The arrest of Muralidharan Sivalingam, founder of the Indian Centre for Animal Rights and Education (INCARE), by the Greater Chennai Police on Sunday has triggered a sharp debate online, with several citizens alleging that harassment complaints are increasingly being weaponised in disputes related to stray dog management.
The police booked him under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, and the Information Technology Act. He was subsequently remanded to judicial custody.
The arrest followed a complaint from five women, all animal welfare volunteers from the city, who accused him of weeks of gender-based online harassment, cyberstalking, and defamation.
Counter-Allegations Online: “A Familiar Pattern in Stray Dog Disputes”
However, the arrest has also prompted pushback from several social-media users who claim that such complaints are often used as a tactic in conflicts over stray dog feeding and welfare practices.
According to these users, there is a “standard operating pattern” in housing societies and public spaces, where individuals who object to feeding dogs in common areas are accused of harassment.
Some online commentators described it as an “old trick used in many stray-dog disputes,” alleging that:
- women volunteers frequently file harassment or eve-teasing complaints when confronted over illegal feeding spots,
- online arguments quickly escalate into police complaints,
- and activist groups allegedly coordinate these actions with large NGOs and vaccine-advocacy networks.
Netizens argue that people who respond sharply to online abuse end up facing legal consequences, while organised groups push the narrative. Several posts criticised the Tamil Nadu Police, saying the force had “fallen into a trap” by arresting Muralidharan before a fuller investigation into both sides of the dispute.
According to this perspective, the legal system is being weaponized. The women’s police complaint, which details being tagged in posts with derogatory language and having their activities misrepresented, is seen by Sivalingam’s supporters as the predictable second step in this process—a move they allege is taught and encouraged by a larger “vaccine lobby and NGOs” with vested interests.
(Source: The New Indian Express)
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.