Community for feedback or present at conferences. The problem is that despite these glaring errors, the paper was cited by innumerable senior scholars and influencers as clinching evidence for voter manipulation. Das's research came under extensive criticism, which led Ashoka University to issue a statement distancing itself from the research. Further, the university established an internal committee to determine whether the paper had violated any policy regarding academic freedom. This led to an uproar among the faculty, who considered it a violation of academic freedom. In fact, a senior economist allegedly 'resigned' in solidarity with Das. In reality, the said economist had decided to resign from Ashoka University long before the entire controversy even began and had already discussed this with the Chancellor. The debate is thus, what should be an appropriate institutional response in such cases. It is essential to remember that the institutional affiliation of a scholar becomes a crucial factor in such scenarios. Das's institutional affiliation was mentioned on the working paper. For many scholars and non-scholars alike, institutional affiliation is a common heuristic for assessing quality and trust. A failure to respond risks creating wider distrust in both the scholarship and the re produced at the university. Moreover, if a university intends to maintain its academic objectivity, it must disassociate itself from attempts to masquerade public activism as academic research. Thus, academic institutions need to have a clearly defined policy that balances academic freedom and institutional responsibility of upholding scholarly standards.