons and seeking an explanation? On what basis do police officers at a local station assume the authority to determine an online post's authenticity and act on it so hastily? Descending on the residence of a respected academician in the early hours, rather than following due process, raises concerns about possible intimidation. What legal procedure is prescribed in such cases? What safeguards protect against arbitrary police action, and did the police violate or bypass any of them in this case?

— K Saravanan, Chetpet, Chennai

The police's mindset has not changed despite several safeguards on pre-trial arrest of a person, whatever be his/her social standing. The cybercrime police are acting as the primary investigative agency in the arrest of Prof. Kalaiarasan. Imposing hefty fines on the personnel concerned is the only way to compensate the victim for such blatant misuse of power. They must pay the fine out of their pocket. A woman and her minor son were taken to the local police station without any reason and were kept until early morning due to a neighbour's complaint at a police quarters in Avadi. I had imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on the cops when I learnt that the police detained the woman and the boy without any justification. Only such penalties will let the police behave in a civilised way and keep the law alive (See Alarmelu Mangai vs. The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 27/4/2010).

India’s exotic wildlife laws still riddled with loopholes

The Lar gibbon case has raised questions about the disparity in how India treats native and exotic wildlife. While trade in native wildlife is largely prohibited, possession of exotic species is permitted subject to regulations. In this case, the court allowed a breeder to retain two Lar gibbons, seven serval cats and two tufted capuchins, rejecting Vandalur Zoo's takeover bid, despite the Manipur Forest Department reportedly clarifying that it had neither approved the transfer nor issued registration certificates for the gibbons. Does India's legal framework adequately protect endangered species beyond its borders? Are regulatory loopholes allowing private ownership and trade in exotic wildlife, potentially undermining international conservation commitments? Should keeping endangered animals as status symbols, often fuelled by social media trends, be viewed as a serious conservation concern?

-- R Govindasamy, Medavakkam, Chennai

What you described will pale in comparison if you read more about Vantara, a zoo created by Anant Ambani near Jamnagar in Gujarat. If you want to know more, read an article by Sushovan Patnaik in article-14.com, dated September 29, 2026. The worst part is that Justice Krishna Murari, the judge who gave favourable orders for importing and keeping some animals without approval from the Central Zoo Authority, has now, after his retirement, been taken into its top governing body. Now, where will you complain?