Can someone's hair be forcibly cut in India?

May 20, 2025 by News Desk

In alleys where shame replaces care and punishment pretends to be reform, the question of whether a person’s hair can be cut without their consent becomes more than just a query—it becomes a mirror to our collective ethics.

The act of tonsuring someone forcibly, especially in moments of mental vulnerability or social alienation, is not just an act of violence—it is a performance of control, a stripping of identity. It is the kind of punishment that leaves no scars on the body but lingers in memory and dignity.

Indian law does not leave such actions unaddressed. Under the Indian Penal Code, the act of touching another person without consent, especially with intent to cause shame or hurt, falls under the realm of criminal force and assault.

Section 355 specifically criminalizes the use of force with intent to dishonor a person, particularly when it is not grave or sudden provocation that leads to such an act. If there is any pain caused, physical or psychological, the matter can escalate under Section 323, which deals with voluntarily causing hurt. If the person being subjected to this humiliation is a woman, the act may further amount to outraging her modesty under Section 354. What is sometimes perceived as a moral correction by perpetrators, in law, is defined plainly as a crime.

The situation becomes even more disturbing when the victims are persons with mental illness. The Mental Healthcare Act of 2017, enacted to uphold dignity, autonomy, and care, offers specific protections. Section 20 guarantees the right to live with dignity, Section 23 bars cruel or degrading treatment, and Section 25 protects the confidentiality and privacy of such individuals. But these provisions are being trampled upon.

In recent videos that have surfaced from Kashmir, some young men, visibly inspired by American-style “discipline content creators” who stage aggressive “reform” interventions for social media fame, are seen forcibly shaving the heads and beards of mentally ill men.

These acts are filmed, edited with dramatic music, and posted online—transforming human suffering into viral spectacle.

This is not only a violation of domestic criminal law and mental health statutes but also of the Information Technology Act. Section 66E prohibits capturing, publishing, or transmitting private images without consent. What we are witnessing is not merely a social media trend—it is a public crime recorded in HD.

What makes this more troubling is the silence of institutions. Despite videos being widely circulated, and despite legal complaints raised by lawyers and activists, including those addressed to the GMC Srinagar’s Department of Psychiatry and both state and national legal service authorities, little has moved.

The system looks away, even as law and ethics demand urgent action.

There is also the cultural violence that must be acknowledged. Hair and beard carry deep religious, personal, and social significance—especially in Kashmiri Muslim society.

To strip someone of these symbols without consent is not only physical violation but symbolic annihilation. It is a public message: you are no longer in control of your own self.

So perhaps the question isn’t whether someone’s hair can be forcibly cut. The law answers that clearly. The better question is: what kind of society watches such acts, even shares them, and does nothing? In the absence of resistance, cruelty is not just tolerated—it becomes entertainment. And in that transformation, we lose a part of our shared humanity.