Can IIM Bangalore Overcome the Shadow of Discrimination Allegations in Its Leadership Transition?

Bengaluru- The Indian Institute of Management Bangalore (IIMB) is navigating a contentious leadership transition as Professor Rishikesha T. Krishnan’s tenure as Director nears its end on July 31. Sources indicate that the Ministry of Education has directed Krishnan to withdraw from the interview process for his continuation as Director, due to serious allegations of caste-based discrimination, irregular appointments, and institutional negligence.

Professor Krishnan, in a note to colleagues, expressed gratitude for their support during his tenure as IIMB Director, which began in July 2020 amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, and invited them to a farewell dinner on July 18, as his five-year term concludes.

This is the first director appointment for IIMB after the Indian Institute of Management Act was amended in 2023. As per the amendment, the director will be "appointed by the board with prior approval of the Visitor…". President of India is the Visitor to the institute.

The Search-cum-Selection Committee, tasked with appointing his successor, faces intense scrutiny as activists and stakeholders demand transparency in the selection process. With the new Director’s announcement expected in the coming days, IIMB is at a critical juncture, managing a transition clouded by controversy.

Sources suggest that the Ministry of Education’s likely decision to prevent Krishnan’s continuation stems from allegations of caste-based discrimination, violations of reservation norms, and financial impropriety, compounded by a pending FIR stayed by the Karnataka High Court.

According to sources, in the interim, a temporary arrangement has been established, with the senior-most professor at IIMB and the Director of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) jointly overseeing the institute’s operations until a permanent Director is appointed. Reports indicate that Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty, Chairperson of the Board of Governors, supported Krishnan’s continuation, but the Ministry’s reported intervention reflects the gravity of the allegations and public pressure for accountability.

The Director Selection Process

Under the Indian Institutes of Management (Amendment) Act, 2023, the Director of IIMB is appointed from a list of candidates recommended by a Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted by the institute’s Board of Governors. The committee comprises:

Chairperson: Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty, Chairperson of the Board of Governors.

Visitor’s Nominee: One member nominated by the President of India.

Eminent Experts: Two members chosen from among distinguished administrators, industrialists, educationists, scientists, technocrats, or management specialists.

The new norms stipulate that the Director’s tenure is five years or until the candidate reaches the age of 70, whichever comes first. Candidates must be distinguished academics with a first-class degree at both bachelor’s and master’s levels and a PhD or equivalent from a reputed institution. These requirements mark a departure from earlier norms, which did not specify the class of degrees required.

The Search-cum-Selection Committee is tasked with shortlisting candidates, and the final appointment is made by the Board of Governors. With the announcement expected imminently, the process is under intense public and activist scrutiny due to the allegations surrounding Krishnan.

Controversy Surrounding Professor Rishikesha T. Krishnan

Professor Rishikesha T. Krishnan, a scholar in strategy and innovation, has served as Director of IIMB since 2020. Prior to his role at IIM Bangalore, he served as the Director of IIM Indore. His tenure has seen notable initiatives, including the establishment of Centres of Excellence and the promotion of entrepreneurship through the NSRCEL incubator. However, serious criminal allegations have cast a shadow over his leadership, raising concerns about his potential reappointment and possible influence over the ongoing selection process.

Following a complaint by Associate Professor Dr. Gopal Das, a distinguished Dalit scholar, to President Droupadi Murmu on January 3, 2024, the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE), Special Crime Branch, Karnataka Police, conducted an investigation (Report No. 86/HP/DCRE/2024).

The report, submitted on November 26, 2024, to the Karnataka Social Welfare Department, found Krishnan and seven faculty members—Professor Dinesh Kumar (Dean, Faculty), Professor G. Shainesh, Professor Srinivas Prakhya, Professor Chetan Subramanian, Professor Ashis Mishra, Professor Sreelata Jonnalagedda, and Professor Rahul De—guilty of:

• Violating the constitutional rights of marginalized students and staff from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).

• Engaging in systematic harassment, discrimination, and threats against marginalized communities, creating a hostile environment.

• Unlawfully disclosing Dr. Das’s caste identity through mass emails, despite his application under the General category and without ever claiming any reservation benefit, thereby subjecting him to humiliation and exposing him to caste-based discrimination and atrocities.

• Coercing vulnerable pre-doctoral and PhD students to file false, anonymous complaints against Dr. Das in retaliation for his advocacy.

• Failing to establish mandatory SC/ST grievance redressal cells, violating Government of India guidelines.

An FIR (No. 0467/2024) was registered on December 20, 2024, at Mico Layout Police Station under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2014, and Sections 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. On December 31, 2024, the Karnataka High Court issued an interim stay on the FIR and investigation, citing jurisdictional concerns over the DCRE’s authority. The case remains sub judice.

The Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar National Association of Engineers (BANAE), backed by groups such as the All India OBC Students Association (AIOBCSA), had leveled serious allegations of irregular appointments and financial impropriety against Krishnan in formal representations to the President of India and the Ministry of Education. BANAE also urged the government and IIMB authorities to ensure Krishnan does not receive even a single day of extension after July 30.

The allegations against Krishnan and the reported denial of his continuation have significant implications for IIMB’s reputation as a premier management institution. The controversy has highlighted systemic issues, including the failure to establish mandatory grievance redressal mechanisms and adhere to reservation policies. Activists, including BANAE and AIOBCSA, have demanded: Removal of Krishnan and the accused faculty to ensure a fair investigation, Establishment of dedicated SC/ST and OBC grievance redressal cells, Mandatory caste sensitivity training for faculty and staff, Strict adherence to reservation norms in recruitment and promotions and an independent probe into allegations of financial irregularities.

The Mooknayak has emailed Professor Krishnan to seek his official stance on the reported denial of his continuation as IIMB Director, and this report will be updated upon receiving his response.

As IIMB prepares to announce its new Director, the institute stands at a crossroads. The allegations against Krishnan, combined with the Ministry’s reported intervention, urges the need for systemic reforms to address caste-based discrimination and ensure transparent governance. The incoming Director will inherit the challenge of rebuilding IIMB’s reputation, strengthening institutional mechanisms, and fostering an inclusive academic environment. With all eyes on IIMB, the outcome of this leadership transition will shape the institute’s future and its commitment to constitutional values.