LPU Administration Denies ‘Fabricated’ Rape and Suicide Claims Amid Student Protests

LPU has denied unverified claims circulating on social media, while police said no evidence initially supported them as student protests turned violent.

What Happened

A late-night protest broke out at Lovely Professional University (LPU) in Phagwara, Punjab, around 2 AM on 27 September 2026 after unverified claims circulated on social media concerning an alleged sexual assault involving a student. Separate versions of the rumour also claimed that the student had later died by suicide. Neither claim had been established by authorities at the time of the initial reports.

The protest began near the girls’ hostel before spreading across the campus and onto the Jalandhar-Phagwara National Highway. Reports said around 2,000 students gathered, with protesters damaging university property, including windows and other fixtures, throwing bricks and flower pots, and setting some objects on fire. Police subsequently intervened and the highway was cleared.

The central institutional response has been a denial of the circulating claims. LPU Registrar Dr. Monica Gulati said the rumours were false and fabricated and urged students, parents and the public to rely on official university communications. Police, meanwhile, initially said they had received no complaint and had found no evidence substantiating the claims.

There was, however, a subsequent development in the police account. Later on 27 September, DIG Jalandhar Range Naveen Singla said police had received a statement from student representatives and that the process of registering an FIR concerning the alleged assault had begun. That means the position reported early in the morning, that no complaint had been received, had changed as the day progressed. The existence of an FIR or investigation does not itself establish that the underlying allegation is true.

Background & Context

Kapurthala SSP Gaurav Toora said police had initially received no information about such an incident before the protest. According to his account, officers became aware of the circulating rumours after a large number of students had gathered. He said police had found no substantiating evidence at that stage and that no complaint had been received.

DIG Naveen Singla separately said students’ immediate concerns also involved hostel-related grievances. He said a meeting with LPU management was being arranged to discuss those concerns alongside the developments surrounding the circulating allegation.

The university’s position was categorical. Registrar Dr. Monica Gulati said LPU had become aware of what she described as false, baseless and fabricated rumours being circulated through social media and other channels. The university characterised the spread of the rumours as an attempt to damage its reputation and advised students and parents to rely only on official communications.

The police position subsequently became more procedural. While the initial statements reported no complaint or supporting evidence, the DIG later said a statement had been received and that an FIR process had begun, with the proposed investigation to include forensic analysis, CCTV footage and phone data. The police account therefore needs to be understood chronologically rather than reduced to either a simple confirmation or dismissal of the underlying claim.

Key Details

• Location: Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab.
• Date: The protest began around 2 AM on 27 September 2026.
• Police response: SSP Gaurav Toora initially said police had received no complaint and had found no substantiating evidence concerning the circulating allegation. Later, DIG Naveen Singla said a statement had been received and that the process of registering an FIR had begun.
• University response: Registrar Dr. Monica Gulati described the circulating claims as false and fabricated and urged reliance on official university channels.
• Protest consequences: Students damaged university property, some objects were set on fire, and the Jalandhar-Phagwara National Highway was blocked before police intervened.
• Hostel concerns: Police said students also raised separate grievances concerning hostel arrangements and safety, with discussions planned between student representatives and the university administration.
• Current status: The immediate protest situation was being brought under control, while police moved toward a formal investigation into the allegation following the later statement.

Why It Matters

The LPU episode illustrates how quickly an unverified criminal allegation can move from social media circulation into a physical law-and-order situation. Within hours, the disputed claims had been followed by a large campus protest, property damage and a highway blockade, even though police had initially reported receiving no complaint or supporting evidence.

For universities, the episode raises a difficult institutional question: how should an administration respond when students believe a serious incident has occurred but the available information has not yet been verified? LPU’s response has focused on denying the rumours and directing students towards official channels, while police have moved from an initial position of having no complaint to beginning an FIR process after receiving a statement.

The distinction between a complaint, an FIR and proof of the underlying allegation is particularly important here. A complaint or registration of a criminal case triggers an investigative process; it does not by itself establish that the alleged offence occurred or identify responsibility for it. The police have said the investigation will involve forensic analysis, CCTV footage and phone data.

The incident also puts public-order concerns alongside student-safety concerns. The highway blockade and reported property damage created an immediate policing issue, while students simultaneously raised hostel-related grievances. Those concerns should not automatically be treated as equivalent to the unverified allegations that triggered the protest.

For law and public-administration students, the episode therefore presents several separate questions rather than one settled narrative: how institutions should communicate during fast-moving rumours, how police respond before and after a formal complaint, and what legal consequences may follow when unverified criminal claims generate public disorder or are deliberately circulated online.

At this stage, the available record does not establish whether the underlying allegation was true or false. That question belongs to the investigative process now being reported by the police, not to the rumour itself or to the university’s denial.

Closing

The immediate facts are clearer than the allegation that triggered the unrest: students protested, university property was damaged, the Jalandhar-Phagwara highway was blocked, and police intervened. LPU has denied the circulating claims, while the police account developed during the day from reporting no complaint or supporting evidence to beginning an FIR process after receiving a statement.

The underlying allegation remains unproven. Further conclusions will depend on the police investigation and any evidence that emerges through that process.