‘Too little, too late?’ Lenskart updates style guide post controversy, but social media questions its delayed response and intent

A workplace policy meant to standardise employee appearance has turned into a reputational test for Lenskart. The eyewear retailer now finds itself navigating public scrutiny after an earlier version of its in-store style guide triggered allegations of religious bias, forcing a swift and carefully worded response. The controversy began when a previous guideline surfaced online, appearing to permit items such as hijabs and turbans while restricting symbols like bindis, tilaks and sacred threads. The perceived imbalance quickly drew criticism, with many questioning whether the policy reflected unequal treatment of cultural and religious identities.

As the backlash intensified, founder and chief executive Peyush Bansal stepped in to clarify that the document did not represent the company’s current stance. He acknowledged the confusion and reiterated that Lenskart does not impose restrictions on expressions of faith. However, the explanation did little to immediately quell the growing criticism online.





In an attempt to address concerns more decisively, Lenskart released an updated version of its style guide on 18 April, making it publicly accessible. The revised policy adopts a more inclusive tone, explicitly allowing a wide range of cultural and religious identifiers. These include bindis, sindoor, mangalsutras, kalawa threads, kadas, hijabs and turbans, positioning them not as exceptions but as an accepted part of employee identity.

The company also acknowledged the public reaction in its statement, emphasising that it had listened to feedback from customers and the wider community. It stressed its roots as an Indian brand built by and for a diverse population, where personal beliefs and traditions are seen as integral rather than incompatible with workplace standards.



While the updated guidelines retain expectations around neatness and professionalism, the shift lies in how personal expression is framed. Instead of limiting visible symbols, the new approach appears to embrace them as a reflection of individuality within a shared corporate environment.



Despite these changes, the response has not been uniformly positive. A section of social media users has argued that the company’s statement stops short of offering a direct apology. Critics have pointed out that while Lenskart explained the revision, it did not explicitly accept fault for the earlier document or its circulation.

This lingering dissatisfaction highlights a broader issue that extends beyond a single policy. In an era where corporate communication is closely scrutinised, audiences often expect not just correction but accountability. For some, the absence of a clear admission of error has kept the debate alive, even as the company attempts to move forward.

At the same time, others have viewed the updated guidelines as a meaningful step towards inclusivity, suggesting that the swift revision reflects responsiveness rather than resistance. The divide in reactions underscores how sensitive conversations around identity and representation can quickly escalate in the digital space.



Ultimately, the episode serves as a reminder of the delicate balance organisations must strike when shaping workplace policies in diverse societies. For Lenskart, the challenge now lies not only in implementing its revised guidelines but also in rebuilding trust and ensuring that its commitment to inclusivity is reflected in both policy and perception.