A viral video of a man smashing a newly bought pair of glasses outside a Lenskart outlet has given fresh momentum to a controversy over allegations that the eyewear chain restricted bindis and tilaks for store staff, even after the company moved to publicly rewrite its dress code and apologise for any hurt caused. The clip, shared on X by user Mohit Chauhan and amplified across social media on April 22 and April 23, shows the man claiming he bought the glasses before destroying them in protest. The footage has widened an argument that had already shifted from an internal policy dispute into a broader cultural and political flashpoint. The company’s difficulty lies in timing as much as substance. The first wave of anger erupted after an internal grooming guide circulated online appearing to say that “religious tikka/tilak and bindi/sticker” were not allowed, while black hijabs and turbans were permitted. That language triggered accusations of unequal treatment and raised questions about whether visible expressions of faith were being judged differently depending on community or form. Within days, the issue moved beyond customer outrage and into a wider debate about identity, workplace presentation and whether consumer-facing brands are trying to enforce a narrow, sanitised version of professionalism.
Peyush Bansal, Lenskart’s founder, responded by saying the document circulating online did not reflect the company’s current rules. He described it as inaccurate and outdated, said the policy imposed no restrictions on religious expression including bindi and tilak, and apologised for the confusion. That clarification, however, did not fully settle the matter. Once a disputed document has entered public view, companies are judged not only on what they say the rule is now, but on whether employees and customers believe the earlier language was ever being applied in practice.
Lenskart then went further and published a revised in-store style guide on April 18, explicitly allowing religious, cultural and family marks such as bindi, tilak and sindoor, along with items including kalawa, bangles, mangalsutra, kada, hijabs and turbans. The company said it had heard customers and employees “clearly and openly”, adding that any communication that made staff feel their faith was unwelcome was contrary to what the business stood for. The revised guide also set out an escalation route for workers who felt a grooming norm clashed with personal or cultural practice, signalling an attempt to formalise accommodation rather than leave such issues to store-level discretion.
Yet the smashed-glasses video shows how hard it is to contain a values dispute once it enters the attention economy. The clip itself does not independently prove that any purchase was made, nor does it verify the underlying allegations about store-level enforcement. Even so, the symbolism is obvious: a consumer publicly destroying a product to frame his anger as moral rather than merely commercial. Online reaction has been sharply divided, with some users praising the act as a stand against perceived bias, others dismissing it as performative outrage, and many questioning whether brand damage is being driven by fact, emotion or opportunistic mobilisation.
The row has also drawn direct political intervention. A separate video that circulated widely showed BJP Minority Morcha leader Nazia Elahi Khan entering a Mumbai Lenskart store and applying tilak to staff members, turning an HR-style dispute into a public demonstration. That development matters because it shifts the episode from corporate communications trouble into a theatre of symbolic politics, where individual outlets and frontline employees can become props in a larger ideological contest. For retailers with national footprints, such moments are especially risky because a policy dispute in one part of the organisation can rapidly become a referendum on the brand itself.
The market has already shown signs of that pressure. Lenskart shares fell by nearly 5 per cent on April 20 as boycott calls and criticism gathered pace online, illustrating how cultural controversies can quickly carry financial consequences for consumer businesses. The company’s public emphasis on inclusivity across more than 2,400 stores suggests it understands the scale of that risk. But the harder task is rebuilding trust among workers and customers who may now scrutinise not just the wording of policy, but how it is enforced, who interprets it, and whether complaints are handled evenly across locations.