Karnataka High Court Quashes SC/ST Case Against Infosys Co-founder Kris Gopalakrishnan and 16 Others in IISc Discrimination Row

Bengaluru- The Karnataka High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against Infosys co-founder Senapathy Kris Gopalakrishnan, Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Director Prof. Govindan Rangarajan, and 14 others, in a case filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The case, rooted in allegations of caste-based discrimination and wrongful termination by a former IISc faculty member, Dr. D. Sanna Durgappa, was deemed an "abuse of the process of law" by Justice Hemant Chandangoudar in a ruling delivered on April 16, 2025.

Background of the Case

The controversy began when Dr. D. Sanna Durgappa, a former Assistant Professor at IISc’s Centre for Sustainable Technologies and a member of the Bovi community (Scheduled Caste), filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in January 2025. Durgappa alleged that he was subjected to caste-based cruelty and wrongfully terminated from his position in 2014 following a fabricated sexual harassment complaint orchestrated by the accused. The complaint named prominent figures, including Kris Gopalakrishnan, who has served as Chairman of IISc’s Governing Council since 2022, and former IISc Director Balaram P., alongside other faculty and administrative members.

Durgappa claimed that the sexual harassment allegations stemmed from a "honey trap" designed to oust him from the institute after he requested funding for a laboratory under the Scheduled Caste Sub-Plan and Tribal Sub-Plan. He further alleged that advocates Pradeep S. Sawkar and Abhilash Raju, representing IISc, threatened him to resign and attempted to have his advocate’s license revoked by filing a complaint with the Bar Council.

Following the complaint, a Bengaluru court directed the Sadashivanagar police to investigate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., leading to the registration of FIR No. 17/2025 on January 28, 2025, for offenses under Sections 3(1)(ii)(x), 3(1)(ix)(v), 3(1)(vii), 3(1)(ix), and 3(2)(i)(ii) of the SC/ST Act. These provisions relate to caste-based abuse, discrimination, and atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes.

The Petitioners’ Defense

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Sri S.S. Ramdas, argued that the complaint was a vindictive attempt to tarnish their reputation and pressure them into settling a long-resolved dispute. They contended that Durgappa’s termination in 2014 followed a departmental inquiry into sexual harassment allegations, which was later converted into a resignation as part of a settlement in 2016. This settlement, formalized through a joint memo in Writ Petition No. 19594/2015 before the Karnataka High Court, saw Durgappa agree to withdraw all complaints filed with various authorities, including the National Commission for SC/ST and the Karnataka State Commission for SC/ST, in exchange for terminal benefits.

Ramdas highlighted that Durgappa’s repeated filing of complaints—three since 2016, including the present one—constituted an abuse of legal processes. He argued that the allegations did not meet the threshold for offenses under the SC/ST Act and that the complainant had failed to comply with mandatory provisions under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C., which require a cognizable offense to be reported to the police before resorting to a private complaint.

The petitioners further noted that Kris Gopalakrishnan had no involvement in the 2014 events, as he joined IISc’s Governing Council only in 2022. They described the inclusion of advocates Sawkar and Raju as accused as baseless, arguing that their alleged actions were part of their professional duties and did not constitute caste-based atrocities.

Counsel for the respondents, including Manoj S.N. for Durgappa and M.R. Patil for the state, argued that the complaint disclosed cognizable offenses under the SC/ST Act, necessitating a thorough investigation. They contended that the veracity of Durgappa’s allegations could not be assessed at this stage and that dismissing the petition would allow the truth to emerge through police inquiry. Durgappa reiterated his claims of caste-based discrimination, citing a 2017 Karnataka Legislative Assembly committee report that found no evidence of sexual harassment and suggested he was targeted due to his Dalit identity.

Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, after reviewing the complaint and the history of litigation, ruled that the allegations did not constitute offenses under the SC/ST Act. The court noted that Durgappa’s termination was the result of a sexual harassment inquiry, which was resolved through a court-mediated settlement in 2016. The joint memo in W.P. No. 19594/2015, which converted the termination into a resignation and provided Durgappa with terminal benefits, was deemed final and binding.

The court found that Durgappa’s filing of multiple complaints with similar allegations—two of which were quashed in 2022 and 2023—indicated a pattern of vexatious litigation aimed at harassing the petitioners. The inclusion of new accused, such as the advocates, did not materially alter the nature of the complaint, which the court characterized as a civil dispute over termination dressed in criminal garb.

Citing the settlement and Durgappa’s undertaking to withdraw all prior complaints, the court held that the present complaint was an abuse of the judicial process. It also noted that Kris Gopalakrishnan’s role as Chairman of the Governing Council post-dated the alleged incidents, rendering his inclusion in the FIR unjustified.

The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed FIR No. 17/2025 insofar as it related to the petitioners. The court’s order included the following key points:

1. The FIR registered by the Sadashivanagar police was set aside, halting all further investigation and proceedings against the petitioners.

2. The petitioners were granted liberty to seek permission from the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Durgappa for alleged misuse of the legal process.

3. All interlocutory applications were disposed of as the main matter was resolved.