Hindu student targeted over religious identity: Asked to remove Janeu or skip NEET exam

Case ID : ea34a1a | Location : Gulbarga, Karnataka, India | Date of Incident : Sat, 3 May, 2025

Case ID : ea34a1a

Gulbarga, Karnataka, India

3 May, 2025

Hindu student targeted over religious identity: Asked to remove Janeu or skip NEET exam

Restriction/ban on Hindu practices

Restriction on expression of Hindu identity

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Case Summary

In Kalburgi, a Hindu candidate, Sripad Patil, was asked to remove his Janeu or Janivara (the sacred thread worn by several Hindus, largely by Brahmins) before entering the exam hall. The incident occurred at St Mary’s exam centre. Sripada Patil went to the center to give the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) at St Mary’s exam centre. He was asked to remove his Janeu before being allowed into the exam hall. The incident caused visible emotional distress, with Sripad emerging from the centre in tears and ultimately complying after consulting his father. The request to remove the Janeu was an affront to religious practice, sparking widespread protests outside the examination venue. Representatives and activists from various Hindu communities, including Smarta and Vaishnava Brahmins, Lingayats, and Dalits, gathered to voice their outrage. The protest was supported by organisations such as the Sanatana Yuva Shakti Trust, Akhila Bharat Madhwa Maha Parishat, and ABVP. Kalaburagi South MLA Allamaprabhu Patil visited the site, spoke with the protestors, and contacted senior district officials demanding an inquiry. As the demonstration continued for nearly two hours, protestors demanded that the person responsible for the directive be identified and made to apologise. Following the test, a brief religious ceremony was conducted to reinstate Sripad’s Janeu, with mantras chanted by priests from different traditions. Later, Sripad informed the media that due to the emotional turmoil he experienced, he mistakenly entered the wrong registration number on his answer sheet and would therefore seek a re-examination. Preliminary statements from exam officials suggested the staff involved were hired through an external agency and had been instructed to restrict entry of candidates with metal objects or threads, though it remains unclear whether the Janeu was explicitly prohibited. Kalaburagi Deputy Commissioner Fouzia Taranum assured the public that a thorough inquiry would be held, including reviewing CCTV footage. Sripad and his family were expected to file a formal complaint with the police.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Restriction/Ban on Hindu Practices. Under this the sub-category 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. The other primary category selected is- Attack not resulting in death. Under this, the sub-category selected is- Attacked for Hindu identity. In several cases, Hindus are attacked merely for their Hindu identity without any perceived provocation. A classic example of this category of religiously motivated hate crime is a murder in 2016. 7 ISIS terrorists were convicted for shooting a school principal in Kanpur because they got ‘triggered’ seeing the Kalava on his wrist and tilak that he had put. In this, the Hindu victim had offered no provocation except for his Hindu religious identity. The motivation for the murder was purely religious, driven by religious supremacy. Such cases where Hindus are targeted merely for their religious identity would be documented as a hate crime 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 NEET 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 that schools have the right to enforce uniform rules, since wearing uniforms bring 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 NEET 2025 dress code mandates simple attire to prevent malpractices, 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 NEET 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.