Nashik case: TCS rejects right-wing’s claims against Muslim staff
text_fields
Mumbai: Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) has issued a detailed clarification amid a storm of allegations surrounding its Nashik unit, pushing back against what it suggests were widely misreported and sensationalised claims. The company categorically denied that Nida Khan — portrayed in several reports as an HR manager and “mastermind” — held any such authority, stating she was merely a process associate in a BPO role with no control over hiring, complaints, or internal processes, a report by Maktoob Media stated.
This statement comes after days of intense media coverage, much of it driven by sections of Hindutva-aligned outlets that amplified claims of organised sexual misconduct and forced religious conversion within the unit. TCS said its internal systems, including ethics and POSH channels, have so far revealed no complaints matching the serious allegations being circulated. It also dismissed reports that its Nashik operations were shut, confirming business continues uninterrupted.
Even as the company has launched an internal probe led by COO Aarthi Subramanian with oversight from independent director Keki Mistry and external advisors like Deloitte and Trilegal, the broader controversy has taken a sharp communal turn. A fact-finding team by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) found that the situation on the ground starkly contradicted the narrative pushed in parts of the media, calling out attempts to frame the issue through a communal lens.
Police have registered nine FIRs, including serious charges against Danish Shaikh, but families and defence lawyers argue the matter has been blown out of proportion. They claim that what began as a personal relationship dispute was rapidly escalated into multiple cases, dragging in unrelated employees. Legal representatives have raised concerns about the speed and expansion of the investigation, suggesting a troubling pattern where unverified claims — amplified by partisan media — may have distorted both public perception and due process.