Inside Bengaluru’s Bowring Institute: Suspensions, court battles, and a revolt over a land deal
“They have gone to the extent of maligning us personally. They will not go scot-free,” thundered Srikanth HS, honorary secretary of the Bowring Institute in Bengaluru, at a tense general body meeting in June 2025.
Club members had learnt three months earlier that an advance of Rs 10 crore had been paid to build a second unit of the club, 100 kms away. Many among the 300-odd members who gathered that day demanded answers: Who took this decision? Why had money already been handed over to a builder?
Srikanth’s combative 59-minute speech was a mark of the hostilities playing out within the 157-year-old institution that counts Bengaluru’s elite among its members.
The fallout from the meeting was almost immediate. Club president Bhaskar S resigned, only to be accused by Srikanth (and the management committee) soon after of engaging in “anti-club activities” and was suspended. Thirteen other members received show cause notices, and three petitions were filed in court challenging Srikanth’s actions.
The Bowring Institute was founded in 1868 as a scientific and literary institute. Two decades later, the institute was granted prime land in the heart of Bengaluru, in the area known as St Mark’s Road. The club quickly became one of the city's most sought-after and elite social centres, counting top business people, politicians, bureaucrats, and judges—essentially, the who's who of the city, among its members.
According to several members TNM spoke to, the first mention of a “second unit” came during an open house (a meeting of members) on March 23, 2025.
That day, Srikanth made a video presentation of a 23-acre plot in Paragodu village, off the Bengaluru–Hyderabad National Highway. The land, costing Rs 87 crore, is mostly owned by Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt Ltd, and was billed as the perfect site for the club’s expansion.
Trishul Buildtech is a subsidiary of the MRG Group, owned by Korangrapady Prakash Shetty, a businessman who was among the three candidates shortlisted by the BJP’s core committee for a Rajya Sabha seat in 2020.
TNM spoke to several members of the club (all of whom preferred to remain anonymous) and Srikanth about the allegations and court cases. Srikanth staunchly maintains that the decision to build a second unit at Paragodu was taken as it was the ‘most suitable land’.
Members unaware of transaction
Ever since the open house at the club, there has been a flood of allegations. One of the main allegations made by five club members – Bharath Poovaiah, Devanandan Ramanna, Arjun Sampath Kumar, Satish J and Vivekanand MR – who approached the Karnataka city civil court is that two bankers cheques worth a total of Rs 10 crore had already been drawn in favour of the vendors on March 17. That is, six days before the open house.
While Trishul Buildtech owns 22 acres and 28 guntas of the 23 acres and 31 guntas of land, another entity called Vinayaka Trust owns 34 guntas.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the deal was signed on March 24, a day after the open house.
Members have alleged in court that, though Rule 46(f) of the club’s bye-laws explicitly bars any expenditure exceeding Rs 25 lakh without prior consent from the members, this was done without consultation.
Even more curious, a legal opinion on the land purchase was sought only on April 3, weeks after the drafts were issued.
Srikanth claims the idea for a second unit occurred to him as a few bureaucrats who are members asked for an alternative space where they could ‘spend weekends with their children’.
“Today we have 6,503 members — Sindhis, Punjabis, Marwaris, Gujaratis, Kannadigas, Tamilians and even a few Malayalis. Around 50% are younger people, mostly children of members, aged between 21 and 45. In addition, there are 1,857 children registered as dependents, waiting to become members. We can only give membership to about 130–140 per batch. Now, where are we going to accommodate them? The premises are 10.39 acres — all four walls fixed, not even an inch to expand,” he says.
Srikanth said younger members had driven the demand for a second unit, seeking modern amenities and better ambience — from national-standard pools and shuttle courts to gyms, golf, and cycling tracks.
“It was discussed in an open house in March just to understand the pulse of members,” he claimed.
When asked why the banking cheques were kept ready even before the meeting, Srikanth said he would answer this in court.
He defended the MoU, saying it was only to show intent and was not a binding agreement. “The seller was a former member of the club. The MoU said the general body must first approve whether the second unit should exist and only then decide on the land. So we bought time to keep the land from being sold. The banker’s cheque issued was part of the MoU, fully secured by the bankers.”
