Leadership Crisis at IIM Calcutta: One of India’s leading business schools, IIM Calcutta (located in Joka, Kolkata) is facing a deepening administrative crisis. The newly appointed Director, Alok Kumar Rai, who assumed the role on 30 July 2025, has been reported to have clashed publicly with the Chairman of the Board of Governors (BoG), Shrikrishna G. Kulkarni, over major governance decisions, the relocation of its Innovation Park, accommodation arrangements, and broader institutional autonomy.
Compounding the leadership friction, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of IIM Calcutta, Alok Chandra, has sought voluntary retirement ahead of his scheduled tenure, citing discomfort with the Director’s style of functioning.
The confrontation at the top is not only a sign of internal discord but raises questions about governance, accountability, institutional legacy, regulatory oversight and the ability of India’s elite management institutions to function with stability and transparency.
Leadership Crisis at IIM Calcutta: The Core of the Dispute
Reports indicate that the new Director, Alok Kumar Rai, in a meeting with senior officials of the Ministry of Education in Delhi, expressed frustration about what he perceived as the over-reach of the BoG Chairman and the Board in daily academic and strategic decision-making. In particular, he raised the following grievances:
- His proposal to relocate the Innovation Park from the Joka campus to a newer campus in New Town was not supported by the Board.
- The delay in arranging suitable accommodation for him as Director – he has reportedly been without dedicated faculty accommodation for two months, which he considered untenable given the status of the office. His sense of being sidelined in decision-making and lack of institutional support in executing his agenda.
The Board of Governors, chaired by Kulkarni, is alleged to have been making strategic decisions and influencing institutional direction without full consultation of the Director, an arrangement Rai reportedly finds unacceptable. Additionally, Kulkarni’s term as Chairman had already exceeded its regular tenure under the IIM Act and remains a contentious point.
The voluntary retirement request submitted by the CAO, Alok Chandra — two years before the end of his tenure — signals internal unease. Sources suggest Chandra was uncomfortable with the Director’s style and possibly the Board’s decision-making processes. As per one report, the institute has not yet formally accepted Chandra’s request, but the very act of submission raises alarm bells.
Institutional Background & Legacy Issues
IIM Calcutta, established in 1961 as India’s first IIM, has built an enviable reputation in management education, research and thought-leadership. However, the institution has in recent years seen recurring episodes of leadership instability. For example, former Director Anju Seth resigned in March 2021 after reportedly clashing with the Board; the institution dismissed her resignation in the public-domain statement as a matter of “receipt of letter”.
A 2024 review noted that IIM Calcutta had changed directors three times in three years and still lacked permanent leadership in some strategic places.
These patterns contribute to systemic concerns: delayed appointments of deans, pending recruitment of senior faculty, incomplete strategic projects such as the Innovation Park, and a sense among some faculty and students of diminished institutional momentum.
Against this backdrop, the current clash acquires added gravity. At a time when management institutions are expected to lead innovation, global engagement, and academic agility, internal governance disruption can erode institutional credibility, affect faculty morale, hamper student outcomes and undermine international positioning.
Key Governance Questions & Tensions
There are several pivotal governance questions emerging from the inside of IIM Calcutta’s leadership crisis:
1. Role Clarity between Director and Board
Under the IIM Act, the Director is the chief academic and executive officer of the institute, while the Board of Governors provides strategic oversight and maintains fiduciary responsibility. When the Board and the Director are perceived to be in conflict about major decisions—such as the relocation of innovation infrastructure—the risk is a breakdown in institutional functioning.
For example, the Board’s decision to approve a new Director’s residence via CPWD, while not yet completing interim accommodation arrangements, raised serious questions of implementation delays. The Director views his accommodation as essential to fulfil his administrative role. The Board claims that arrangements consistent with prior practice have been made.
