The controversy triggered by Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s act of forcibly removing the hijab of a Muslim woman doctor during a government function has intensified, with the affected doctor, Dr Nusrat Parveen, now reportedly deciding not to join the Bihar government service she was selected for.
According to Enewsroom and television media reports, Dr Parveen was scheduled to assume charge as an AYUSH doctor on December 20, but has chosen to step away following the incident. Her brother told a media channel that the decision was taken due to the severe mental distress she has been under since the public humiliation. “We are trying to convince her. If someone else committed the mistake, why should she be forced to sacrifice her career?” he said.
The Hindustan Gazette reported that Dr Parveen and her family have declined to speak publicly, but sources close to them confirmed that the incident has had a profound emotional impact on her.
What happened at the appointment ceremony
The incident occurred on Monday, December 17, at ‘Samvad’, the Chief Minister’s secretariat, during the distribution of appointment letters to over 1,000 AYUSH doctors. When Dr Parveen approached the stage wearing a hijab partially covering her face, Nitish Kumar was heard asking, “What is this?” On being told it was a hijab, he asked her to remove it—and then pulled it down himself, as seen in a viral video.
Deputy Chief Minister Samrat Chaudhary was visibly seen tugging at Kumar’s sleeve in an apparent attempt to stop him. Dr Parveen appeared visibly uncomfortable as laughter erupted from sections of the audience. She was subsequently handed the appointment letter again and ushered off the stage.
Media barred as fallout grows
In the aftermath, media entry was restricted at Nitish Kumar’s programme in Gaya on Wednesday, where he attended a two-day workshop organised by the Bihar Institute of Public Administration and Rural Development (BIPARD). The event was not live-streamed on the JD(U)’s official platforms, a notable departure from standard practice.
Media had also been barred a day earlier during the energy department’s appointment letter distribution programme, signalling an apparent attempt to contain public scrutiny amid rising outrage.
UP Minister’s defence sparks fresh controversy
The controversy further escalated after Uttar Pradesh Fisheries Minister Sanjay Nishad defended Nitish Kumar, stating that touching the hijab should not be made into an issue. His remarks drew sharp condemnation when he said, “What would have happened if he had touched somewhere else?”—a statement widely criticised as misogynistic and sexually suggestive.
Following backlash, Nishad released a video clarification claiming the Chief Minister’s intention was merely to ensure a clear photograph. He described his language as common rural expression from Purvanchal and denied any intent to insult women or Muslims, though he later said he withdrew his words if anyone felt hurt.
FIRs filed, political condemnation mounts
Police complaints have since been filed in Lucknow and Hyderabad, according to ANI and The Hindustan Gazette. Samajwadi Party spokesperson Sumaiya Rana, daughter of poet Munawwar Rana, lodged an FIR against both Nitish Kumar and Sanjay Nishad, calling the incident and the subsequent remarks a dangerous precedent. “This is harassment by someone holding a constitutional post,” Rana said, adding that such conduct emboldens others in positions of power.
SP MP Ikra Hasan condemned the act, stating that pulling a woman’s clothing or hijab is “wrong and dangerous” and sends a deeply disturbing message to society. “This is not about religion. Making a woman uncomfortable by touching her clothing is harassment,” she said.
According to the report of India Today, Congress demanded Nitish Kumar’s resignation, while the Rashtriya Janata Dal mocked the Chief Minister on social media, questioning his mental state and ideological shift.
Omar Abdullah: ‘Public humiliation cannot be justified’
Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah strongly criticised Nitish Kumar, calling the incident “unacceptable” and reflective of a regressive mindset. Speaking to reporters in Srinagar, he said such actions echoed earlier instances of public humiliation of Muslim women.
“If the Chief Minister did not wish to hand over the appointment letter, he could have stepped aside. But humiliating a woman in public is completely wrong,” Omar said, as reported by Greater Kashmir, adding that the incident has exposed the erosion of the secular image Nitish Kumar once projected.
Women’s groups cite constitutional violations
Women’s rights groups and Muslim organisations have strongly condemned the incident. The National Federation of Girl Islamic Organisation (GIO) described the act as a “blatant violation of personal dignity and religious freedom,” demanding a public apology from the Chief Minister.
Hyderabad-based women’s rights activist Khalida Praveen, who filed a complaint against Kumar, stated that forcibly removing a Muslim woman’s veil violates Article 21 (right to dignity and privacy) and Article 25 (freedom of religion) of the Constitution, besides constituting an offence under criminal law.
Why the act raises criminal liability, not just political questions
It must be stressed that the Chief Minister’s conduct cannot be reduced to a moment of poor judgment or political controversy alone. The non-consensual act of physically pulling down a woman’s hijab in public, particularly by a person in authority, may attract criminal liability under laws meant to protect a woman’s dignity and bodily autonomy.
Under Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, assault or use of criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage, or with knowledge that such act is likely to outrage, her modesty is a punishable offence. Courts have clarified that “modesty” is not limited to sexual intent but includes acts that humiliate, violate privacy, or strip a woman of dignity, especially in public spaces.
The absence of consent and the clear power imbalance between a Chief Minister and a newly appointed woman doctor further aggravate the seriousness of the act. Consent cannot be presumed in a setting where a woman is placed under public scrutiny by the State itself, and visible discomfort, as captured on video, strengthens the argument that the act was inherently humiliating and foreseeable in its impact.
Beyond criminal law, the incident also implicates constitutional protections under Article 21, which guarantees dignity, privacy, and personal autonomy, and Article 25, which protects the freedom to practise religion. Legal complaints filed in multiple states argue that forcibly removing a Muslim woman’s hijab amounts to both gendered humiliation and interference with religious expression, making the incident not merely inappropriate—but potentially unlawful.
A chilling message from a constitutional office
As Dr Nusrat Parveen contemplates abandoning a government career she earned on merit, the incident has triggered a wider national debate on power, consent, gender, and religious freedom in state-controlled spaces.
What occurred on a public stage was not merely an individual lapse, but a reminder of how women—particularly from minority communities—remain vulnerable to humiliation even within the framework of the State itself.
Related: