Hindu student expelled by principal of Christian missionary college for her religion; told she had no right to study since she is Hindu

Case ID : 30a938a | Location : Ranchi, Jharkhand, India | Date of Incident : Mon, 29 June, 2026

Case ID : 30a938a

Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

29 June, 2026

Hindu student expelled by principal of Christian missionary college for her religion; told she had no right to study since she is Hindu

Restriction/ban on Hindu practices

Restriction on expression of Hindu identity

Administration restricting religious practice

Hate speech against Hindus

Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith

Case Summary

In Ranchi, Jharkhand, a Hindu student of Ursuline Inter College, a Christian missionary institution, accused the college principal of humiliating and discriminating against her for wearing a traditional nose ring (nath), a form of adornment commonly associated with Hindu culture and customs. According to the student, the principal not only objected to her wearing the nose ring but also made remarks targeting her Hindu identity and Bihari background, telling her that she had "no right to study." The student said she was expelled from the college because of her religion. The allegations triggered protests by students and members of student organisations, with videos of the demonstrations circulating widely on social media. The victim, identified as Juhi Singh, stated that she was wearing a nose ring when she went to college and was summoned by the principal. According to her account, the principal questioned her for wearing the ornament and asked her to remove it. When she objected, explaining that she had a medical condition and could not remove it before consulting the doctor, the principal insulted her and ordered her to leave the institution. The student further stated that during the confrontation, the principal made remarks referring to her Hindu identity and her Bihari background, telling her that she had no right to study since she was a Hindu and from Bihar. The incident sparked protests outside the college, with students and members of student organisations accusing the missionary institution of discriminating against a Hindu student for expressing her cultural and religious identity. Videos of the protests, along with the student's account of the incident, went viral on social media, leading to widespread public debate over the treatment of Hindu students in Christian educational institutions. In response to the controversy, the college maintained that students were expected to adhere to institutional discipline and dress regulations. Statements attributed to the institution indicated that those unwilling to comply with the prescribed code were free to seek admission elsewhere. However, the student and protesters maintained that the action taken against her was not merely a matter of discipline but amounted to discrimination directed at her Hindu identity and the expression of a cultural practice associated with her faith.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This incident has been added to the tracker under the primary category Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. Under this, the first subcategory selected is: Restriction on expression of Hindu identity. An example of 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 categorised as a hate crime. The other subcategory is: Administration restricting religious practice. In several cases, it is seen that the administration/state disallows a religious practice owing to prejudicial orders and concerns, targeted specifically against the Hindu community. Such restriction/prohibition would be considered documented as a hate crime because the orders are often a result of pressure by groups that harbour animosity towards Hinduism and Hindus. Often, the restriction by the authorities is driven by bias, hostility, or prejudice against the specific community being stopped from holding a religious practice, by pressure groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus, intrinsic to their faith. Since practices are intrinsic to the faith of the Hindus, such prejudicial restriction is considered a curtailing of the fundamental rights of the Hindu community. In several cases, for example, the authorities ban a Hindu religious practice due to pressure from groups opposed to the religion. In other instances the prohibition is selectively enforced against one religious group (Hindus) while others are allowed to proceed. There are still other cases where the authorities preemptively restrict a religious practice by Hindus because those who hold animosity towards Hindus may get “provoked” leading to them being violent, thereby assuaging the sentiments of those who hold animosity towards Hindus by curtailing the religious rights of Hindus. Such acts and orders are prejudiced, indicating discriminatory motives owing to the capitulation to groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus and therefore, would be categorized as a religiously motivated hate crime since the original pressure leading to the order itself is a result of hatred/bias/prejudice/religious hate against Hindus. The other category selected is hate speech against Hindus. Within this, the subcategory selected is- Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith. Anti-Hindu slurs and the deliberate mocking of the Hindu faith owing to religious animosity involve the usage of derogatory terms, stereotypes, or offensive references to religious practices, symbols, or figures. One of the common anti-Hindu slurs used against Hindus is “cow-worshipper” and “cow piss drinker”. The intention of using this term is to demean and mock Hindus as a group and their religious beliefs since Hindus consider the cow holy. Additionally, some symbols and the slurs attached to them have a historical context that exacerbates the insult, hate, stereotyping, dehumanisation and oppression against Hindus. Cow worship has been used for centuries to denigrate Hindus, insult their faith and oppress Hindus specifically as a religious group. There has been overwhelming documentation about how cow slaughter has been used to persecute Hindus with cow meat being thrown in temples and places of worship. There has also been overwhelming documentation where cow meat (beef) has been force-fed to Hindus to either forcefully convert them to Islam or denigrate their faith. Apart from cow worship, the Swastika – which holds deep religious significance for the Hindus – has also been misinterpreted and distorted to use as a slur against Hindus. Similarly, the worship of the Shivling has been used by supremacist ideologies and religions to denigrate Hindus owing to religious animosity. Such slurs and denigration stem out of inherent animosity and hate towards Hindus and their faith, therefore, it is categorised as hate speech targeted at Hindus specifically owing to their religious identity. This case qualified as a religiously motivated hate crime because a Hindu student was not only compelled to remove a traditional nose ring (nath), a form of adornment commonly associated with Hindu culture and customs, but also targeted for being a Hindu. The nose ring is not merely a piece of jewellery. For many Hindu women, it is a traditional ornament closely associated with Hindu customs, culture, and social practices. Objecting specifically to a Hindu student wearing such an ornament demonstrates intolerance towards a visible manifestation of Hindu culture and faith. The second and more significant marker is the reference to the victim's Hindu identity during the incident. If the issue had genuinely been one of institutional discipline or a uniform policy, there would have been no reason to invoke the student's religion. Telling a Hindu student that she had "no right to study" because she was Hindu goes far beyond a personal insult or disciplinary reprimand. It explicitly links her access to education with her religious identity and conveys that being Hindu is, in itself, a reason to deny her equal treatment. Such remarks reflect clear disdain towards the Hindu faith and reinforce that the action was not motivated by concerns over discipline or appearance but by hostility towards the victim's religion. By targeting the victim's Hindu identity while objecting to a traditional symbol associated with Hindu culture, the conduct demonstrates that it was her faith, and not merely the ornament she wore, that had become the basis for discrimination. 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, even if, for the sake of argument, one were to assume that the objection to the nose ring was solely to enforce a reasonable dress code in the interest of discipline, equality, and uniformity within the institution, there is no explanation for the remarks directed at the victim's religious identity. A genuinely neutral enforcement of institutional rules would apply uniformly to all students without reference to their religion. The statement that, being a Hindu, she had "no right to study" cannot be explained as part of any dress code policy. Instead, it demonstrates that the issue extended far beyond the nose ring itself. The remark directly linked the victim's treatment to her religious identity and reinforces that the objection was not merely to an ornament but to what it represented, namely a visible expression of Hindu identity. It therefore strongly suggests that the action was driven by hostility towards the victim's faith rather than by any genuine concern for institutional discipline or uniformity.