Hindu student's sacred thread forcibly cut off by invigilator during CET exam in Chikkaballapura, Karnataka

Case ID : 30a80ce | Location : Chikkaballapur, Karnataka, India | Date of Incident : Fri, 24 April, 2026

Case ID : 30a80ce

Chikkaballapur, Karnataka, India

24 April, 2026

Hindu student's sacred thread forcibly cut off by invigilator during CET exam in Chikkaballapura, Karnataka

Restriction/ban on Hindu practices

Restriction on expression of Hindu identity

Attack on Hindu religious representations

Desecration of Hindu religious symbol

Case Summary

In Karnataka’s Chikkaballapura, a Hindu boy was pressured to remove his janeu (sacred thread) if he wanted to appear for the Common Entrance Test (CET) examination. When he refused, the invigilator forcibly cut off his janeu inside the exam centre. This happened despite clear instructions issued by the state government that no student will be forced to remove religious symbols, such as the janeu, in order to sit for examinations. The incident took place at Nagarjuna College in Chikkaballapur, where the staff removed the janeu of a Hindu student named Supreet KR. When he came for the exam on the first day, the staff forced him to remove his janeu and then cut it off, prompting Supreet to object to their action. Supreet had also been reprimanded just 12 days earlier, and both he and his parents expressed anger against the staff members who cut off and removed his janeu. As per the victim, when he came to give his examination, a female invigilator forced him to remove his janeu and told him that he would not be allowed to take the exam if he did not. After this, when he refused to do it, the female invigilator cut off his janeu and threw it in the dustbin. The Hindu student said, "I thought I should not write the exam. But I wrote the exam because of two years of my hard work." Following this, a complaint was filed against the college administration and teachers in this regard. The Chikkaballapur Brahmin Mahasabha, a Hindu group, also expressed strong opposition to the incident. After the victim’s complaint, police officers arrived at the spot along with the investigation team. The police team then checked the CCTV footage from the exam centre and also interrogated the female invigilator who cut off the janeu. Union Minister Shobha Karandlaje also slammed the issue of students being forced to remove their janeus during the Common Entrance Test exam. She accused the ruling Congress government of continuously insulting Hinduism. She said that such incidents had occurred even in 2025 and were occurring repeatedly. This incident came to light after another similar incident previously came to light from Krupanidhi College in Madiwala, Bengaluru, where 8 Hindu students were forced to remove their janeus before writing the Common Entrance Test (CET) exams. This case was earlier reported by the Hinduphobia Tracker. In this case, Karnataka Higher Education Minister M. C. Sudhakar acknowledged that students had been made to remove their sacred threads despite explicit prior guidelines prohibiting such actions. He described the act as a violation of human rights and privacy, stating that no student should be forced to choose between faith and education, and directed that action be taken against the examination centre management. The controversy gained wider attention as it emerged that similar incidents had taken place in Karnataka in 2025, after which the government had issued clear instructions that students should not be asked to remove the sacred thread, especially as it is worn beneath clothing and does not pose any security concern. The Hinduphobia Tracker had also recorded another similar incident from April 2025 in Shimoga, Karnataka, where, during the Common Entrance Test, two Brahmin students were forced to remove their janeu (sacred thread) and kalava (wrist thread) before entering the exam centre. The incident occurred at Aadichunchanagiri Independent PU College.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category - Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. Within this, the subcategory selected 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 Hindu religious representations. Under this, the subcategory selected is - Desecration of 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 qualified as a religiously motivated hate crime because a Hindu student was compelled by a female invigilator to remove his sacred thread (janeu) purely on the basis that he was a Hindu wearing a visible religious symbol. When he refused, the invigilator forcibly cut off his janeu and threw it into a dustbin in front of him. Both these aspects, the compulsion to remove the janeu and the deliberate, humiliating act of cutting it and discarding it like trash, make this incident a clear example of a religiously motivated hate crime. The victim was not treated as an equal exam‑taker; he was singled out because of his religious identity and then subjected to an act designed to degrade that identity in a public, institutional space. The female invigilator imposed a restriction first and foremost on the Hindu victim, one that was directly tied to a core Hindu religious practice: wearing the janeu. She enforced this restriction under the threat that he would not be allowed to sit for the examination if he refused to remove it. The act targeted the victim’s religious identity at a moment of extreme vulnerability, on the day of a crucial Common Entrance Test exam, when he had invested years of preparation. The nature of the compulsion, the act of cutting off his janeu and then throwing it in the dustbin, and the public humiliation involved clearly demonstrated that religious hostility and contempt for Hindu identity were central to the harm inflicted on the victim. This was not a neutral administrative formality; it was a targeted, degrading act rooted in religious prejudice. The janeu is not a mere piece of string or fashion accessory. In the Hindu tradition, especially among Brahmin communities, it is a consecrated thread that carries deep spiritual and identity‑affirming meaning. It is