K. Selvaperunthagai, the congress floor leader in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, held a protest against the closure of the IIT-Madras Krishna gate on October 27. Children attending school on the IIT campus under the Right to Education Act (RTE Act) have to travel five kilometers instead of 3 kilometers due to the shutdown of the Krishna gate K.Selvaperunthagai said, accusing the prestigious IIT-Madras of practicing 'modern untouchability'.
3 Gates Are Open 1 Is Closed Why?
The Congress leader asked why the other three gates were open, and the Krishna gate was closed. The DMK's election manifesto too had promised to remove the wall which is closing the entrance." As reported by The Hindu, we will meet Chief Minister M.K.Stalin and raise this issue with him," MLA said. He also said that people working on the campus, employees, students, and even sanitary workers could not enter the campus through the Krishna Gate and travel an extra distance to enter the campus.
In November 2020, the Madras high court refused to open the fourth gate. In December 2020 IIT-Madras administration closed the gate, stating security reasons as one of the girl's hostels is close to the gate entrance. Refusing the relief sought by D Hari Krishan, a resident of the area, a division bench of Justice R Hemalatha and Justice M Sathyanarayanan directed the petitioner to give a representation to the university.
Gate Is Being Used From Last 50 Years
"The institute shall mind of such an illustration by disclosing the decision to the petitioner in four weeks", the bench said. According to the petitioner, the gate, used for almost 50 years by teachers, students, and various residents living in the area, has been suddenly closed by the IIT-M without proper justification. "The gate was primary access to two schools on the campus," the petitioner said, as reported by The Times of India.
Besides the area's residents, even teachers and students of IIT-M have been affected by closing the fourth gate, and they are continuously demanding to open the remaining one, he added. Refusing to accept the disagreement, the court wondered whether the petitioner supported the cause of hotels and other shops that would benefit if the gate was opened again.