Activists Question: Is It a Joke? IIM-Bangalore Director, an FIR Accused Himself, Nominates Others Facing Similar Charges to the Board

Bengaluru- In a significant escalation of criticism against the Director of the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore (IIMB), Professor Rishikesha T. Krishnan has been accused of perpetuating caste-based discrimination, violating constitution, provisions of IIM (Amendment) Act, and promoting individuals under investigation for caste atrocities.

Bahujan activists have called for his immediate removal, citing a pattern of discriminatory behavior that spans years and institutions.

Activists accuse Krishnan of continuing his discriminatory practices. They highlight his recent decision to nominate Professors Chetan Subramanian and Sreelata Jonnalagedda—both accused of caste discrimination and facing an FIR (no. 0467 of 2024)—to the IIMB Board. Sources claim, their appointment as board members is likely to be confirmed by 26 December.

This move has drawn sharp criticism, as the IIM (Amendment) Act explicitly requires board members to have clean records. As per the Act, two faculty representatives can be board members with clean record and are not accused/guilty of any criminal case.

Activists question the morality of the decision, asking, "How can someone accused in an FIR himself nominate two other accused individuals to prestigious positions on the IIMB Board? Is this ethical on any grounds?"

Notably, the FIR registered at the Mico Layout Police Station names eight accused including Director Dr. Rishikesh T. Krishnan and 7 Professors Dr. Dinesh Kumar, Dr. Sainesh G, Dr. Srinivas Prakhya, Dr. Chetan Subramanian, Dr. Ashish Mishra, Dr. Sreelata Jonnalagedda and Dr. Rahul De.

These individuals stand accused under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014 (Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Sections 351(2) and 351(3) for caste-based atrocities and systemic discrimination.

Internal sources revealed that the Director's decision to nominate the two professors to the board came as a shock to many. They allege that this move is strategic, as the Director’s term on the board is limited to three to four months, while the nominated professors would hold their positions for two to three years. This would ensure the Director’s allies remain in influential roles, potentially safeguarding his interests and influence even as caste discrimination allegations persist.

"The Board of IIM is the second-highest decision-making authority after the Honourable President of India, the Visitor/Chancellor. The Board is responsible for day-to-day decisions involving students, staff, and faculty. Such decisions by the Director Rishikesha T.Krishnan, encourage continued atrocities against the oppressed and marginalised communities, students, and staff, which is a matter of grave concern for society" stated Anil H Wagde, a prominent anti-caste activist and member of Ambedkar International Center, while sharing his concerns with The Mooknayak.

He further added, "This is not the first time that IIM Bangalore Director has promoted accused, under investigation professor. Prof Chetan was promoted as the RBI Chair Professor when the caste discrimination case against him was pending and still pending investigation."

The allegations against them were substantiated by an internal DCRE investigation. Despite this, Professor Krishnan recommended their appointment, raising questions about his commitment to upholding the principles of equality and justice mandated by the Indian Constitution.

A History of Discrimination: IIM Indore Case Resurfaces

The controversy surrounding Dr. Krishnan is not new. During his tenure as Director of IIM Indore, the institute came under the scanner by National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) for 'unconducive' atmosphere for a student from marginalised community.

The case involved Sakshika Raghav, a Scheduled Caste student enrolled in IIM Indore's five-year Integrated Programme in Management (IPM) in 2012.

Raghav's CGPA fell below the required threshold due to poor performance in non-management subjects like swimming and Bhagwad Gita. She was subsequently asked to repeat her first year or leave the program. Opting to quit, Raghav filed a complaint with the NCSC, alleging that the institute had failed to provide a conducive environment for her academic success. She also claimed that IIM Indore misled her regarding its degree-granting status at the time of admission.

In 2015, NCSC member Raju Parmar ruled in Raghav's favor, stating that the institute had not created a supportive atmosphere, which contributed to her poor performance. The commission ordered IIM Indore to refund her first-year fees, citing the lack of a conducive environment as a critical factor in her decision to leave.

Open Letter that Exposed Deep-Rooted Issues at IIMB

On January 17, 2024, Professor Deepak Malghan of IIM Bangalore penned an open letter to Director Krishnan, coinciding with the death anniversary of Rohith Vemula, to highlight the institute's failure to create an inclusive atmosphere for Bahujan faculty, staff, and students. Malghan criticized the administration for backtracking on its commitments to diversity, even as it made token progress in recruiting faculty from underrepresented groups under external pressure.

Malghan also disclosed that he had filed a formal caste abuse complaint in April 2023 against a senior IIMB official. However, the Diversity & Inclusion Grievance Redressal Committee (DI-GRC) failed to initiate an investigation. Instead, the institute reportedly filed a suo-moto complaint against him. Malghan alleged that during his preliminary appearance before the DI-GRC, a committee member made casteist remarks. He described the DI-GRC as a "toothless alternative" to statutory bodies like the SC-ST cell, pointing out that it lacked formal recognition in the institute's regulations and was disclosed to students only after his intervention. In a retaliatory action, Dr. Malghan was demoted in March 2024, however, the Karnataka High Court ntervened and stayed the decision.

Bahujan activists and civil society groups have condemned Krishnan's tenure at both IIM Indore and IIM Bangalore, describing him as a habitual offender of caste bias. They have called for systemic reforms, including increased representation of marginalized communities on the IIMB Board, which is currently dominated by individuals from privileged backgrounds.

Sharing his opinion with The Mooknayak, Nagsen Sonare, National President of the Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace (ACJP) argue that allowing Krishnan to remain in his position undermines the values of equality and justice enshrined in the Constitution. "

As India marks 75 years of its Constitution, the continued prevalence of caste discrimination in premier institutions like IIM Bangalore highlights the urgent need for accountability and structural change. Sonare also demand for the immediate arrest of all the accused by the Bengaluru police.

It is important to note that neither the DCRE, the complainant's lawyer, nor the Bengaluru Police have received any stay order from the Karnataka High Court as of yet.

The unfolding controversy has placed immense pressure on the IIMB Board and higher authorities to act decisively. Activists stress that removing Krishnan is not just about addressing individual wrongdoing but about signaling a broader commitment to dismantling systemic caste bias in India’s leading institutions.

The Mooknayak reached out to the IIMB Director via email, seeking his response to the allegations raised by activists. We received a statement from Ms Kavitha Kumar, which read:

" At the outset, the allegations raised by you are false, baseless and seem motivated.  Please note that the Institute is run in compliance with all the rules and regulations.  With respect to the issues raised by Prof. Das, the same are sub judice.  Also, with respect to the hearing on 20.12.2024, we stand by the statement issued earlier. The Hon’ble High Court is on vacation. Once the High Court registry uploads a copy of the order on the website, it can be accessed. "

The statement further suggested to reach out to the lawyers representing the respondents (the accused parties in the case). IIM Bangalore did not respond to questions regarding the nomination of faculty members or the IIM Indore episode.