Is religious bullying at work the blind spot companies don't want to address?

For all the progress corporate India claims on diversity, one uncomfortable question remains: what happens when religion, or the absence of it, enters the workplace?

Most organisations fail to reflect the complexity of today’s workforce, one that includes multiple faiths, no religious affiliation, and evolving belief systems.

Don't Miss: TCS Nashik case: 'I had miscarriage, faced insensitive...' - Victim's horror account surfaces

Today, discrimination has shifted from overt actions to more subtle behaviours. “It is seen in dismissive comments about atheism or stereotyping based on religious identities. Even well-intentioned curiosity often appears to be intrusive when it repeatedly questions personal belief systems,” says Vasundhara Kaul, Founding Partner & Chief Innovation Officer, Carpediem EdPsych Consultancy.

She adds that this taboo also influences DEIB training itself, where facilitators are often advised to avoid religion-based case studies and similar ‘controversial’ discussions. “However, avoiding an issue can never be the solution; it merely helps in institutionalising silence, leaving employees unable to classify or report these microaggressions.”

Must Read: 'Nida Khan is neither a...': TCS ropes in Deloitte, Trilegal in Nashik probe; CEO issues statement

“In fact, unsaid rules of hiring or not hiring from a given religion also impacts productivity during festivals and other such annual occurrences,” she adds.

The Blind Spot Where Policy Exists, But Precision Doesn’t

Most organisations today do not have explicit, standalone policies addressing religious bullying.

As Prabir Jha, HR strategist and Founder & CEO of Prabir Jha People Advisory, points out, most companies shy away from calling out “religious bullying” directly. “These instances were not seen as pervasive and were broadly subsumed under anti-harassment norms. Most policies have historically been designed to prevent conscious discrimination, particularly in areas like hiring and promotions, while more subtle issues were typically absorbed under broader DEI frameworks,” he notes.

While umbrella policies offer a layer of protection, they often fall short in practice due to lack of clarity in defining, identifying and addressing religion-based issues effectively, says Kanishk Agarwal, Chief Technology Officer at Judge Group, India. “However, organisations beginning to acknowledge behaviours such as exclusion, stereotyping, and microaggressions, but these still remain vaguely defined, making them harder to identify, report, and address compared to overt acts,” he adds.

Sonica Aron, Founder & Managing Partner, Marching Sheep, adds that while employers increasingly recognise religion as part of workplace diversity, it remains an area of discomfort and is largely unaddressed in explicit terms.

“Most policies remain generic and do not define faith-based considerations clearly,” she explains. From a CHRO lens, this creates ambiguity in handling issues around festival leave, prayers and rituals. From a legal standpoint, she notes, the absence of explicit language can weaken prevention, delay response, and increase reputational or litigation risk.

On policy scope, she says most organisations still focus on holidays determined by state or region, while discrimination is broadly covered under grievance mechanisms or codes of conduct. Stronger policies, however, are beginning to expand beyond overt acts such as slurs, insults, denial of opportunities or hostile remarks, to include subtler behaviours like exclusion, stereotyping, insensitive scheduling around religious observances, or intrusive questioning about beliefs.

“Despite this evolution, many companies still prioritise visible misconduct because subtle behaviours are harder to prove and often get dismissed as interpersonal friction,” she adds, noting that the recent incidents are a wake up call for CHROs who must ensure policies recognise religious, cultural diversity and systemically drive inclusion.

Closing the Gap: From Ambiguity to Clear Religious Sensitivity Policies

Agarwal makes a strong case for formalisation. “As workplaces become more diverse, well-defined guidelines are critical to ensure consistent action,” he says. Beyond fostering inclusion, such clarity also helps mitigate legal risks.

Yet, there isn’t complete agreement on how explicit these frameworks should be. Jha cautions against over-codification. “I am not too sure about explicit guidelines, as it will potentially create a situation that can get misread and be politicised. Also, having a long list of exclusions is difficult to monitor and police,” he says. Instead, he suggests focusing on broader behavioural expectations. “What is needed is to express dimensions of such behaviour, clothing and visible displays that may run counter to the corporate image. Employee assimilation programmes must reinforce a sense of corporate oneness. Or even in hiring conversations, call out what is expected upon joining the firm so that people can think through their decision as well.”

In the current socio-political environment, most organisations stay away from directly dealing with religion, caste diversity, says Aron. While stereotyping, discrimination and microaggressions might be visible or felt, they are generally not called out clearly. “In the absence of clarity or a suggested framework, managers lack the confidence to intervene consistently. From a CHRO perspective, clarity protects culture, productivity, and employer brand. From a legal perspective, documented policies, training, and grievance mechanisms demonstrate reasonable preventive steps if disputes arise. Silence or vagueness often leaves decisions subjective, inconsistent, and harder to defend,” she explains.

Expanding the lens further, Kaul argues it is time for organisations to evolve. Formalising guidelines around religious sensitivity must go beyond faith-based inclusion to encompass freedom of belief, non-belief, and individual expression. “It is not about regulating identity; it is about defining respectful behaviour. For instance, when we do employ surveys, we either don’t include religion in the demographic section or have a limited view on it, forgetting that people’s identities are but a combination of all that impacts them and it constantly evolves and expands.”

Beyond Policy: What Actually Stops Religious Bullying at Work

Written guidelines alone are insufficient; what matters is how consistently they are brought to life through leadership behaviour and accountability.

As Jha puts it, any form of bullying, whether rooted in caste, language, or religion, is unacceptable at the workplace and must certainly be dealt with a demonstrated reprimand. “Undetected or ignored, these behaviours become cancerous,” he warns. He emphasises the role of continuous organisational sensing through town halls, manager interactions, and HR check-ins, while also cautioning that fairness is critical. Allegations, he notes, must be handled with both sensitivity and objectivity. “Fairness and resoluteness, flowing from top leadership, become a sine qua non for truly a religion/ caste/ language- free workplace.”

For Aron, the focus is on everyday behaviour and early intervention. “Policy alone rarely changes behaviour,” she notes.

Policy alone rarely changes behaviour. The most effective measures include manager training on unconscious bias and respectful accommodation, leadership role-modelling neutral and inclusive conduct, confidential reporting channels, prompt impartial investigations, and zero tolerance for retaliation. “Teams should be educated on respectful language, festivals, dietary needs, prayer flexibility, and boundaries around proselytising or political debate. Leaders must intervene early when jokes or exclusion begin. CHROs should track complaint trends and hotspots,” she adds.

When Silence Becomes a Legal Risk: Can Employers Be Taken to Court?

Minu Dwivedi, Partner, JSA Advocates & Solicitors, says an employee who qualifies as a “worker” under the Industrial Relations Code can raise grievances before the Grievance Redressal Committee. If unresolved, they can proceed to conciliation and approach the Industrial Tribunal.

“If misconduct such as religious bullying is reported and not adequately addressed, the employee has the right to seek legal recourse. Further, if an employer dismisses a worker for opposing such behaviour, it may amount to an unfair labour practice under the Code,” she explains.

Aron adds that employers who ignore complaints or allow a hostile environment expose themselves to legal action under labour laws. While India may not have a standalone law on religious bullying, organisations are still bound by duties of fairness, dignity, and safety. The risk, she emphasises, goes beyond litigation, extending to financial penalties, including reputational damage and loss of trust.