Dibankar Roy, a freelance journalist who initially thought it was a joke, thinks on the similar lines. “It is hilarious when murderers are running scot free, but not so serious crimes are taken up seriously by the judiciary. The authorities need to know the difference between a serious and not so serious crime,” Mr Roy opines.

Thomas Kurien believes that winking with malicious intent should be penalized but takes umbrage at the kind of fine that has been slapped on Ilyas. “Fining a coward Rs. 3,000 is a bit steep, maybe Rs. 1,000 is enough to make a man out of him, Mr Kuerin said, adding, “ While being the first doddering step in harassment, winking is largely harmless, and an act of male cowardice and street voyeurism.”

Mr Kuerin doesn't stop there and asks, "What if a woman winks at a man' but answers himself the very next moment: “Many men would gladly pay Rs. 3,000 to witness the phenomenon,” he says, in a lighter tone.

Shiv Prakash holds a rather extreme viewpoint and finds in the judgement a 'lesson for eve teasers'. “We cannot say that it is not a serious crime. Ask that girl how much humiliation she would have faced because of this. I hope this punishment to become the base when the judgment is pronounced in the Guwahati molestation case,” Mr Prakash says.

Holding views almost similar to Prakash, Pakhi Hussain maintains that strict rules should be enforced to control the burgeoning crimes against women. “What starts with a wink can lead to Guwahati incidents so strict rules should be enforced,” Ms Hussain fears, adding, “with this ruling a man will think twice the next time before daring to look at a girl leave alone winking.”