In a democratic state, there can never be ownership of power; it can only be delegated. It moves from citizens to institutions and leaders as a temporarily delegated right, not according to their will but for the interests of the people at large.
The recent incident of Nitish Kumar pulling away the veil of a Muslim woman doctor during a formal appointment ceremony is alarming as it upsets this democratization of power. It portrayed not delegated power performing a task, but a power of ownership as it assumed freedom to bodies, decisions, and boundaries.
Such a distinction is very important. A Chief Minister is not the patriarch of society, but a trustee of the Constitution. His control is procedural, institutional, and limited. When such control spills over into physical space without consent, it stops being democratic and starts smelling of domination. Such an act was not needed for administration, identification, or maintenance of order. It was an assertion that was small in movement but enormous in meaning.
The defense of the act on the basis of “paternalism” reveals what is at stake here. Paternalism is a sophisticated instrument of domination. It reduces intrusion to care, to “Fatherly,” “well-meaning,” “protective” care , and removes accountability altogether. In the logic of paternalism, what is supposed to be done is decided by the powerful; consent is redundant. Paternalism is a discourse that has conventionally been used to regulate women’s education, movement, dress, and sexuality. Paternalism used by political authority is an infantilization of citizenship where disregard is to be expected behind benevolence.
The importance of this particular event that took place in 2025 and has caught the world’s attention lies in the way that the concept of bodily integrity has been understood in the law. Recent judicial interpretations in India have reaffirmed that physical contact without consent, even slight, and even over clothes, is a violation of dignity and bodily autonomy. Courts have highlighted that consent is not negated by position, motive, or background. Whether it is an accidental touch or a symbolic act or non sexual touch, if it happens with consent then , it is determined as violation
This removes much of the defence that has arisen in this case. The claim that “it was only a veil” does not survive constitutional analysis. The veil is worn on the body; to touch the body is to touch the veil. The law no longer recognizes the proposition that harm needs to be severe to be real. Dignity is breached at the moment when bodily boundaries are violated with impunity. Notably, it has been emphasized that power asymmetry, between the office of the Chief Minister and the citizen, in this case – actually raises the need to be cautious about issues regarding consent, rather than lowering it.
Seen through this lens, what took place is not symbolic overreaction but the failure of the constitution itself. The woman in this situation finds herself in a circumstance in which it is difficult to refuse. In non-consensual power relationships, it cannot be assumed that there is consent in matters of a sexual nature either. There is a responsibility to restrain in the wielding of democratic power, particularly in matters of physical power as well.
Equally disturbing, however, is the failure to admit wrongdoing or to issue an apology. In a constitutional democracy, apology is not a sign of weakness but a sign of boundaries. In refusing an apology, there is a statement made about power. It implies that the act performed is not a mistake in judgment but a right exercise of power, turning a personal mistake into an institutional statement.
The constitutional paradox stands out sharply. Freedom of religion, dignity, and liberty are guaranteed to Indian citizens under the constitution in Article 25. The practice of veiling is a matter of individual preference, irrespective of religious affiliations. State power meddling at the will of the individual clearly indicates selective enforcement of the constitution on issues of rights.
On a broader note, this particular incident exemplifies a drift from democracy. When a democracy’s ruling elite fail to remain mindful of the fact that they only borrow authority and that it is not theirs to command and control, they tend to act as if they have proprietary control over the bodies of the democratic citizenry. When paternalistic accountability is substituted with accountability and when the spirit of consent is supplanted with that of intent, democracy becomes a living text that is the question is no longer whether this gesture was deliberate and provocative or not.
The real question is far more basic: Do we claim that the integrity of the body is inviolable even in the presence of power?
In a true democracy, the answer can only be “yes”. No one in power has the right to touch, control, or change how someone looks without their permission.