Members we spoke to, however, say they were kept in the dark. “The entire process was made to look consultative when, in reality, the decision had already been made,” a long-time member told TNM. “It was a classic fait accompli,” said a senior member. “By the time we were shown the slides and videos, the money had already left the account.”
According to the members, the MoU signed by Srikanth and other committee members was never shared with them until much later, when details surfaced in the club’s annual report.
According to the members, the MoU signed by Srikanth and other committee members has not been shared to date at any meetings. Only some details of the MoU, like the land area, value, etc., were disclosed in the annual report.
Numbers don’t add up
The land in question lay in Paragodu village, off the Bengaluru–Hyderabad National Highway—a dry, sparsely populated stretch of Chikkaballapura district. From the Bowring Institute on St Mark’s Road, the drive to Paragodu can take over three hours on a good day, longer if the city’s infamous traffic lives up to its reputation.
That, members argued, was the first red flag. “Who would drive a hundred kms through Bengaluru traffic just to go to a club?” one of them asked. “It defeats the very idea of belonging to a city club.”
But geography wasn’t their only concern.
The estimated cost of acquiring the land was pegged by the management committee at Rs 87 crore, or about Rs 4 crore per acre or Rs 9,887 per square metre.
However, the petitioners have submitted to the court the government’s guidance value for land in the same village from 2023. This value stood at around Rs 70 lakh per acre or Rs 1,729 per square metre—nearly six times lower.
Srikanth insists the land was suitable. “It was exclusive, accessible, not in a village, on the highway. The seller, at his own cost, got the land commercially converted after the MoU, which cost lakhs.”
When asked about the guidance value being much lower, Srikanth had his own calculation. He said that a commercially converted land in that area can cost up to Rs 5,000 per square metre. “To this, add 50% more value for being on a national highway, and it becomes Rs 7,500 per square metre. Prices have gone up since the guidance value was given.”
Bhaskar’s resignation
After the open house in March 2025, several members, who were unhappy at the secrecy and the alleged overvaluation of the land, approached the then-president Bhaskar S. They objected to the deal and to what they saw as a growing pattern of unilateral decision-making by the committee. Faced with mounting pressure, Bhaskar resigned on May 27, 2025.
After consulting with legal and real estate professionals, trusted confidants, and committee colleagues, he wrote in his resignation letter that “the complexities and inherent risks of the 'Bowring II’ venture made it untenable, and the potential consequences outweighed the envisioned benefits.” He stated that he could not, in good conscience, advocate its continuation.
Barely 24 hours later, the same management committee suspended Bhaskar from the club. A notice that is still put up at the Bowring Club says he was suspended pending further enquiry.
Officially, the notice cited “disciplinary reasons,” but members widely saw it as punishment for speaking out.
With the president’s resignation, the management committee stepped in and appointed Roop R Goklaney as the new president. According to the petitioners, this violated two bye-laws — Rule 26 that says the vice-president must be elevated and Rule 28.3(c) that prohibits people from serving more than three terms. Roop had been president thrice earlier.
To a query on Roop’s appointment, Srikanth said he will inform the court.
The tension escalated further when the management committee went ahead with an Annual General Meeting on June 6, 2025, and included the acquisition of the Paragodu land as a key item on the agenda, despite misgivings.
As the meeting descended into chaos, Srikanth took the stage. For 59 minutes, he held the room, speaking directly to the club members who had gathered to question the Rs 10 crore already paid for the Paragodu land project.
Srikanth began by defending the management committee’s credibility, recounting past projects and emphasising that money had always been handled responsibly.
He framed the Paragodu project as a “dream project” aimed at the younger generation while honouring the club’s legacy of sports and cultural excellence.
He then shifted to finances and land issues, addressing the lease and rent history of the existing club property in meticulous detail.
He also reminded members of past bureaucratic hassles due to unpaid lease amount. “In 2006, the lease amount wasn’t paid, and the government almost terminated us.” The lease amount was Rs 30 per year.
The land that Bowring is situated on has been sub-leased under a 1969 government order, and the lease expires in 2055. Srikanth added, “We are barely paying anything here, and once the lease ends, the government could terminate it entirely. If we don’t act now, the club’s very future is at risk.”
The disciplinary action
Many members of the Bowring Institute TNM spoke to said they have learnt one thing in the last decade: crossing Srikanth comes at a cost.
