The admins have shut up about it, so I think it’s best we keep this out in public.

Accounts of events:

During the recent end-semester examination, specifically on 24th of April, 2026, multiple first-year students were subject to non-consensual body contact, including frisking, pat-downs, and even a harrowing strip-search. 

The worst affected was a female student who was called out of the hall on suspicion of academic malpractice. According to the report, Ranjan Sahu (a non-teaching staff member) asked the student to remove her jacket after she had stepped out of the exam hall. Ranjan observed notes written on the student's hand, yet compelled the student to go to an LHC room with no cameras to be further strip-searched by a female housekeeper. The student reports that the housekeeping staff used criminal force to disrobe the student and expose her breasts and genitalia despite clearly communicated non-consent and verbal protest. This act constitutes a serious violation of sections 74 and 76 of the BNS and the POSH Act.

Subsequently, when the student questioned him about this dehumanizing and violent treatment, despite already having sufficient evidence of 'academic malpractice', Ranjan Sahu allegedly stated that these actions were “part of checking guidelines” provided by the Dean of Academics, Prof Srabanti Chaudhury. 

One must note that Prof Srabanti Chaudhury, who reportedly set such criminal-checking guidelines in her position as Dean of Academics, also serves as the Presiding Officer of the Internal Committee (IC) of IISER Pune. The student thus felt uncomfortable approaching the IC as a whole and decided to approach one of its members, Prof Shabana Khan, individually. Prof Shabana Khan, despite being an IC member, did not meet with the student in person; instead, she communicated through one of her lab members. Prof Shabana, through this lab member, asked the student to contact Prof Srabanti directly, as this is an academic concern (due to its occurrence in an exam setting) and thus falls outside the IC's jurisdiction.

When the internal system failed, the student approached the local authorities to file a formal complaint against the perpetrators. The student was met by an unhelpful female officer, who refused to proceed with the complaint until she spoke with the institute administrators. Upon being contacted by the authorities, the admin office, after a long wait of 4-5 hours, sent a security guard with an IISER-sealed and signed (by Associate Dean of Academics Prof Neena Mani and Ranjan Sahu) document that completely dismissed the student’s claims and alleged she was lying simply because she had been caught cheating. The document also falsely claimed that all the suspected students were taken to another room only for frisking them and patting them down, and were not asked to undress at any point.

Dr Dipali Dalvi eventually showed up at the office, then intimidated the student by first isolating her from her friends and then subjecting her to successive calls with Prof Srabanti Chaudhury and Dr Neena Joseph Mani. In these calls, Prof Srabanti persuaded her to return to campus, questioning the student about why she hadn’t approached her first. At the same time, Dr Neena explicitly threatened her with “academic consequences” if she continued with the complaint. The authorities declined to register the complaint unless more victims were produced at the office.

After spending 7 to 8 hours at the office, only her statement was recorded, and an official letter requesting CCTV footage was issued. No further communication came from the external office. The following morning, multiple peers contacted the student; they had faced similar harassment during the exams.

Other first-years reported being subject to similar non-consensual bodily searches on the same day, 24th of April, 2026. One male student was pulled out of the exam hall and taken to Ranjan Sahu, who ordered him to the AHU room. There, a male housekeeping staff member asked him to take off his jacket, then his shirt. The student complied, only because he felt “intimidated”. The staff then patted down the student, touching his inner thighs and legs. Once he was cleared, they sent him back. This incident left him “shaken” and “nervous”. It took him a while to regain his composure and resume the exam with no compensation for the lost time. Another female student said that the female housekeeping staff member stopped her in the washroom, searched her pockets, and asked her to lift her shirt. When nothing was found, she was let go.

The next day, Saturday, 25th April, I raised a formal complaint against this. Following the complaint, I was called by Dean SCA for a meeting. Upon reaching his office, I learned that the Dean of Academics, the two Associate Deans of Academics (Exams and Curriculum), and the Dean of PnC would also be part of the meeting. This meeting lasted for almost two hours, throughout which Prof Srabanti and Dr Neena tried to character assassinate the victim, denigrating her and her friends who supported her. They denied that any disrobing took place and stated that the two rooms had been set up solely for frisking and patting down suspected students, for their own privacy and dignity. The Deans brushed aside my concerns about touching students without their consent and insisted that the academic office reserved the right to frisk and pat down any student they suspected. However, towards the end of the meeting, the academic office agreed to send an email to all students before the next exam, informing them of the frisking setup. However, no such email was sent. 

A Premeditated Violation and Intimidation of Students:

This deliberate effort indicates a systematic misuse of power, continuing a trend of tyrannical policies introduced by the Dean of Academics, Prof Srabanti Chaudhury. The facts pointing to premeditation are as follows:

The students were taken to rooms specifically designated for this purpose, since they were among the few rooms in the LHC without cameras.
They only strip-searched the first-year students. Furthermore, bodily searches occurred on the day when the only exam at the LHC was for first-year students. This clearly indicates they were trying to intimidate first-year students, who are more gullible and unaware of their rights and student provisions.
Specific housekeeping staff were assigned to the different rooms for strip searches, even though it was not part of their contract duties. Any faculty member could have conducted body searches. Instead, they chose a more expendable agent to carry out their dirty work.

Questions Regarding Student Safety and Accountability:

In light of these events, we must seek clear answers from the administration regarding the following:

Has the academic department issued any official directives regarding strip searches for suspected malpractice?
How does the institute justify Prof Srabanti Chaudhury's continued service as both Dean of Academics and Presiding Officer of the IC, given these allegations?
What safeguards exist to prevent faculty members, such as the Associate Dean of Academics, from using academic threats to silence victims of assault?
Can IC members legally deny assistance to complainants based on the professional affiliation of the respondents?

As students, we have a right to bodily autonomy and a safe campus environment as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and UGC regulations. We must stand together to ensure that these reports are investigatedz transparently and that our rights are protected.

so i was looking into the cutoff trend and i found out that last year 9 rounds of counselling were taken which is a lot. this got me curious as to what the cutoffs for specific branches were but i could not find them anywhere, all i could get was a range for selection in iiser which got me wondering if there even is a branchwise cutoff. if there is a branchwise cutoff then how much should i consider a safe score for a dual degree or integrated in physics