2. Tenure and Legitimacy of the Chairman
The Chairman of the Board, Shrikrishna G. Kulkarni, had completed his regular term in 2022. The ministry of education had directed IIMs to extend the term by one year until the Search-cum-Selection Committee procedures are finalised—though the IIM Act (including its 2023 amendment) makes no provision for such extensions. Most IIMs, including IIM Calcutta, complied with the directive. This irregularity has been flagged as undermining institutional legitimacy.
The clash centres partly on whether decisions taken by an ‘over-tenured’ Chairman might have legitimacy. When institutional rules are put aside in favour of ad hoc extensions, power imbalances can emerge.
3. Strategic Project Disagreements: The Innovation Park Shift
One of the flashpoints is the relocation of the Innovation Park—which supports industry-linked research, start-ups and technology transfer—from Joka to New Town. The Director argues the move is critical for infrastructure synergy, access to industry, and branding. The Board, however, is cautious or has not formally approved it at the “competent authority” level. The disagreement over this major infrastructure shift reflects differences in vision and perhaps power. 4. Administrative Stability: CAO’s Early Exit
The early retirement request of the CAO, Alok Chandra, raises questions about internal discontent, executive support for leadership, and stability of the administration. The CAO is key to operations, and his departure ahead of term may impact institutional continuity.
5. Faculty, Deans and Program Appointments
In recent years, IIM Calcutta has reportedly lagged in filling senior faculty and dean positions. Change in leadership often delays such decisions; this time around the standoff may further slow down recruitment, research funding, curriculum innovation and student placement processes.
Stakeholder Perspectives
From the Director’s Office
Rai, as director, emphasises stakeholder inclusion, strategic innovation and institutional positioning. While he has publicly laid out his agenda centred around “integration, innovation, inclusion, internationalisation and Indianness”, he perceives a lack of procedural support and decision‐making autonomy. He reportedly described his interaction with the Board to ministry officials as “frustrating”.
From the Board/Chairman’s Office
The Board, through its statement, argued that normal governance procedures are being followed. The Institute stated that “the regular functioning of the Director follows the directives and procedures as laid down in the IIM Calcutta Regulations, which have been duly approved by the Ministry of Education.” The Board further noted that the proposal for relocation of the Innovation Park “has not been formally placed before the competent authorities at this stage.”
From Faculty and Staff
While the institution continues its academic functioning—welcoming new doctoral batches and other academic programmes—some faculty and insiders claim that the leadership uncertainty is dampening morale. According to past reviews, confusion around deans’ appointments and strategic projects has already eroded faculty confidence.
From the Ministry of Education / Government Oversight
The Ministry has reportedly stepped in to defuse the situation. Senior officials met with the Director in Delhi for two hours and explored options to stabilise the campus leadership crisis. The government has also reportedly indicated that it does not wish the Director to resign at this juncture.
Impact on Institutional Reputation & Functioning
IIM Calcutta is a marquee institution, with national and international rankings, extensive alumni networks, and industry partnerships. Leadership instability carries several risks:
- Research & Funding – Uncertainty at the top may deter large grants, industry collaborations and innovation ecosystem engagement.
- Student Recruitment & Placements – High-ranking B-schools rely on brand stability; news of governance discord may affect applications and recruiter confidence.
- Faculty Retention & Hiring – Senior faculty seek stable, well-governed environments; repeated leadership changes impact institutional attractiveness.
- Vision & Strategy Execution – Major initiatives like the Innovation Park or international centres require sustained leadership; governance disagreements can derail them.
- Regulatory Risk – If governance practices deviate from statutorily prescribed norms (e.g., tenure extensions, decision-making process), regulatory bodies may intervene, affecting autonomy and credibility.
Governance Norms & Regulatory Framework
Under the IIM Act, 2017 (and subsequent amendments), the following are relevant:
- The Director is appointed by the Visitor (President of India) on the recommendation of the Search-cum-Selection Committee.
- The Board of Governors is the apex governing body for each IIM; it includes the Chairman, Director, faculty member(s), financial expert(s), industry representative(s) and government nominee(s).
