‘Witch hunt’: Congress MP Bimol Akoijam slams JNU order to dismiss him

JNU imposed its most serious employment penalty on Akoijam: dismissal from university service. The action followed an inquiry by the university’s committee for workplace sexual-harassment complaints. Akoijam disputes the process and says the case was a political “witch hunt.”

The allegations came from students. HT reported that 11 students complained in May about sexual misconduct. They reportedly described inappropriate remarks with sexual connotations during viva examinations in the first week of May. Delhi Police later registered an FIR after a complaint by JNU’s chief security officer.

The dismissal order said the internal committee recommended major punishment after due process and consideration of available facts. Akoijam says the original complaint concerned academic and teaching matters, not sexual harassment, and that alleged “sex for marks” claims were absent from it. He said he would challenge the order in court.

Under India’s POSH law, an Internal Complaints Committee is an institution’s designated body for handling workplace sexual-harassment complaints. Its purpose is to provide a formal, structured process rather than leave allegations to informal decisions. The source article uses both “Internal Committee” and “Internal Complaints Committee.”

The committee generally receives a complaint, informs the respondent, examines statements and other material, and reaches findings. It can recommend disciplinary action to the employer. In JNU’s case, the committee investigated allegations against Akoijam and, according to the dismissal order, recommended major punishment after considering the available facts.

The committee is not the same as a criminal court. Its process concerns workplace discipline, while criminal allegations can also be examined by police and courts. Akoijam challenges whether the POSH process should have begun, saying the original complaint concerned academic matters and was submitted to his department, not the committee.

The reported scale was 11 student complainants. Their complaints formed the stated basis for JNU creating an internal complaints committee in May to examine allegations against Akoijam. The complaints were described as allegations, not as proven misconduct in the article.

According to HT’s report, the students accused Akoijam of making inappropriate remarks with sexual connotations during viva examinations. A viva is an oral academic examination, so the reported conduct was said to have occurred in an assessment setting. Akoijam rejects the characterisation and argues that the underlying matter involved academic issues and pedagogy.

The university later dismissed him after the committee’s inquiry. Akoijam disputes the inquiry’s classification and procedure. He said the original complaint submitted to the academic department did not contain the alleged “sex for marks” claims. The article also reports that Delhi Police registered an FIR on October 11 after a complaint from JNU’s chief security officer.

Dismissal from JNU means Akoijam no longer holds his university teaching post or remains employed by the university under that order. JNU’s order imposed the punishment with immediate effect after the internal committee’s findings. Akoijam said he was preparing to challenge the decision in court.

His university employment and parliamentary office are separate positions. The article identifies him as the Congress MP representing Inner Manipur and as a former professor at JNU. Losing the professorship does not, by itself, mean that he has lost his parliamentary seat. A separate legal process or disqualification rule would be needed for that result.

The article does not report any decision removing him as an MP. It does report that BJP women MPs planned to meet President Droupadi Murmu to seek his dismissal, while Akoijam alleged that the BJP was targeting him. Those political demands do not themselves establish a change in his parliamentary status.

The distinction matters because academic complaints and workplace sexual-harassment complaints follow different institutional routes. A POSH complaint activates the workplace sexual-harassment framework, including examination by the designated complaints committee. An academic complaint would ordinarily be handled through academic or departmental procedures.

Akoijam says the original complaint was submitted to the academic department and concerned pedagogy. He argues it was then transformed into a POSH case. He also says the actual complaint did not contain leaked claims about “sex for marks.” Meanwhile, JNU’s order says its internal committee investigated the matter and recommended major punishment.

That dispute could affect whether the correct authority handled the complaint and whether the inquiry followed the applicable rules. Akoijam says the process disregarded norms and regulations and plans to challenge it in court. The article does not report a court finding on whether JNU classified the complaint lawfully.

A university disciplinary inquiry is an internal employment process. It examines whether workplace rules were breached and can lead to penalties such as dismissal. JNU’s internal committee investigated the complaints against Akoijam and recommended major punishment, which the vice-chancellor’s order imposed.

A police FIR is different. It records a criminal complaint and allows police to investigate alleged offences. The article reports that Delhi Police registered an FIR against Akoijam on October 11 after a complaint by JNU’s chief security officer. An FIR is not itself a conviction or a final finding of guilt.

A court case is a judicial proceeding. A court can review the university’s disciplinary decision or decide criminal charges, depending on the case. Akoijam said he was preparing to challenge JNU’s dismissal in court. The article does not state that any court has ruled on the dismissal, the allegations, or the FIR.

Due process means following the applicable rules fairly before imposing a serious penalty. It usually includes clear notice of the allegations, a meaningful chance to respond, an impartial inquiry, consideration of evidence, and a reasoned decision. These safeguards protect both complainants and respondents.

Akoijam questioned the speed of JNU’s process. He said an email at 12.40 pm told him the inquiry had concluded, while news of his dismissal appeared by 2.30 pm. He also questioned how the report could have been prepared so quickly and cited the vice-chancellor’s reported statement that she had not read it.

JNU’s order said the internal committee followed due process and considered the available facts. Akoijam disputes that conclusion, says he submitted his response and witnesses on time, and alleges rules were ignored. The court challenge he is preparing may test whether the procedure was fair and lawful.