NGO Raises Alarm Over BIM Trichy's Governance and Transparency
Anti-corruption organization Arappor Iyakkam has leveled serious allegations against the Bharathidasan Institute of Management in Trichy. The group is demanding clear answers from either the governor or the state government regarding the institute's operational status. They want to know whether BIM functions as a government body, a private entity, or an institution under the supervision of Bharathidasan University.
Long-Standing Concerns Over Administrative Control
In detailed letters sent to the chief minister, the governor, and senior higher education officials, Arappor Iyakkam outlined multiple concerns. BIM was established in 1984 at the BHEL campus under the statutes of Bharathidasan University. The NGO points to troubling issues surrounding its administrative control, the legality of student admissions, adherence to reservation norms, collection of government-prescribed fees, and an overall lack of transparency.
The allegations are not new. Arappor Iyakkam referenced earlier communications from former registrars of Bharathidasan University. T. Ramasamy in 2010 and G. Gopinath in 2020 both raised flags about what they called 'illegal' amendments to BIM's bylaws made in 2003.
Historical Warnings Ignored
In a letter dated March 24, 2010, former registrar T. Ramasamy wrote to the then higher education minister K. Ponmudy. Ramasamy stated that BIM had passed a resolution to detach itself without obtaining necessary approval from either the university or the government. He strongly recommended several actions. These included the cancellation of BIM's registration as a society, the withdrawal of its autonomous status, and its conversion into a regular department of Bharathidasan University.
That same communication allegedly highlighted financial irregularities and the misappropriation of lakhs of rupees. It urged the higher education department to take immediate action. A full decade later, on February 3, 2020, then registrar G. Gopinath reiterated these very concerns and recommended corrective measures.
"This issue was first raised in 2010," said M. Radhakrishnan of Arappor Iyakkam. "If action had been taken then, it would not have come this far."
Frustration with Official Inaction
The NGO expressed deep frustration over the lack of clear responses to their repeated representations. They also filed Right to Information applications seeking crucial details on admissions, reservation compliance, fee structure, assets, and government action. These RTI queries were either rejected outright or the information was denied.
BIM, in its own RTI replies, claimed it is not a 'public authority' under the RTI Act. Arappor Iyakkam calls this stance misleading. They argue it is inconsistent with established norms from bodies like the University Grants Commission and AICTE.
Radhakrishnan provided a specific example. "In one RTI filed in March 2025, the higher education department forwarded the application to BIM instead of providing the information it should possess," he explained. "Ironically, the reply denying information was signed by a public information officer. Even if the institution is registered under the Societies Act, they can give information for RTIs."
The core demand from the NGO is straightforward. They want the government to issue a public clarification on who legally controls and oversees the Bharathidasan Institute of Management. When approached for comment on these allegations, the director of BIM, Asit K. Barma, refused to provide any statement.
