In a letter carrying the weight of academic dissent, preceptors at Jawaharlal Nehru University have appealed directly to President Droupadi Murmu, prompting the junking ofVice-Chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit. The letter, penned under the banner of “ dark periods of JNU, ” paints a bleak portrayal of lot governance that numerous faculty members say has eroded the institution’s popular character. 

At the heart of the kick lies the termination of Dr. Rohan V. H. Choudhari, an adjunct professor in the Centre for Political Studies. Officially dismissed on grounds of unidentified underperformance and unauthorized leave, the faculty body denounced the action as both “ vengeful ” and unlawful. They argue it traduced JNU’s established bills by bypassing collaborative decision- making morals needed for similar correctional measures. According to the university’s regulations, termination must bechampioned by a two- thirds maturity of the Executive Council — a threshold that faculty claimwas n’t met in Dr. Choudhari’s case. What’s more, they say, the redundancy pitfalls setting a dangerousprecedent an abuse of executive power to marginalize differing voices. 

Fueling concern, JNUTA has indicted theVice-Chancellor of transubstantiating JNU into her particular sphere. Faculty members purport she has unilaterally staffed leadership places similar as Deans and other directors — without meaningfuldiscussion, consolidating control within an innercircle. According to the association, these movables were executed “ at her discretion, ” sidelining broader institutional agreement. 

Fresh pressure is apparent in reports of correctional proceedings against another inferior faculty member. The issue revolves around a case flagged as “ unauthorized absence ”, which the preceptors’ association asserts was simply an unintentionallapse performing from serious family medical extremities. JNUTA characterized the administration’s running as not only disproportionate, but representational of a vendetta. 

Taken together, the faculty body claims these conduct reflect a pattern of governance driven moreby power connection than academic stewardship. They argue theVice-Chancellor’s conduct betray the university’s long- standing ideals of participatory deliberation and cordial operation. 

In their plea to the President who serves as the Caller of JNU — the preceptors prompt immediateintervention. They supplicate the loftiest indigenousauthority to probe these conduct and to considerdismissing theVice-Chancellor for her conduct. The letter serves as both a legal appeal and a emblematic call for restoring what faculty see as eroded trust and university autonomy. 

Responses from the university administration remainunder the radar. No sanctioned statement has beenissued to clarify the grounds for redundancy , address the alleged procedural irregularities, or explain the extraordinary authority applied by theVice-Chancellor. 

The contestation at JNU unfolds against a background of jacked public debates over academic freedom and institutional control. For decades, the university has been famed for rigorous education and vibrant political engagement among scholars and faculty. Its identity as a fortification of popular dissentin lot life has been a point of pride. But now, that identity feels doomed. 

For the academic community, the letter to the President is further than a response to individual cases — it represents an alarm over shifting morals. It reflects concern that JNU, formerly a space of inclusive governance and intellectual rigor, pitfalls getting an institution where authority is centralized and dissent is discouraged. 

As the letter lands on the President’s office, time will tell whether the assignation for intervention sparks a broader reckoning within JNU. For numerous on lot, these are indeed the dark periods of a university whose heritage of open dialogue, participated governance , and academic integrity is now hanging in the balance.