BANAE Asks President to Consider DCRE Findings, FIR Before Approving Next IIM Bangalore Director

Bengaluru- The Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar National Association of Engineers (BANAE) has written to the President of India, Visitor of the Indian Institutes of Management, seeking that official records of a pending caste atrocity case be placed before the competent authority before prior approval is granted for the next Director of IIM Bangalore.

In a representation dated 16 September, BANAE National President Nagsen Sonare addressed the President, the Union Education Minister, the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, and the Prime Minister’s Office. The letter concerns the ongoing selection process under Section 16 of the Indian Institutes of Management Act, 2017, as amended in 2023. Under that provision, the Director is appointed by the Board of Governors with the prior approval of the Visitor.

The representation states that Prof. U. Dinesh Kumar, currently Director-in-Charge of IIM Bangalore, and Prof. Shainesh G are among the candidates being considered. Both, it says, were examined in proceedings before the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE), Karnataka Police, after the President’s intervention as Visitor.

According to the letter, the DCRE inquiry report recorded findings of caste-based discrimination, harassment and violations of the rights and safeguards of a Dalit faculty member and members of the SC/ST community. FIR No. 467/2024 was subsequently registered at Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru. Related proceedings--Criminal Petition No. 14410/2024 and W.P. No. 19036/2024- remain pending before the Karnataka High Court.

Sonare states that he brought the underlying matter to the notice of the authorities and has enclosed the relevant official records. He makes clear that the representation does not ask the Visitor to prejudge guilt or innocence, which he says is a matter for the competent authorities and the courts.

“My request is that the relevant DCRE findings, FIR and pending judicial proceedings be duly placed before and considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable statutory appointment process,” the letter says.

Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, BANAE argues that verification of antecedents is an important consideration in assessing suitability for appointment and that the competent authority is entitled to consider relevant antecedents on an objective basis.

The organisation has asked that:

• the DCRE reports, FIR and connected judicial records concerning the relevant candidates be obtained and examined;

• eligibility, antecedent, vigilance and other statutory and regulatory requirements for appointment as Director be verified;

• all relevant material concerning any recommended candidate be placed before the Visitor before prior approval under Section 16; and

• no final appointment be made without due consideration of the official records and pending proceedings.

“Irrespective of whom the Search-cum-Selection Committee ultimately recommends, and irrespective of whom the Board subsequently forwards for appointment,” Sonare writes, “I respectfully request that the Visitor, before granting the statutory prior approval required under Section 16 of the IIM Act, ensure that all relevant official reports, findings, FIRs and pending judicial proceedings concerning any recommended candidate are placed before and duly considered.”

Given the advanced stage of the selection process, BANAE has asked that the representation be considered before any approval is granted or the appointment is finalised. The letter states that it is made in good faith and is based on official records.

Prof. U. Dinesh Kumar has been discharging duties as Director-in-Charge of IIM Bangalore since July 2025, after the end of Prof. Rishikesha T. Krishnan’s term. An earlier panel recommended by the Board was rejected by the Centre in early 2026, after which the search process was restarted. The FIR of December 2024 names eight persons, including the then Director and several faculty members. The Karnataka High Court had earlier stayed investigation into that FIR. Those proceedings remain pending.