Act first, verify later? Questions mount over police action against Tamil Nadu professor

The TVK government led by actor-turned-politician C. Joseph Vijay has found itself facing uncomfortable questions over the police action against economist A. Kalaiyarasan, an associate professor at the Madras Institute of Development Studies (MIDS). What should have been a routine investigation into an allegedly abusive social media post has snowballed into a controversy over police accountability, freedom of expression and the treatment of critics.

Kalaiyarasan was taken from his Adyar residence in Chennai around 5 am on October 28 by three policemen in plain clothes. The inquiry concerned an Instagram comment targeting a legislator of the TVK. The account carried Kalaiyarasan’s photograph, but he denied owning it or posting the comment.

In a letter to the DGP, the professor said the policemen took his mobile phone and asked him to accompany them to the T4 Sankar Nagar police station in Pammal without showing him an FIR or any documents authorising their action. He was allegedly taken in a hired vehicle and reportedly returned home around 7.45 am after the officers decided against proceeding further. The police reportedly asked him to submit a written statement denying any connection with the Instagram account before dropping him home, having established that they had mistaken his identity.

The episode raises questions about why the state police did not establish the identity of the account operator before taking the professor away. A photograph on a social media profile is hardly conclusive evidence of authorship. In an age when impersonation and fake accounts are common, investigators are expected to establish digital ownership and examine evidence before acting against an individual. If the police proceeded largely on the basis of a photograph, the incident points to a serious lapse in basic investigative judgment. The police had apparently looked only at the photo linked to the Instagram account and did a reverse Google search, which turned awry during the enquiry, damaging the image of the police.

The police have reportedly defended the action, saying the account carried Kalaiyarasan’s name and photograph and that he was sent home after officers established that he was not involved. But that explanation raises question as to why the initial suspicion could not withstand preliminary verification and why an early morning police visit was necessary in the first place.

Kalaiyarasan is a respected figure in Dravidian intellectual circles, although the police may not have been aware of his academic standing. The police who whisked him away from his residence in the wee hours do not know that he was a professor and that he had co-authored the book ‘The Dravidian Model: Interpreting the Political Economy of Tamil Nadu’ with M. Vijayabaskar, published by Cambridge University Press. He recently appeared in a television debate and shared his thoughts on price rise and why inflation in Tamil Nadu has doubled even when the prices of rice and other essential commodities have not gone up across India. 

Sources say that the police acted on instructions from a top official linked to the administration. In his letter to the DGP, Kalaiyarasan said the policemen spoke to a senior official over the phone and appeared to be acting on that official’s instructions. His complaint also seeks action over the alleged unlawful detention and misuse of his photograph. He also warned of the effect on public debate. “It is frightening to think that the police can knock on someone’s door in the early hours and take them away for no fault of their own,” he wrote to the DGP.

The political fallout has been swift. DMK president and former chief minister M.K. Stalin condemned the incident and demanded an apology from Vijay and the police. DMK MP Kanimozhi and CPI(M) state secretary P. Shanmugam also criticised the manner in which the professor was taken away. Opposition leaders have questioned whether the action was connected to Kalaiyarasan’s recent public commentary on inflation and the government’s performance. That alleged political motive, however, has not been established.

For Vijay’s government, the controversy is an early test of its approach to dissent and administrative accountability. The police have a duty to investigate online abuse, including complaints involving elected representatives. But that responsibility cannot justify questionable procedures or action based on unverified assumptions.

A government that promises change, through this arrest, seems to have treated police accountability as an afterthought. The question is no longer merely who posted the comment, but why the police acted before completing verification—and whether the government will demand answers from its own machinery.