Hindu student forced to remove Janaeu to enter CUET examination hall
Barpeta Road, Assam, India 
14 May, 2024
Case Summary
On May 15, a Hindu student, Dhritiraj Basistha, was forced to remove his sacred thread (janaeu) before taking the Common University Entrance Examination (CUET) at Bhawanipur Anchalik College in Bajali, Assam. Dhritiraj, accompanied by his mother, was told by college officials that a metal object had been detected in his janaeu and that he had to remove it to enter the exam centre. His mother expressed that the janaeu is essential for their religious practices and identity as Brahmins. The incident sparked outrage, with the Akhil Bharat Brahmin Front planning legal action against the college for hurting religious sentiments. However, the college principal, Manas Kumar Chakraborty, denied that Dhritiraj was forced to remove the janaeu entirely. He stated that the student was only asked to remove a metallic ring attached to the thread, in accordance with National Testing Agency (NTA) guidelines prohibiting metallic items in the exam hall.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category for this case is "Restriction/ban on Hindu practices". The sub-category for this case is "Restriction on expression of Hindu identity". An example of the state-affected prejudicial and targeted orders against the Hindu community would be a government denying the right of a Hindu or a group of Hindus to hold a religious procession owing to the animosity of non-Hindu groups. Denial of the religious right of the Hindus to assuage the non-Hindu group which harbours animosity to a point where it could lead to violence against Hindus is not only a failure of law and order but is a prejudicial order against Hindus, denying them their fundamental rights to express their religious identity. An example of a hate crime against Hindus by a non-Hindu would be a non-Hindu institution forcing its Hindu employees to abandon religious symbols that a Hindu would wear as an expression of faith owing to inherent prejudice against the faith professed by the victim or a non-Hindu group of people restricting a Hindu group from constructing a place of worship simply because the demography of the area in which the temple is being built is dominated by non-Hindus. Such actions are driven by religious animosity and/or prejudice against Hindus and their faith and would therefore be categorized as a hate crime. Another primary category selected for this case is - Attack on religious representations. Under this, the subcategory selected is - Desecration of a Hindu religious symbol. Icons and symbols or a religious representation of a spiritual ideal are widely revered in Hinduism. Iconography is of vital significance in the Hindu milieu. It helps connect people’s spiritual beliefs with the real world. Iconography within the Hindu faith takes several shapes and forms. Murtis are of most significance to Hindus, to which daily rituals, prayers and offerings are done. Besides the murtis, there are several other symbols which have deep significance in the Hindu faith – the Om and Swastika for example. Since these Hindu religious symbols hold paramount importance in Hinduism, any desecration of symbols, icons, murtis, religious representations and manifestations, is driven by animosity towards the faith itself which manifests itself through these murtis, icons and symbols. Therefore, any desecration of these Hindu religious symbols and representations is considered religiously motivated hate crimes under this category. This case constitutes a hate crime as it involves an act of religious discrimination that directly targeted a core symbol of Hindu faith and identity. The Janeu is a sacred thread worn by many practising Hindus, particularly among Brahmin communities, as part of an essential spiritual, religious and cultural tradition. Asking a candidate to remove it as a condition for writing an exam is not only emotionally distressing but also creates an environment where religious expression is stigmatised and suppressed. The act, whether carried out knowingly or due to ignorance, had the effect of humiliating a Hindu individual for adhering to his religious customs, thereby infringing upon his fundamental rights to freedom of conscience and religion. The incident involving a Hindu CUET aspirant being compelled to remove his Janeu (sacred thread) before the examination constitutes a symbolic act of religious discrimination. It was an unjust restriction on the candidate’s right to express his Hindu identity. Although the act was not physically violent, it amounted to a symbolic assault on Hindu identity by compelling a Hindu student to choose between his religious practice and his future aspirations. Forcing the removal of a sacred object at a moment as critical as a national-level examination is not a neutral act but directly undermines the individual’s right to religious expression and creates an environment of fear, exclusion, and shame around Hindu practices. Here, it is important to mention that in 2022, a massive controversy had erupted in Karnataka, which took a national form, after Muslim women had insisted that they should be allowed to wear Burqas and Hijabs in their schools and classrooms. That time, the argument that was given by several politicians, social commentators, Hindu activists and even the Judiciary was that schools have the right to enforce uniform rules, since wearing uniforms brings harmony and equality in the classroom, and therefore, schools not allowing girls to wear hijab in the classroom is not religious discrimination, but merely an enforcement of widely accepted uniform norms. The pseudo-seculars and leftist groups may argue that a similar line of reasoning should be applied in this case. However, it is important to note that, firstly, while the dress code mandates simple attire to prevent malpractice, it also accommodates religious customs. Candidates wearing articles of faith, such as turbans or hijabs, are permitted, provided they report early for additional security checks. Moreover, the Janeu, a sacred thread traditionally worn underneath one’s clothes, neither violates the CUET dress code nor poses any security risk. Examination authorities may regulate outer clothing for uniformity and security, but what a student wears beneath their attire, especially something as personal and concealed as the Janeu, should not be subject to such control. Forcing its removal without any valid or written justification is a clear violation of religious freedom. It sends a deeply exclusionary message, singling out Hindu customs for unnecessary scrutiny. More broadly, this reflects a disturbing pattern where expressions of Hindu identity are marginalised, even in supposedly neutral, secular spaces like exam centres. In this case, the enforcement of rules appears selective and rooted in disregard for Hindu sentiments rather than any genuine procedural necessity. This is why the incident has been classified as a hate crime in the tracker.
Victim Details
Total Victim
1
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 1
- Female 0
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 1
Age Group
- Minor 1
- Adult 0
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
N/A
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
