Peyush Bansal, the founder and Chief Executive Officer of the popular eyewear brand Lenskart, has finally addressed the massive public outcry surrounding a highly controversial company document. This internal text went viral across various social media platforms recently, sparking a fierce debate because it seemingly discriminated against traditional Hindu religious symbols. The core of this widespread anger is rooted in a specific company style guide. This guide strictly banned employees from wearing bindis and tilaks, yet it openly allowed the wearing of the hijab.

As public anger grew stronger, Peyush Bansal used the social media platform X on the night of Wednesday, April 15th, to defend his company. In his first attempt to calm the situation and clear the air, he stated: “Hi, all. I’ve been seeing an inaccurate policy document going viral about Lenskart. I want to speak directly that this document does not reflect our present guidelines. Our policy has no restrictions on any form of religious expression, including bindi and tilak… outdated versions do not represent who we are today.”

However, his effort to quickly brush off the leaked file as simply "inaccurate" met a fast digital roadblock. A Community Note was soon attached to his post on X, providing a public reality check for all users to see. This note pointed out a crucial detail: the circulating Lenskart Style Guide, identified as version 1.1/11, clearly carried the date of February 2, 2026, alongside official company branding. This vital piece of information directly challenged Bansal's argument that the rules were from an old or outdated era, proving the document was essentially current.

Seeing the intense mounting pressure and the undeniable proof presented by the Community Note, Bansal released a follow-up statement. In this second message, he shifted his stance. He moved away from calling the file inaccurate and confessed that it was indeed a genuine, though "incorrect," guide meant for training purposes, clarifying that it was not an HR policy. He elaborated on the situation by writing: “The document currently circulating is an outdated internal training document. It is not an HR policy. That said, it contained an incorrect line about bindi/tilak that should never have been written and does not reflect our values… When we discovered this on February 17, well before this became a public conversation, we immediately removed it.”

To close his statement, the executive stepped forward to shoulder the blame directly: “As Founder and CEO, I take responsibility for such mistakes. Lenskart does not, and never will, prohibit any form of respectful religious expression.”

Despite this personal apology, Bansal’s earlier strategy to manage the damage by branding the guide as inaccurate only added fuel to the fire. As the platform's fact-checkers demonstrated, and as Bansal's subsequent tweets essentially admitted, the text was not a fake representation, but a very real manual that had been circulated.

Many consumers view this Lenskart saga as another troubling incident in a growing trend. Following the recent Nashik TCS ‘corporate jihad’ controversy, critics argue that the corporate ecosystem is increasingly inclined to accommodate the practices of the Muslim community while simultaneously marginalizing the traditional faith expressions of the majority in a Hindu-majority country. The stark disparity in how the company treated these items—where one type of religious garment is protected as a right, while another is punished as a "grooming violation"—has left a bitter taste in the mouths of buyers.

Exploring The Contents Of The Leaked "Lenskart Style Guide"

The massive public dispute truly exploded when a lengthy 23-page digital file titled the “Lenskart Staff Uniform and Grooming Guide“ surfaced on the internet. This official manual was issued by the Lenskart Academy. Its stated purpose was to establish clear rules to ensure a "cleanliness and well-groomed" appearance for all workers stationed in retail stores. However, when readers looked closely at the specific details printed on pages 7, 10, and 11, immediate outrage followed.

On page 7 of the document, the text explicitly forbids Lenskart store employees from wearing sacred Hindu threads (kalava) as well as bindis. In the exact same section, it gives clear permission for employees to wear hijabs.

Laying out the strict conditions for staff attire, the manual states: “If you wear a hijab/turban, it must be black. The hijab should cover moderately up to the chest. Rings with colored stones (such as black, blue, green, red, etc.) are not permitted. Bindis and clutches are also prohibited. Religious threads or wristbands must also be removed.”

Beyond these deeply sensitive religious rules, the extensive handbook also specifies a variety of everyday items that workers should and should not wear, covering everything from specific shoe styles and clothing choices to watches. Yet, the religious restrictions do not stop at page 7. Another highly controversial section is found on page 10, which regulates the traditional use of vermilion. The manual instructs that if an individual chooses to apply vermilion, they must apply it very sparingly and are strictly forbidden from spreading it widely across their forehead.

Unresolved Concerns And The Reasoning Behind The Bias

Even though the CEO has issued a public apology, the entire matter remains deeply complicated. If we accept the claim that this highly offensive document was officially removed on February 17th, a major question naturally arises: why was a version clearly dated February 2026 still being actively circulated to the staff?

Furthermore, the issue of transparency remains a major hurdle. If Lenskart truly updated this controversial policy, the company has not yet made the "correct" version public to restore consumer trust.

The core of the public frustration lies in the perceived religious asymmetry. Lenskart stands as a leading Indian brand, established by a Hindu founder, and operates in a nation where the vast majority of both its workforce and its customers follow the Hindu faith. It is logically understandable that certain safety regulations in technical areas, such as manufacturing labs, might necessitate the removal of loose religious threads (kalava) or dangling jewelry to prevent accidents. However, there is absolutely no logical reason why wearing a simple bindi or a traditional tilak would interfere with an employee successfully selling eyewear on a retail store floor. This restriction is especially baffling when the very same manual found Muslim religious attire to be completely acceptable for the exact same job role.

The sheer irony of the situation is hard to ignore. In what looks like a corporate effort to appear modern and "inclusive," the brand seemingly excluded the very cultural symbols that represent the foundation of its primary consumer base. While Bansal insists that his team simply "forgot to remove" these offending lines from the text, the very fact that such detailed, discriminatory guidelines were drafted and approved in the first place suggests a deep-seated bias. It is a fundamental issue that a simple apology alone may not be able to fix.