- Tenures of Chairpersons and Directors are regulated—any deviation without statutory basis can raise legal and governance issues.
In the present case, the extension of the Chairman’s term beyond four years without legislative basis prompts scrutiny. Also, decisions such as relocation of major infrastructure projects and acquisition of accommodation for the Director should adhere to institutional regulations, CPWD procedures, budgetary approvals and Board oversight.
Governance experts argue that elite institutions must combine academic freedom with transparent processes, clear accountability, and timely leadership transitions. When personal power or unilateral decision-making takes precedence, it may undermine institutional ethos.
Comparative Context: Leadership Storms in IIMs
IIM Calcutta is not unique in facing leadership turbulence. Other IIMs have had clashes between Directors and Boards, delays in deanships, and disagreements over strategic direction. For example, IIM Calcutta’s own earlier director Anju Seth resigned after months of friction with the Board.
Observers say that as IIMs evolve into global brand-entities, the traditional governance model (faculty-led, board-supported) is under strain from increasing demands: global accreditation, corporate partnerships, commercialization, and expansion into multiple campuses. Without smooth governance, even top institutions can falter.
The Road Ahead: What Must Be Resolved
For the crisis to be resolved and the institution to regain momentum, several actions appear necessary:
- Clear resolution of Director-Board relationship – A definitive governance charter outlining roles, decision rights, meeting protocols and conflict resolution mechanisms.
- Completion of major appointments and projects – Filling the CAO role definitively, proceeding with deans’ appointments, and formally approving or shelving the relocation of the Innovation Park.
- Restoration of leadership stability – Ensuring the Director is supported with appropriate accommodation, administrative infrastructure and decision-making authority.
- Regulatory compliance – Ensuring the Chairman’s tenure is regularised or replaced, aligning with the IIM Act and Ministry guidelines to avoid perception of ad-hoc extensions.
- Communication and stakeholder reassurance – Faculty, students, industry partners and alumni need a stable roadmap so they can invest trust in the institution’s future.
- Governance audit or independent review – Given repeated leadership churn, an external review of governance practices, faculty recruitment, project implementation and Board engagement may strengthen institutional resilience.
Conclusion
The leadership turmoil at IIM Calcutta underscores how even premier institutions are vulnerable to governance lapses, power struggles and procedural ambiguity. The clash between Director Alok Kumar Rai and Chairman Shrikrishna Kulkarni is symptomatic of deeper tensions between tradition and transformation, oversight and execution, strategy and control.
For IIM Calcutta, the stakes are not just internal. The brand, the alumni legacy, student outcomes, industry partnerships and global reputation all hinge on institutional coherence and stable leadership. If the governance crisis persists, the institution risks not only reputational damage but strategic drift, lost opportunities and faculty decline.
On the other hand, if the current impasse is swiftly resolved through transparent processes, strong leadership and a clear strategic roadmap, IIM Calcutta can regain its footing and perhaps emerge stronger—reinforced by introspection and reform.
As the education ecosystem in India becomes more competitive and globally connected, governance challenges of this scale must be taken seriously. Institutions cannot rest on legacy alone; they must match governance to ambition, and administration to vision.
The next few months at IIM Calcutta will thus be critical. Whether the governing board and the Director can find common ground—or whether external intervention will force a reset—remains to be seen. But for the students, faculty, alumni and broader management-education ecosystem, the direction this institution takes now may signal more than just one leadership change—it may reflect the future of governance in India’s elite educational institutions.
External Links for Context and Reference
- Indian Institute of Management Calcutta – https://www.iimcal.ac.in/
- Ministry of Education, Government of India – https://www.education.gov.in/
- IIM Act (2017) & Amendments – https://www.indiacode.nic.in/
- Board Governance Best Practices for Higher Education Institutions – https://www.aacsb.edu/
Also read: Home | Channel 6 Network – Latest News, Breaking Updates: Politics, Business, Tech & More
