Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
The case against Infosys co-founder Senapathy “Kris” Gopalakrishnan and 17 other IISc-linked people began with an FIR registered in Bengaluru on January 27, 2025. Former IISc faculty member D. Sanna Durgappa alleged caste-based harassment, threats and wrongful termination. The Karnataka High Court later stayed proceedings, quashed the FIR in April 2025, and recalled that quashing order in July after Durgappa said he had not been heard. The matter was restored for fresh hearing, so the April quashing cannot be treated as a final resolution.
What the FIR was about
The FIR was registered at Sadashivanagar Police Station after the 71st City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru, directed police action on Durgappa’s private complaint. Contemporaneous reports said Gopalakrishnan and 17 others connected with the Indian Institute of Science were named under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Headlines described the case as involving “17 IISc faculty,” but that shorthand is imprecise. Reports referred to a broader group of IISc officials, administrators, former officials and faculty members. The reported count also differs in later court coverage, which referred to Gopalakrishnan and 15 other petitioners in the High Court proceedings.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Being “booked” means that an FIR was registered and people were named as accused for investigative purposes. It does not mean that any accused person was convicted or that the allegations were proved.
Who filed the complaint?
D. Sanna Durgappa is described in reports as a former IISc faculty member or assistant professor at the Centre for Sustainable Technologies. Reports identify him as belonging to the Bovi or Bhovi Scheduled Caste community; the spelling and precise job description vary, so he is best described as a former IISc faculty member from the Bovi/Bhovi Scheduled Caste community.
Gopalakrishnan was identified in the reporting as an IISc governing-body member and chairman of its Governing Council at the time. IISc’s council page also lists Senapathy “Kris” Gopalakrishnan as a Government of India nominee for the 2026–2029 council. His inclusion in the complaint does not, by itself, establish that he personally made any alleged remarks or took part in the employment decisions.
What Durgappa alleged
According to accounts of Durgappa’s complaint, he alleged that:
Recommended Free Tools
- he faced caste-based discrimination, abuse and threats;
- he was falsely implicated in a 2014 sexual-harassment or “honey trap” matter;
- the allegations were used to remove him from IISc;
- he was denied institutional facilities or support connected with Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe development allocations, including requests involving laboratory and sitting space;
- senior IISc officials and governing-body members failed to reinstate him despite later representations; and
- legal representatives connected with IISc threatened him and attempted to interfere with his advocate’s licence.
These are allegations made in or attributed to the complaint, not established findings. Reports also said Durgappa disputed the internal sexual-harassment process, which followed an allegation that he had called a married woman “beautiful.” Some coverage attributed to Durgappa’s petition or the police account a claim that a Karnataka Legislative Assembly SC/ST committee found no evidence of sexual harassment and considered his dismissal unjust. The underlying committee report was not independently available in the supplied reporting.
The earlier employment dispute
The later High Court reporting placed the FIR in the context of a long-running service dispute. Durgappa challenged his termination in 2015. According to the court account reported by The Indian Express, a settlement later converted the termination into a resignation, provided terminal benefits and included an agreement to withdraw related complaints.
The same reporting said earlier complaints under the SC/ST Act were quashed in 2016 and 2017. The High Court relied on this previous litigation and settlement when it later considered whether the new criminal case was an attempt to reopen what was essentially a service or civil dispute.
What happened in the High Court?
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| January 27, 2025 | Sadashivanagar Police registered the FIR after the private complaint and court direction. |
| January 29, 2025 | The Karnataka High Court stayed further investigation and proceedings in Crime No. 17/2025 and the related private complaint, according to LiveLaw. |
| April 16, 2025 | The High Court passed an order quashing the FIR. Reports said the court viewed the complaint as an abuse of legal process and essentially a civil or service dispute presented in criminal form. |
| July 17, 2025 | The High Court recalled the April quashing order after Durgappa argued that he had not been heard. The case was restored for fresh hearing and the interim stay was extended until the next listed hearing. |
| August 7, 2025 | The matter was listed for fresh hearing, according to the July report. No later final outcome was confirmed in the supplied reporting. |
Why the April quashing order was recalled
The July development changed the legal position. The April order had ended the FIR at that stage, but the High Court later recalled it because the complainant and his counsel had not been heard before the order was passed. The matter therefore returned for reconsideration.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →That means it is inaccurate to say that Gopalakrishnan was finally cleared, that the complaint was conclusively found to be false, or that the FIR remained permanently quashed. The April court observations—including descriptions such as an “abuse of the process of law”—belonged to an order that was subsequently recalled.
Best Value
What is the case’s status?
Based on the supplied reporting, the safest status summary is:
- an FIR was registered in January 2025;
- the High Court stayed further investigation and proceedings;
- the FIR was quashed in an April 2025 order;
- that order was recalled in July 2025 because the complainant had not been heard; and
- the matter was restored for fresh hearing.
No reliable later report in the supplied material confirms a final post-recall order. Accordingly, the case should not be described as finally dismissed, finally quashed or proved against any accused person.
Why the wording matters
“Caste discrimination” describes the nature of Durgappa’s allegations. It is not a judicial finding established by the FIR. Likewise, “accused” is the appropriate term for people named in the case; “guilty” would be inaccurate unless a court reaches that conclusion after due process.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The case also illustrates why an FIR headline is not the same as a final legal outcome. Registration starts a criminal investigation. A stay pauses proceedings, while quashing ends an FIR unless that order is later revisited. Here, the April quashing order was recalled, leaving the matter open for fresh consideration in the last verified procedural update.
Quick Recap
Sources
- Hindustan Times: January 2025 FIR and allegations
- Scroll.in: FIR and accused group
- The Indian Express: April quashing order and service-dispute history
- The Indian Express: July recall order
- IISc Governing Council
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
