Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has sparked a political and social storm after a viral video showed him pulling down the hijab of Dr Nusrat Parveen, a Muslim AYUSH doctor, during a government appointment‑letter event in Patna. The incident drew sharp condemnation from the Opposition and rights advocates who allege violations of equality, dignity and religious freedom guaranteed under the Constitution.
The incident took place at ‘Samvad’, the chief minister’s secretariat in Patna, where more than 1,000 newly appointed AYUSH doctors were being given appointment letters on stage.
In the widely shared video, Nitish Kumar is seen handing a letter to Dr Nusrat Parveen, questioning her face covering, pointing at her veil and then abruptly pulling down her hijab, exposing her face to the audience before she is hurried off the stage.
Deputy Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary appears to reach out as if to restrain Kumar, but the act is already complete, drawing gasps and later anger on social media, where users called it an “assault on dignity, consent and religious freedom”.
Opposition leaders from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Congress have labelled the act “vile”, “disgusting” and “shameful”, demanding an unconditional apology and even resignation from the chief minister.
RJD leaders questioned Kumar’s “mental state” and said no woman in Bihar could feel safe if such behaviour was normalised by the highest elected office.
Congress functionaries argued that forcibly removing a woman’s religious covering from a public platform sends a chilling message to minorities and women professionals about how little their autonomy is respected by those in power.
Rights, Laws And Possible Violations
Civil society groups and legal commentators have linked the outrage to India’s constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and freedom of religion. Article 14 of the Constitution mandates equality before the law and equal protection of the laws for all persons, meaning state authorities, including chief ministers, must treat individuals with equal respect and cannot arbitrarily single out a woman for humiliating treatment.
Article 15 explicitly prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, sex and other protected characteristics, and rights advocates argue that publicly pulling down the hijab of a Muslim woman professional, when her male and non‑Muslim colleagues were not similarly targeted, raises serious concerns of intersectional discrimination based on both gender and faith.
Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted to include the right to live with dignity and bodily integrity, while Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess and practise religion, subject to reasonable restrictions.
Legal experts note that, depending on the woman’s complaint and investigation findings, provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) such as Section 354-assault or use of criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty could be invoked when physical acts cause humiliation or discomfort without consent.
Section 354 covers a wide range of non‑consensual acts, including unwelcome physical contact and gestures that violate social norms of modesty, and has been used to prosecute behaviour that undermines women’s autonomy in public spaces.
Rights campaigners stress that beyond any criminal liability, the episode is a stark reminder of how power imbalances can normalise intrusive behaviour towards women, especially those from minority communities.
Pattern Of Behaviour And Political Fallout
The hijab incident adds to a series of recent moments where Nitish Kumar’s public conduct has raised eyebrows, including visuals of him allegedly talking and greeting people while the National Anthem played at a sporting event earlier this year.
Opposition parties claim these episodes show a growing disregard for constitutional decorum and basic courtesies expected from a veteran leader who has helmed Bihar for years.
RJD spokespersons argue that when a chief minister treats a young woman doctor in this manner on a stage filled with cameras and senior officials, it emboldens everyday acts of sexism and bigotry in workplaces and state institutions.
Women’s groups and minority rights organisations have used the viral video to highlight broader anxieties around surveillance of Muslim women’s clothing-from school and college bans to informal policing of hijab and burqa in public spaces.
They point out that the Supreme Court, even while divided over the Karnataka hijab ban, recognised that restrictions on hijab can amount to an “attack on dignity” and “invasion of privacy”, underlining that state power must not trample women’s agency over their bodies and faith.
In Bihar, activists are demanding an independent inquiry, sensitivity training for public officials, and a formal assurance that no citizen will face intrusive treatment or humiliation over dress or religious identity at government events.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The incident in Patna goes beyond a single moment of poor judgement; it exposes how quickly respect for bodily autonomy, consent and religious identity can be cast aside when power is unchecked.
When a chief minister uses physical force, however brief, to alter a woman’s clothing without her consent, it sends a damaging signal that constitutional promises of equality, dignity and freedom of religion are negotiable in the face of patriarchal entitlement.
The Logical Indian believes this incident should become a turning point for insisting that those in public office model empathy, restraint and respect, especially towards women and minorities.
