Indigo denies claims of banning sindoor, tilak; calls reports ‘fabricated’
IndiGo on Saturday denied allegations that it had banned staff from wearing religious insignia such as sindoor and tilak, stating that documents circulating on social media regarding the airline’s personal grooming policy were “incorrect”.
The controversy erupted when an X user shared some screenshots of what appeared to be IndiGo’s maintenance manuals. The documents appear to explicitly ban items such as tilak, sindoor, mangalsutra and kalawa, while allowing other religious signs such as headscarves and turbans.
“We ask everyone to be careful and avoid sharing unverified or fabricated documents,” a company spokesperson told Mint.
IndiGo also assured that its policies, particularly for cabin crew and pilots, have been designed in line with “global best practices” and with the primary objective of ensuring the safety of operations and the well-being of our crew and onboard customers.
“IndiGo remains steadfastly committed to fostering an inclusive workplace. The safety and well-being of our crew, customers and employees remain our top priority,” the spokesperson said.
Netizens fuel debate on workplace dress code after Lenskart controversy
The row over IndiGo’s personal grooming policy comes amid a broader debate over workplace dress codes, triggered by a viral “in-store style guide” from Lenskart earlier this month, which was criticized for allegedly allowing headscarves and turbans while restricting bindis, tilaks and kalawas.
Even though CEO Peyush Bansal called it an “outdated educational memo” and publicly apologized, the backlash continued, leading the company to introduce a revised policy that “clearly and unambiguously” welcomed all symbols of faith.
“Our more than 2,400 stores are run by people who bring their beliefs, their traditions, their identities to work every day. This is never something we would ask anyone to leave at the door,” he added in a statement last week.
In an earlier statement, Bansal had also clarified that the viral document “contained an incorrect line about bindi/tilak which should never have been written and does not reflect our values or actual practice.”
