Dress-code dispute engulfs LenskartLenskart founder Peyush Bansal has rejected claims that the company’s current grooming rules permit a hijab while barring a bindi, tilak or kalawa, after a document titled “Lenskart Staff Uniform and Grooming Guide” triggered a political and social-media backlash on April 16. Bansal said the circulating document did not reflect the company’s present policy and stated that Lenskart places no restriction on religious expression, including bindi and tilak.
The dispute gained traction after screenshots of the guide were shared online with passages that appeared to allow black hijabs and turbans while prohibiting bindis, chooda, sindoor, tilak and kalawa under a staff appearance code. The wording set off accusations of unequal treatment and religious discrimination, turning what may have been an internal policy question into a wider test of how large consumer brands handle faith, identity and neutrality in customer-facing roles.
Bansal’s response sought to draw a line under the controversy but also acknowledged a problem in the way the issue had surfaced. Reports quoting his public statement said he described the viral document as inaccurate or outdated, while another account said he accepted there had been a lapse in language in an internal grooming policy. Across those versions, his core position was consistent: Lenskart does not endorse restrictions on religious symbols and is reviewing its guidelines.
That distinction matters because the row is no longer only about one document. It has become part of a larger debate over whether companies can present a standardised professional image without appearing to privilege one form of religious expression over another. Dress and grooming rules are common in retail, aviation, hospitality and healthcare, especially in roles where employers want staff to project a uniform brand identity. Trouble begins when policy language is imprecise, selectively framed or open to interpretation, particularly in a country where visible religious markers are woven into daily life.
For Lenskart, the stakes are higher than a fleeting online storm. The company operates thousands of stores, employs a large frontline workforce and has built its brand on accessibility and mass-market trust. Any suggestion that staff are treated unequally on religious lines carries legal, reputational and commercial risk. Even when a company denies the validity of a disputed document, the burden quickly shifts to transparency: what is the current rule, when was it last updated, who approved it and how is it enforced across stores and offices.
The episode also shows how corporate controversies now travel. A screenshot, stripped of context and amplified through partisan commentary, can force a founder into public crisis management within hours. That does not mean every viral claim is true, nor does it mean every clarification ends the matter. Companies are increasingly judged not only on what their policies say but on how quickly they publish accurate versions, correct flawed drafts and reassure employees who may feel singled out by the debate. In this case, the central factual issue remains narrow: whether the viral guide represented Lenskart’s live policy. Bansal says it did not.
There is also a governance lesson here. Internal handbooks and grooming guides often receive less scrutiny than board statements or investor documents, yet they shape the everyday experience of workers and can expose companies to discrimination claims. A poorly drafted clause, even if never enforced, can create confusion among managers and employees. Once circulated beyond the workplace, it can be interpreted as evidence of corporate intent. That is why human resources experts and employment lawyers have long argued that appearance policies should be clear, narrowly tailored to the job and consistently applied across faiths and communities.
Public reaction suggests the matter touched a wider nerve. Much of the anger online stemmed from the perception that one religious head covering was being accommodated while symbols associated with another tradition were being curtailed. Whether that perception arose from an obsolete draft, a badly worded manual or a misunderstanding, the outcome was the same: a brand known for eyewear was pushed into a debate about equal treatment, secular presentation and workplace dignity.