tied after specific rituals, worn as a mark of devotion, and removed only under specific, ritually sanctioned circumstances. By forcing a Hindu student to remove his janeu and then cutting it off and throwing it in a dustbin, the invigilator turned a sacred object into something disposable and contemptible. This is symbolically violent. It communicated not only a rejection of the sacred thread itself, but also a message that the victim’s Hindu identity and religious expression could be overruled, mocked, and discarded in a supposedly secular exam centre. The act was not just about a piece of thread; it was about marking the victim’s faith as inferior and unwelcome in that space. For the Hindu student, wearing the janeu was not an optional stylistic choice but an integral part of his religious observance and identity. The invigilator chose to impose a condition that directly interfered with this practice, despite clear government‑level instructions that such religious symbols should not be removed as a condition for writing the exam. The perpetrator did this at a critical moment, during the examination itself, when the victim had no realistic alternative: he could either surrender his religious identity or be excluded from the exam. This revealed that the perpetrator deliberately targeted a Hindu religious practice and enforced its removal in a setting where refusal would result in exclusion, demonstrating an intent to suppress Hindu religious expression in a secular‑claimed space. The power imbalance was absolute: the invigilator held the authority to decide whether he could even sit for the exam, and she used that power to punish him for his faith. The act of cutting off the janeu and throwing it in the dustbin amounts to a desecration of a Hindu religious symbol. The janeu is treated with reverence by Hindus; cutting it in a disrespectful, public manner and discarding it in trash is an affront to the deepest sentiments of the Hindu community. When such a sacred object is treated as garbage in front of the devotee, it is not just a personal insult; it is an attack on the collective religious sensibility of Hindus. The compulsory removal of the janeu under threat of exclusion, followed by its physical cutting and discarding, makes this a clear case of a religiously motivated hate crime. It is a hate crime not only because it targeted the victim’s religion, but because it did so through the symbolic violation and desecration of one of Hinduism’s most visible and sacred markers. Forcibly removing the janeu in a non‑ritualistic, institutionalised setting stripped the victim of his religious dignity and robbed the moment of any sanctity. In a ritual context, even the removal of the janeu is done with care and respect; here, it was treated as something to be cut off and thrown away without ceremony. This reduced a sacred object, the janeu, into a disposable item and severed its religious meaning. The invigilator enforced this removal in a setting where religious considerations were flatly ignored, compelling the student to act against his beliefs and openly demonstrating a disregard for the sacred nature of the Hindu symbol. The coercion did not just cause emotional and spiritual distress to the victim; it imposed a condition where his faith was forced to yield to administrative authority, reinforcing the perception that Hindu religious symbols can be overridden, disrespected, and discarded without any accountability. 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 becomes important to mention here that, firstly, while the Common Entrance Test (CET) exam mandates simple attire to prevent malpractices, it also accommodates religious customs. Candidates wearing articles of faith, such as turbans or Kalava, are permitted, and only metal items such as earrings or nose rings are restricted. Moreover, the Janeu, a sacred thread traditionally worn underneath one’s clothes, neither violates the CET exam 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 and desecration. More broadly, this reflects a disturbing pattern where expressions of Hindu identity are marginalised, even in supposedly neutral, secular spaces like Common Entrance Test exam centres in Karnataka. In this case, the enforcement of rules appears selective and rooted in a disregard for Hindu sentiments rather than any genuine procedural necessity. The staff targeted a visible Hindu religious symbol, the janeu, of a Hindu student, while no similar restrictions were applied to other forms of visible religious identity. Additionally, the fact that such acts of restricting religious symbols and forcing Hindu students to remove their janeu have occurred even previously in Karnataka, first in Krupanidhi College in Madiwala, Bengaluru, and then earlier in Shimoga in 2025, shows a clear, recurring pattern rather than an isolated incident. This repeated targeting of Hindu students in exam centres, under the guise of “security checks” or “exam discipline,” signals that Hindu religious expression is being treated as a problem to be regulated, while other identities are allowed to remain unchallenged. Therefore, this case is being added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia tracker records the dates of incidents based on when the crime occurs rather than when it is reported by the media. In this case, media reports have not specified the exact date on which the harm took place. For documentation purposes only, the date when the incident was first reported in the media, 25 April 2026, has been selected as the indicative incident date. Regarding perpetrator identification, one individual has been clearly highlighted: the female invigilator at the CET exam centre in Chikkaballapura. Media and complaint accounts describe her as the person who ordered the Hindu student to remove his janeu, forcibly cut it off when he resisted, and then threw it into a dustbin. There is no indication that any other staff member directly participated in or initiated this specific act. Accordingly, for the purpose of documentation in this tracker, the perpetrator count in this case has been recorded as 1.