Why did the Forest Department spare Lal in the ivory case but arrest the hunter over tiger teeth?

After the hunter’s arrest in the tiger tooth case, actor Mohanlal’s old ivory case has once again become a hot topic on social media. Many are now questioning why the Forest Department acted swiftly against the hunter but showed no such urgency in Mohanlal’s case.

In August 2011, during a raid by the Income Tax Department at Mohanlal’s residence in Thevara, Ernakulam, four ivory tusks were recovered. The Forest Department was immediately informed, but despite the actor lacking valid documents to possess the tusks, no case or arrest followed for months. Only in June 2012, after public outcry, did the department file a case naming Mohanlal as the prime accused.

Even though the law was clearly violated, Mohanlal was not taken into custody like the hunter. In fact, the department didn’t even summon him for questioning at their office; instead, officials visited his home to record his statement, ensuring his convenience. In his statement, Mohanlal claimed that two of his friends in Thrissur and Kochi had entrusted the tusks to him for safekeeping.

Under the law, selling, purchasing, transferring, or even moving ivory without permission is strictly prohibited. Yet, despite this admission, no further action was taken against the actor. Meanwhile, Mohanlal wrote to the then Prime Minister seeking ownership rights over the ivory. The central government directed the state to examine the request, and eventually, the Forest Department granted him ownership, bypassing regulations.

Petitions challenging the legality of this decision are still pending in the High Court. While the department did file a chargesheet in the Perumbavoor court, Mohanlal sought its dismissal, which the court rejected, leading him to secure a stay from the High Court. The controversial ivory tusks and 13 idols carved from the ivory found during the raid still remain in the actor’s possession.

The main question flooding social media now is: why did the Forest Department show such diligence in the hunter’s case but not when it came to Mohanlal?