Serious questions have been raised over the financial management and governance of IIM Rohtak after a recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) flagged multiple lapses at the premier management institute.
The CAG’s Report No. 24 of 2026, concerning IIM Rohtak under the Union Ministry of Education, was tabled in Parliament on August 12, 2026. The audit points to shortcomings in financial planning, fee determination, appointment records, incentive payments and adherence to rules.
No annual budget despite rising fees
One of the most striking findings concerns the institute’s annual budgeting process.
According to the CAG, IIM Rohtak did not prepare annual budgets to estimate its receipts and expenditure after 2017-18, even as its student fees and financial receipts increased substantially.
The audit found that the average annual fee per student increased from approximately ₹6.40 lakh in 2018-19 to ₹8.64 lakh in 2023-24—a rise of about 35%.
During the same period, receipts from major programmes reportedly increased sharply.
The CAG also noted that the institute generated a substantial surplus, reportedly amounting to ₹217.91 crore, while annual budgets were not prepared to estimate expected income and expenditure.
That raises an obvious governance question: How can a publicly accountable institution determine fees and manage large financial surpluses without the discipline of annual budgeting?
₹88.64 lakh in salaries without proper appointment records
The audit also identified irregularities relating to employee records.
According to the report, IIM Rohtak paid gross salaries totalling approximately ₹88.64 lakh to 10 individuals without maintaining proper records of their appointments.
Such findings raise questions about internal controls and documentation within an institution whose students pay substantial fees for management education.
The issue is not simply whether the individuals actually worked for the institute. The larger concern is whether an organisation receiving public oversight can make salary payments without maintaining complete and verifiable appointment records.
Incentives and expensive benefits under scrutiny
The CAG also flagged the institute’s incentive system.
Reports on the audit findings say the institute had an “open-ended” incentive policy, with substantial payments made to faculty and senior officials. The audit reportedly found incentive-related expenditure running into several crores, along with benefits including iPhones, iPads and treadmills.
The question is not whether employees should receive incentives for exceptional performance. Performance-linked compensation can be legitimate.
The concern raised by the audit is whether such payments were made under properly approved, transparent and rule-compliant mechanisms.
The missing tracksuits question
The audit has also drawn attention to procurement and distribution-related issues involving student tracksuits.
Questions have been raised about whether the institute properly accounted for items intended for students while other expenditure and incentives were being processed.
For students paying lakhs of rupees in fees, such discrepancies can understandably become a matter of concern.
A management institute is expected to teach students about corporate governance, financial discipline and accountability.
That makes questions about its own financial controls particularly significant.
Not just an accounting issue
The CAG findings go beyond individual transactions.
Taken together, the observations point towards concerns about institutional controls, financial planning, documentation and compliance with prescribed rules.
IIM Rohtak is an institute established under the IIM Act, 2017 and is recognised as an institution of national importance. Its own website lists annual reports going back to 2016-17, while the Ministry of Education also publishes its annual financial information.
This makes transparency especially important.
The larger question for students and taxpayers
For students, the issue is straightforward: if fees are rising significantly, they should be able to expect strong infrastructure, academic resources and transparent use of institutional funds.
For taxpayers and Parliament, the question is broader:
Are public institutions maintaining the financial discipline expected of them?
The CAG report does not by itself establish criminal wrongdoing. Audit observations identify deviations, deficiencies or areas requiring explanation and corrective action. The institute and relevant authorities should therefore have an opportunity to respond to each finding.
But the findings unquestionably warrant scrutiny.
An institution that teaches future corporate leaders about budgets, audits, compliance and accountability must itself be held to high standards on all four.
A test of institutional accountability
The controversy surrounding IIM Rohtak ultimately goes beyond fees, salaries or tracksuits.
It is about whether a publicly accountable institution can demonstrate that every rupee collected from students and every rupee spent by the institute is backed by proper planning, documentation, approval and accountability.
The CAG’s findings now put the ball in the court of IIM Rohtak and the Ministry of Education.
Students deserve answers. Taxpayers deserve transparency. And an institution teaching management should be expected to demonstrate the management standards it teaches.
