IIM Calcutta Faces Leadership Turmoil — The Indian Institute of Management Calcutta (IIM Calcutta), one of India’s premier management institutions and a symbol of academic prestige, is currently embroiled in a severe governance crisis. A widening rift between Director Prof. Alok Kumar Rai and Chairman of the Board of Governors Shrikrishna G. Kulkarni has sparked serious concerns about leadership stability, institutional autonomy, and internal administration at the century’s top business school.
The issue has taken a sharp turn with reports that the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Alok Chandra, has tendered his voluntary retirement citing discomfort with the current working environment. The chain of conflicts surrounding administrative control, governance interference, and leadership transition threatens to undermine IIM Calcutta’s hard-earned reputation for excellence.
Background: From Academic Excellence to Administrative Deadlock
IIM Calcutta, established in 1961 as India’s first IIM, has long been recognized as a global leader in management education. However, the past few years have witnessed mounting internal strife that has once again resurfaced under the directorship of Prof. Rai, who took charge in July 2025.
Sources indicate that soon after assuming office, Prof. Rai held a high-level meeting with senior officials of the Ministry of Education (MoE) in New Delhi, where he raised concerns about the board’s “overreach” and lack of support for executive functioning. The Director reportedly conveyed his grievances over stalled decisions relating to campus infrastructure and housing arrangements.
Conflict Points: Innovation Park, Accommodation, and Governance Control
According to insiders, the flashpoints in this confrontation include:
- Innovation Park Relocation – Prof. Rai proposed shifting IIM Calcutta’s Innovation Park from the Joka campus to a more accessible site in New Town to promote entrepreneurship and research-industry linkage. However, the move reportedly faced strong resistance from the Board of Governors, leading to a deadlock.
- Director’s Official Accommodation – Despite being in office for months, the Director has not been allotted suitable residential accommodation. He reportedly considers this delay “symbolic of the institution’s governance lapses.”
- Extended Tenure of the Chairman – Questions have also emerged over Chairman Shrikrishna Kulkarni’s extended tenure, which allegedly surpasses the four-year statutory limit under the IIM Act, 2017. The perceived lack of transparency in this extension has become a central issue in the dispute.
(For reference: Full text of the IIM Act, 2017 can be accessed at https://legislative.gov.in/)
Voluntary Retirement of the Chief Administrative Officer
The crisis escalated when the CAO, Alok Chandra, sought voluntary retirement two years ahead of his tenure. In his letter, Chandra reportedly cited “difficulties in functioning” and “administrative stress” caused by the ongoing discord between top leadership.
The Director, while refraining from public comment, is believed to have discussed these matters with officials of the Ministry of Education, prompting speculation of a possible intervention.
Institutional Reputation at Stake
The recurring turbulence has raised red flags among stakeholders, alumni, and academicians. IIM Calcutta, which has produced business leaders, policymakers, and academics worldwide, is now grappling with internal paralysis.
Analysts say that repeated leadership disruptions — with multiple directors serving short terms in recent years — have eroded stability. The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) has consistently placed IIM Calcutta among India’s top three B-schools, but such controversies could impact its long-term academic standing and global collaborations.
(For NIRF ranking details, visit https://www.nirfindia.org)
IIM Calcutta Faces Leadership Turmoil: The Broader Governance Debate
The IIM Act, 2017, grants these institutions greater autonomy from the Ministry, empowering Boards to make key administrative and academic decisions. However, this autonomy has also led to power struggles between Directors and Boards, as seen earlier in other IIMs like Ahmedabad and Bangalore.
In IIM Calcutta’s case, the Director’s attempt to assert academic independence reportedly collided with the Board’s desire to maintain control over governance decisions. Education policy experts believe that a lack of clear operational boundaries has allowed such conflicts to escalate.
(More about IIM governance can be found on the Ministry of Education’s page: https://www.education.gov.in)
Official Response from IIM Calcutta
In response to media queries, IIM Calcutta issued a statement denying any administrative breakdown. The statement said:
“The institute continues to function in accordance with the IIM Calcutta Regulations and directives approved by the Ministry of Education. Decisions related to accommodation and campus development are under due process.”
The institute clarified that the Director’s accommodation plan was already sanctioned and assigned to the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) for completion. It also stated that the Innovation Park relocation proposal has not yet reached the approval stage.
Academic and Alumni Voices
The controversy has not gone unnoticed among the institute’s alumni and faculty. A section of professors privately expressed concern that “internal politics” could jeopardize academic initiatives and international partnerships. Alumni members have called for “greater transparency” and “a functional balance between governance and academic leadership.”
A senior faculty member, speaking anonymously, remarked, “The brand value of IIM Calcutta rests on academic excellence and ethics. Governance battles risk turning that strength into weakness.”
Wider Implications for Indian Higher Education
This crisis at IIM Calcutta reflects a broader national issue — the ongoing debate about autonomy versus accountability in higher education. The IIMs, after gaining more freedom under the 2017 Act, have faced challenges aligning Board oversight with Director-led academic vision.
Experts argue that clearer delineation of powers, regular performance audits, and external oversight mechanisms could help prevent such deadlocks.
(Read the IIM Act Amendment 2023 at https://prsindia.org/)
Government’s Stand and Possible Mediation
Sources within the Ministry of Education have hinted that officials are closely monitoring the developments. The Ministry reportedly wishes to avoid another leadership exit, as witnessed in earlier years.
A formal review meeting may soon be convened to mediate between the Director and the Board, with the goal of restoring administrative stability and continuing academic projects like the Innovation Park and Executive Education expansion.
Conclusion: A Moment of Reckoning for IIM Calcutta
The leadership clash at IIM Calcutta serves as a reminder that even world-class institutions are vulnerable to internal governance dysfunction. For IIM Calcutta to retain its status as a premier global B-school, both the Board and the Director must prioritize institutional integrity over personal or political conflict.
The crisis should become an opportunity to revisit governance models across all IIMs, ensuring that autonomy does not lead to isolation and oversight does not translate into control.
Ultimately, the strength of an institution lies not in its infrastructure or rankings, but in its ability to uphold transparency, academic freedom, and mutual respect among its leadership.
External References:
- Election Commission of India — Governance Frameworks
- Ministry of Education — Higher Education Department
- Indian Institute of Management Act, 2017 — Legislative Text
- NIRF India Rankings
- IIM Calcutta Official Website
- PRS India — IIM Act Amendment 2023
Also read: Home | Channel 6 Network – Latest News, Breaking Updates: Politics, Business, Tech & More
