Back
Precedents on Underpin Kriti Sanon’s Defence Against
A seemingly innocuous festive advertisement has reignited a fierce debate about women’s clothing, cultural authenticity, and the limits of in India. The controversy, sparked by jewellery brand ’s Raksha Bandhan campaign featuring actor Kriti Sanon, has drawn in celebrities, legal scholars, and even the ’s past pronouncements on gender equality. At its core, the episode raises a question that Indian constitutional law has repeatedly addressed: how far can society go in regulating a woman’s appearance under the guise of protecting ?
The advertisement showed Sanon in an ivory bralette-style blouse tying a rakhi to her on-screen brother and then to her dog. Actor-politician Kangana Ranaut labelled the imagery “intentionally creepy,” questioning why a woman would tie a rakhi to her brother while wearing what she described as “bikini/undergarments.” Ranaut later expanded her critique, arguing that the ad omitted essential cultural markers such as parents, halwa-puri, tilak, akshat, incense, and diya. “A festival is an aesthetic expression of a culture and civilisation,” she asserted.
Sanon responded with remarkable brevity: “When will we stop telling women what to wear?” Culture and traditions, she added, are “in her heart, not in her neckline.” The exchange quickly went viral, and eventually withdrew the advertisement, stating it had “inadvertently hurt the sentiments of some segments of society.”
The Legal Framework: From Paternalism to
The controversy is not merely a celebrity spat; it implicates fundamental constitutional principles. Indian courts have long grappled with the tension between and , particularly when that autonomy is exercised by women.
In Anuj Garg v. (), the struck down a provision that prohibited the employment of women in establishments serving liquor, finding it rooted in about women’s vulnerability. The Court warned against using as a pretext to limit women’s choices, observing that such reasoning perpetuates rather than advancing equality.
More directly on point is Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (), a case that arose after a trial court granted bail to a man accused of sexual harassment on the condition that the complainant tie a rakhi on him. The set aside that condition, cautioning courts against relying on stereotypes that women are inherently in need of male , should be submissive according to notions of culture, or can be held responsible for conduct directed at them because of the clothes they wear.
“The setting here is entirely different, but the underlying habit is familiar: attaching meanings about character, propriety and cultural fidelity to a woman’s clothing that she did not choose for herself,” the article notes.
as a Constitutional Question
Legal experts point out that the ad controversy illustrates how often masquerades as concern for cultural sanctity. “ rarely introduces itself as control. It arrives more politely, through words such as appropriateness, , , and culture,” the article explains. Women learn these unwritten rules through looks, comments, and consequences—a system that the has repeatedly rejected.
The constitutional challenge lies in distinguishing between legitimate cultural expression and authoritarian prescription. As the article argues, trouble begins with “that small but authoritarian word, the : the proper clothes, the correct ritual, the authentic family, the Indian way. Add enough definite articles and a civilisation begins to resemble an instruction manual.”
The Broader Impact: Offence as Veto
The article also criticises ’s decision to withdraw the advertisement, calling it a capitulation to rather than an act of respect. “When sufficiently loud offence repeatedly secures erasure, we create an obvious incentive to be louder and more offended next time,” it warns. This dynamic, the author argues, transforms offence from an opinion into a veto, undermining the that guarantees.
The ’s jurisprudence on under has consistently held that the right to speak includes the right to offend, subject only to . By withdrawing the ad, effectively allowed a vocal minority to dictate what is culturally acceptable, bypassing the legal process entirely.
A Feminist Reinterpretation of
Beyond the clothing controversy, Sanon offered a more substantive challenge to convention. She explained that she and her sister tie rakhis to each other because “we know we can protect each other just as much as a brother would.” This reimagining of the ritual—making reciprocal rather than hierarchical—is a feminist reinterpretation that the law should recognise.
The article draws a parallel to Rabindranath Tagore’s use of the rakhi during the anti-partition movement in Bengal as a symbol of solidarity across communities. “An old thread has long been capable of carrying new meanings,” it observes. The same principle applies today: traditions remain alive when generations inherit them and negotiate with them, not when they are frozen in a single, authorised version.
Implications for Legal Practice
For legal professionals, this episode underscores the importance of challenging in judicial reasoning and everyday practice. The ’s observations in Aparna Bhat serve as a reminder that , , and even must be free from assumptions about women’s dress or behaviour.
The article also highlights the need for a more robust understanding of under and of . While the right to preserve one’s culture is protected, it cannot be used to impose a singular interpretation on others. As the author concludes, “The freedom to cherish a cannot quietly become the authority to curate everybody else’s version of it.”
Conclusion
The ad controversy is, in many ways, a microcosm of the ongoing struggle between and prescription in Indian society. The legal principles from Anuj Garg and Aparna Bhat provide a clear constitutional answer: a woman’s clothing is not evidence of her cultural fidelity, and her choices cannot be policed in the name of . As the article puts it, “A that has survived centuries of argument, migration and reinvention is unlikely to meet its match in an ivory blouse.”
The real challenge for the legal community is to ensure that these constitutional values are not merely cited in judgments but actively applied in everyday life—from courtrooms to corporate boardrooms to social media.
