11 students spoke out, inquiry panel split: Case that cost JNU professor his job

What decision did JNU take against Prof Angomcha Bimol Akoijam, and what allegations led to the inquiry?

JNU dismissed Prof Angomcha Bimol Akoijam from university service with immediate effect. The decision followed an inquiry by the university’s Internal Committee into sexual-harassment allegations. The committee recommended a major penalty under the Central Civil Services rules. The vice-chancellor then imposed dismissal after considering the report and the available facts.

The complaints were submitted on May 18 by 11 students. They reportedly described sexually suggestive remarks during vivas and classes. They also alleged inappropriate advances at gatherings in Akoijam’s on-campus residence. Some complaints alleged offers of higher marks in exchange for sexual favours. The matter reportedly gained attention after one student shared her account in a students-only WhatsApp group.

The university’s order said due process had been followed. The committee submitted its report on Friday, although members disagreed over the recommended penalty. Student representatives favoured a lesser punishment, while the presiding officer and other members supported a major penalty. The inquiry was delayed by summer vacation but was completed within the reported process.

How many students made allegations, and what kinds of conduct did they describe?

The complaints came from 11 students, making the case broader than a single reported incident. Their allegations led JNU to begin an Internal Committee inquiry. The complaints were submitted on May 18, and the university later dismissed Akoijam after considering the committee’s findings.

The reported conduct covered several settings. Students alleged sexually suggestive remarks during viva examinations and classes. They also described inappropriate advances at gatherings held at the professor’s on-campus residence. Other allegations involved offers of higher marks in exchange for sexual favours. The matter reportedly surfaced after one student shared her account in a students-only WhatsApp group, prompting other students to come forward.

The article does not provide the students’ identities or detail each complaint separately. It also records that Akoijam did not respond to queries before publication. The committee recommended a major penalty, though student representatives favoured a lesser punishment. JNU ultimately imposed dismissal after stating that due process had been followed.

What is JNU’s Internal Committee, and what role does it play in investigating sexual-harassment complaints?

JNU’s Internal Committee is the university body that examined the students’ sexual-harassment complaints. Its role was to conduct an inquiry, consider the available facts and submit findings to the vice-chancellor. The committee’s report became the basis for deciding disciplinary action against Akoijam.

In this case, the complaints were submitted on May 18. The committee investigated allegations involving remarks during vivas and classes, conduct at gatherings, and possible offers of higher marks for sexual favours. The report recommended a major penalty under the Central Civil Services rules. It was submitted to the vice-chancellor on Friday, with dissent because members disagreed about the punishment.

The article does not describe the committee’s full membership or every step of its procedure. Generally, such university committees provide an institutional process for receiving, examining and deciding sexual-harassment complaints. Here, the committee’s findings did not themselves state the final punishment; the vice-chancellor issued the dismissal order after considering the report and other facts.

Why was the inquiry panel divided over the recommended punishment, and what does a dissenting report mean?

The inquiry panel was divided over the punishment, not over the existence of the inquiry itself. The presiding officer and other members favoured recommending a major penalty. Student representatives declined to sign that recommendation because they preferred a lesser punishment. The report was therefore submitted with dissent after consultations with lawyers.

A dissenting report means the panel’s submission includes an identified disagreement among its members. It does not necessarily cancel the inquiry or prevent the university from taking action. In this case, the report still went to Vice-Chancellor Santishree D Pandit. The university then considered the committee’s findings and imposed dismissal under the stated rules.

The article does not specify each member’s reasoning or explain exactly which lesser punishment student representatives preferred. It does show that the recommendation was not unanimous. The university’s order said due process had been followed. The final decision therefore came from the university, after reviewing the report and available facts, rather than from an undisputed panel vote.

What is the difference between dismissal and removal from government service under the Central Civil Services rules?

Under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services rules, dismissal and removal are both major penalties. Removal from service does not ordinarily disqualify a person from future government employment. Dismissal, however, ordinarily does disqualify the person. That difference makes dismissal the more severe penalty in its likely effect on future public service.

The article lists both penalties among major punishments. Other major penalties include compulsory retirement, reduction to a lower post or grade, and reduction to a lower time-scale of pay. JNU’s order specifically said that dismissal from university service was imposed on Akoijam after considering the Internal Committee’s report.

The word ordinarily matters. It indicates the rule describes the normal consequence, rather than an absolute outcome in every possible situation. The article does not explain exceptions or any separate appeal process. Based on the stated rule, Akoijam’s dismissal normally affects eligibility for future government employment, while removal would normally leave that eligibility intact.

What consequences can dismissal have for Akoijam’s university employment and eligibility for future government jobs?

Akoijam’s immediate consequence is the loss of his university service. JNU’s Friday order imposed dismissal after considering the Internal Committee’s findings and the available facts. The order described the punishment as dismissal from the services of the university, ending his employment there with immediate effect.

The Central Civil Services rules add a wider consequence. The article states that dismissal ordinarily disqualifies a person from future government employment. That is different from removal, which ordinarily does not create such a disqualification. Akoijam is also identified in the article as a Congress MP from the Inner Manipur constituency, but the order concerns his university employment.

The rule uses “ordinarily,” so the article presents the future-employment consequence as the normal position rather than explaining every possible exception. It does not discuss appeals, review, or any separate effect on his parliamentary position. Congress had not reacted when the report was published, and Akoijam had not responded to the university’s decision.

Why can relationships involving teachers and students create heightened risks of sexual harassment, coercion, or abuse of power?

Teacher-student relationships can carry a strong power imbalance. Teachers may influence grades, vivas, recommendations and access to academic opportunities. Students may therefore worry that rejecting advances or reporting conduct could harm their studies. This dependence can heighten the risk of coercion, abuse of authority or sexual harassment.

The article gives a concrete example through allegations against Akoijam. Students reportedly described sexually suggestive remarks during vivas and classes. They also alleged inappropriate advances at gatherings at his on-campus residence and offers of higher marks in exchange for sexual favours. The alleged link between academic rewards and sexual conduct is important because it connects authority with a possible benefit or pressure.

These are general risks, not a finding about every teacher-student relationship. In this case, JNU investigated complaints from 11 students through its Internal Committee. The university later imposed dismissal after considering the committee’s report. The case shows why formal complaint systems and due process matter when people with academic authority face allegations from students.

Key Facts:

📌 JNU dismissed Akoijam with immediate effect.

📌 Eleven students submitted sexual-harassment complaints.

📌 The allegations included offers of higher marks for sexual favours.

📌 Eleven students submitted complaints on May 18.

📌 Allegations covered vivas, classes and gatherings at the professor’s residence.

📌 Students alleged offers of higher marks for sexual favours.

📌 The Internal Committee investigated the complaints.