Lenskart has come under fresh controversy after a viral video showed BJP-linked leader Nazia Elahi Khan confronting staff at an outlet in Andheri, Mumbai. She posted the video on X, where it quickly gained traction and triggered a wider debate on workplace conduct and religious expression.
Heated Exchange With Staff Caught on Camera
In the video, Khan engages in a tense exchange with employees, including store manager Mohsin Khan. She questions the staff and uses strong language, including remarks referencing “Sharia.” The footage also shows her moving across the store floor and interacting directly with employees.
The confrontation has drawn sharp reactions online, with users debating the tone and conduct displayed in the clip.
Allegations on Religious Symbols
Khan alleges that the company discourages Hindu employees from wearing religious symbols such as tilak and kalawa. She is seen applying tilak on some employees and raising religious slogans inside the store.
These claims have intensified the controversy, with social media users split over issues of workplace freedom and religious identity.
Company Clarification on Policy
Amid the backlash, Peyush Bansal, CEO of Lenskart, issued a clarification. He stated that a document circulating online, which allegedly restricted religious symbols, is outdated and does not reflect the company’s current policy.
He added that the organisation allows employees to express their religious identity, including wearing symbols of faith.
Calls for Probe and Criticism
Khan has demanded a probe by agencies such as the National Investigation Agency, suggesting possible larger links, though she has not presented evidence to support the claim.
Public figures, including Anand Ranganathan, have also weighed in. He called for a forensic audit of the company’s internal practices, raising concerns about governance and policy enforcement.
The incident has reignited discussions around religious expression in private workplaces. While the company maintains that it supports inclusivity, critics argue that clarity on ground-level enforcement remains necessary.
