SC/ST Act case: HC quashes FIR against Kris Gopalakrishnan, IISc officials
text_fields
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case against Infosys co-founder Kris Gopalakrishnan, former Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Director Balaram P, and 14 others under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act. The case, originally filed by former faculty member D Sanna Durgappa, was dismissed on April 16 by Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, who described the complaint as a “vexatious attempt to harass the petitioners” following Durgappa’s termination in 2015. The court ruled that the allegations did not constitute offenses under the anti-discrimination law and found that the complaint misused the legal process.
Durgappa, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, had served as an assistant professor at the Centre for Sustainable Technology at IISc. He accused the petitioners of caste-based harassment, falsely framing him for sexual harassment, and wrongfully terminating his employment without proper inquiry. Additionally, he alleged that two of the institute's lawyers had pressured him to resign and attempted to revoke his advocate’s license.
The case, initially registered by the Sadashiva Nagar police in Bengaluru on January 28, had been prompted by a private complaint filed by Durgappa. At the time of the alleged incidents, Gopalakrishnan was a member of IISc’s governing council. Durgappa also claimed that he was denied laboratory funding and workspace and was falsely implicated in two cases—one of financial fraud and the other of sexual harassment. He later requested an investigation by the Legislative Assembly’s SC/ST Committee, which took place in August 2017. However, the investigation found no evidence of sexual harassment and stated that Durgappa had been singled out because of his Dalit background.
The High Court ruled that the dispute between Durgappa and the petitioners was civil in nature but had been presented as a criminal issue. Justice Chandangoudar concluded that Durgappa’s filing of multiple complaints constituted a vexatious attempt to harass the petitioners for their involvement in his termination, which had ultimately been converted into resignation through a settlement. As part of the settlement, Durgappa had received benefits and agreed to withdraw all related complaints, including those filed with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Despite this, he continued to file criminal complaints against the petitioners.
Two previous complaints filed by Durgappa in 2016 and 2017 under the anti-discrimination law were also quashed by the High Court, which found that they were based on a civil dispute misrepresented as a criminal matter. Justice Chandangoudar stated that the repeated filing of complaints was an abuse of the legal process and allowed the petitioners to seek permission from the advocate general to pursue criminal contempt proceedings against Durgappa. All pending interim applications were dismissed as the main petition was resolved.