Since 2013, he’s been the club’s honorary secretary, re-elected time and again, sometimes unopposed. “He’s the real centre of control,” said a senior member. “Everyone knows he runs the show. And if you question him, you are out.”
Since the open house in March, at least 14 members, including former president Bhaskar, have received show cause notices. Bhaskar and another member, Ashok Kumar, were suspended from the club.
A disciplinary committee was also formed on June 9 to "investigate various allegations against members and associates involved in nefarious activities, anti-club activities, promoting enmity on language and borderlines, rumour mongering and the smear campaign within and beyond the Institute premises."
Following Bhaskar’s resignation on May 28, Srikanth issued a suspension letter accusing him of tarnishing the club’s image.
The letter alleged that Bhaskar’s resignation letter had been circulated among members and other social circles. “The media and WhatsApp carried their own versions of the episode and made derogatory remarks questioning the credibility of the Institute. Your cowardice act and reckless actions have severely tarnished the image of the Institute and are detrimental to its discipline, reputation, and interests (sic).”
Bhaskar denied the accusation that he had leaked his resignation letter to the media.
In his written response, he said, “The Secretary's letter refers to my actions as those of a ‘coward’ acting ‘recklessly’ to tarnish the Institute’s reputation. I was unsure whether this was part of official communication or a theatrical aside meant for dramatic performance. Neither cowardice nor recklessness have been my companions through this journey. It was an act of restraint — not to allow an open and chaotic debate within the wider membership when serious concerns existed around the Bagepalli (Paragodu) land purchase and the Bowring II project.”
Bhaskar added that, a week before resigning, he had spent over two hours in a one-on-one meeting with Srikanth, outlining his concerns.
“These concerns were not mine alone,” he wrote. “They were echoed by legal and real estate professionals who flagged serious issues around the project’s financial viability, lack of due diligence, and possible personal interests at play. Despite this, the honorary secretary appeared in undue haste to push the project forward, bypassing proper deliberation and sanctioning an advance of Rs 10 crore without consensus.” Bhaskar’s suspension was revoked after he approached the court.
Another member, Xavier Kanikaraj, was served a show cause notice by Stuart Clark, chairman of the disciplinary committee, accusing him of orchestrating a “smear campaign” against the Institute by spreading fake messages on social media.
Srikanth says the allegation that he uses show cause notices to threaten is “absolutely rubbish.”
He accused Bhaskar of waging a fight using proxies. “The president presides over meetings, visits sites, signs balance sheets, and calls special general meetings. And yet, through his relatives, he filed a case before the civil court.”
“Bhaskar sent his resignation by mail, and the media then published his letter. We asked him to explain why he went to the media,” Srikanth said.
Srikanth justified the show cause notices and suspensions, claiming, “When you are a member of a private club, which is an association of persons, you lose many of your rights as a citizen. Membership is a contractual agreement. You are bound by the club’s rules.”
When TNM visited the Bowring Institute, three notices were pinned to the club’s notice board. The latest was a three-month suspension issued on October 13 to Ashok Kumar, who has previously served as a management committee member and vice president, for allegedly “violating disciplinary norms.”
Members who spoke to TNM did so on condition of anonymity, fearing they could lose their membership if identified. “There was no hearing before the disciplinary committee in Ashok’s case; the full management committee suspended him directly. It’s the same pattern: keep the notices pending and use them when convenient, usually around a Special General Body Meeting (SGM),” a club member said.
Srikanth for all seasons
According to the Bowring Institute bye-laws, no member of the management committee can serve more than three terms. Srikanth, who joined the committee in 2009 and has been honorary secretary since 2013, is now in his sixth term.
Srikanth, also the president of Karnataka’s Federation of Clubs, has many supporters in the club who believe in his organisational capabilities. In March 2020, just before the COVID-19 lockdown, a letter signed by 546 members called for the amendment of Rule 28.3(f) to extend the secretary’s tenure from three to six terms.
They argued that with ongoing government inquiries, lease issues, and even threats of demolition by the BBMP, Bengaluru’s civic body, changing the secretary would harm the Institute’s interests.
Members also highlighted that the club building is an Archaeological Survey of India Grade II structure, nearly 140 years old, so any renovation required approval. During his earlier tenure, Srikanth managed to secure the necessary permissions and get projects underway.
