'Sexually suggestive remarks during vivas': What 11 JNU students alleged against prof

Eleven JNU students accused Professor Angomcha Bimol Akoijam of conduct they described as sexual harassment. Their allegations covered interactions in academic settings and at social gatherings connected to the professor. The claims mattered because a teacher’s conduct can affect students’ safety, dignity, and academic experience.

According to the article, students alleged sexually suggestive remarks during vivas and classes. They also alleged inappropriate advances at gatherings at Akoijam’s on-campus residence. Some students further alleged that he offered higher marks in exchange for sexual favours. The allegations reportedly surfaced after one student shared her account in a students-only WhatsApp group.

Other students then came forward with similar complaints, which were submitted to JNU’s Internal Complaints Committee on May 18. The committee investigated the allegations and recommended a major penalty. JNU subsequently dismissed Akoijam with immediate effect, although the article does not detail the committee’s findings on each individual allegation.

An Internal Complaints Committee, or ICC, is an institutional body that receives and examines sexual-harassment complaints. In educational institutions, it provides a formal route beyond informal discussion. Its purpose is to assess allegations fairly, hear relevant accounts, and recommend action while following applicable rules and due process.

At JNU, the complaints against Akoijam were submitted to the ICC on May 18. The committee investigated allegations from 11 students, including claims about remarks, advances, and offers of marks. It submitted its report to the vice-chancellor on Friday. The report was filed with dissent after disagreements over the penalty.

The presiding officer and other members supported a major penalty, while student representatives favoured a lesser punishment. After considering the ICC’s findings and following due process, the vice-chancellor ordered Akoijam’s dismissal. The ICC made the recommendation, but the university issued the final disciplinary decision.

The complaints involved 11 students and were submitted to JNU’s Internal Complaints Committee on May 18. The number indicates that the allegations were not limited to one reported interaction. Multiple students reportedly came forward after one student described an alleged incident in a students-only WhatsApp group.

Under the rules mentioned in the article, the investigation was supposed to conclude within 90 days. That timeline created a formal expectation for handling the complaints. It also gave the institution a defined period in which to gather information and reach findings.

The inquiry did not finish within that planned period because JNU’s summer vacation ran from May 27 to July 3. The article reports that this interruption delayed the process. The committee eventually submitted its report to the vice-chancellor on Friday, after consultations with lawyers and disagreement over the recommended penalty.

The professor was dismissed because JNU considered the Internal Complaints Committee’s findings and stated that it had followed due process. The university issued the decision with immediate effect. The disciplinary action followed an inquiry into sexual-harassment allegations made by 11 students.

The ICC recommended a major penalty under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The committee’s presiding officer and other members favoured that level of punishment. Student representatives disagreed and preferred a lesser penalty, so the report was submitted with dissent after legal consultations.

Under the rules, dismissal is one of the listed major penalties. The article does not provide the committee’s detailed reasoning or separate findings on every allegation. It reports that Vice-Chancellor Santishree D Pandit signed the university order and that the report reached her on Friday afternoon before the dismissal was announced.

Removal and dismissal are both major disciplinary penalties under the Central Civil Services rules cited in the article. They can end a person’s government service, but they differ in their usual effect on future government employment. That distinction can have important career consequences beyond the immediate loss of a post.

The article states that removal from service does not ordinarily disqualify a person from future government employment. Dismissal, however, usually does disqualify the person. In simple terms, removal generally ends the current government job without the same standard barrier to another government appointment.

Dismissal carries the stronger usual consequence. It normally prevents future government employment, although the article does not discuss exceptions or appeal rights. JNU’s order used dismissal, not removal, after considering the ICC’s recommendation and following the process described under the 1965 rules.

Sexually suggestive remarks or offers of better marks are especially serious because professors hold authority over students’ academic lives. They may assess work, conduct vivas, influence grades, and shape access to opportunities. That power imbalance can make students feel unable to refuse, complain, or speak openly.

In this case, students alleged that sexually suggestive comments were made during vivas and classes. They also alleged offers of higher marks in exchange for sexual favours. If established, such conduct would connect academic evaluation with sexual demands. That could undermine genuine consent, fairness, and trust in the assessment process.

The allegations also reportedly included inappropriate advances at gatherings at the professor’s residence. The complaints were eventually investigated by JNU’s ICC. The university dismissed Akoijam after considering the committee’s findings. The article does not establish each allegation independently, but it shows why complaints involving academic authority require a formal and careful process.

India’s workplace sexual-harassment framework, especially the POSH Act, 2013, requires covered institutions to prevent sexual harassment and provide a complaint mechanism. Universities also operate under higher-education regulations and institutional policies. Protections generally cover employees, while student complaints are handled through institutional sexual-harassment procedures.

A complainant can submit a written complaint to the institution’s Internal Complaints Committee, often called an ICC. The committee should acknowledge and examine it, hear the parties, review relevant evidence, protect confidentiality, and follow natural justice. It may recommend disciplinary action if the allegation is established. Institutions should also provide awareness, support, and protection against retaliation.

The JNU case shows this route in practice: 11 students complained to the ICC, which investigated and recommended a major penalty. Procedures, deadlines, appeal rights, and available support can vary by institution and applicable rules. A student or employee should check the institution’s policy, approach the ICC or designated officer, and seek legal or support assistance when needed.