The general body concurred and voted for three additional terms, extending Srikanth’s tenure beyond the bye-law limit, which now expires in June 2026.
“Srikanth runs the club almost like his own private enterprise,” a member said. “Committee members rarely challenge him—they just go along. Over 12 uninterrupted years, he has amended bye-laws to consolidate his control and pushed massive projects, including a proposed integrated health and sports facility with six indoor badminton courts, two squash courts, and tennis courts at Bowring Institute premises. The initial budget of Rs 75 crore is likely to rise, yet construction hasn’t even begun.”
Srikanth, however, rejects the charge that his term was “extended.”
“My term has never been extended,” he said. “In 2020, the prevailing situation involved restoration of the building and several issues with the government. The general body decided that any member could contest for three more terms up to 2026. It wasn’t specific to me. It was my choice to contest.”
He added that the decision was unanimous.
Adding to the sense of unease is the influx of new members into the club.
Bowring bye-laws say the club is not supposed to have more than 5,500 members at any point in time excluding certain type of members.
In 2015, Bowring began offering discounted memberships to select individuals, including bureaucrats, judges, police officials and politicians. Normally, a permanent membership would cost Rs 20 lakh, but the discounted membership was for Rs 5.9 lakh.
Among 23 such new memberships in 2025, there are five BBMP officials, six IAS officers, three IRS officers, two IPS officers, and three public representatives. Two High Court judges and one city civil court judge have also been inducted as members. The club has more than 6,000 Honorary life, Life and Permanent members as of March 2025.
The tense environment inside the club aside, the management committee in May 2025 filed a defamation suit against TV channels, including BTV and Freedom TV, claiming damages of Rs 10 crore.
The channels had repeatedly broadcast stories calling the management committee, its members, and the Institute corrupt and involved in unscrupulous real estate dealings. Bowring Institute, in its suit, alleged that these stories were based on misinformation from some expelled or disgruntled members. The City Civil Court issued an interim order on May 23, 2025, restraining media houses from airing unsubstantiated defamatory claims.
The most expensive proposal
The controversy over Bhaskar’s resignation and the ongoing discontent among members over the proposed land acquisitions prompted the management committee to form a nine-member high-powered committee (HPC) on June 16, 2025.
The HPC, led by a member named Anup Bajaj, was tasked with evaluating multiple land proposals for Bowring Unit 2 and making recommendations.
When the HPC submitted its preliminary report on August 11, 2025, the Paragodu property received the lowest score among the four shortlisted proposals.
The committee found it to be the least favourable in terms of location, infrastructure, and cost—and by far the most expensive proposal on the table.
The report recommended exploring alternative land parcels at more attractive prices and conducting further qualitative and quantitative assessments to ensure the project’s technical and financial viability. It stressed that its findings were directional, not conclusive, and also suggested examining internal expansion possibilities within the existing club premises.
Even after the HPC’s recommendations, tensions within the club persisted. The management committee scheduled a Special General Meeting (SGM) on August 31, 2025, to present the report and vote on the land acquisition.
The meeting descended into chaos. Around 851 members gathered in a packed hall. Srikanth initially called for a show of hands vote but suddenly instructed all members supporting land acquisition for the second unit to move to the right-hand side of the hall. The motion was declared passed with 320 votes.
Following the SGM, members of the Bowring Institute filed a petition in a Bengaluru court seeking to have the resolutions declared illegal, null, void and unenforceable.
According to the petition filed by five members in the City Civil Court, the number was impossible to verify. There were no tellers, no independent oversight and no transparency, they alleged. They said that the video recording of the meeting was withheld from members.
The petition also sought to restrain the management committee from taking any further action or making payments related to the proposed acquisition.
The court, after considering the petition, issued an interim order restraining the management committee from implementing the resolutions passed at the SGM, including approval of the proposed land acquisition, during the pendency of the suit.
However, the court clarified that this does not prevent them from proceeding with the proposal if they obtain fresh approval through a properly convened General Body Meeting. The management has now approached the Karnataka High Court in response to this interim order.
For now, the battle lines inside Bowring remain clearly drawn. A source close to Srikanth says he is preparing to argue in court that the MoU was merely a statement of intent, not a binding deal, and that since all committee members are part of the same club, there was no question of cheating or concealment. But many in the 150-year-old institution remain unconvinced.