Who is Angomcha Bimol Akoijam? Congress' Manipur MP accused of sexual assault by over 10 students at JNU

Angomcha Bimol Akoijam, 59, is a Congress MP representing Inner Manipur and a former professor at JNU. He taught at the Centre for the Study of Social Systems and worked in social and political psychology and cultural studies. The allegations matter because they triggered both an institutional inquiry and a criminal investigation.

The article reports that 11 women students accused him of sexual harassment. JNU’s Internal Committee recommended major punishment under the POSH framework, and the university dismissed him on October 9. Delhi Police then registered an FIR on October 11 at Vasant Kunj North police station under specified Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections.

Akoijam denies the allegations. He says JNU committed procedural violations, leaked information, and failed to give him the inquiry report. Police served him a notice to join the probe. The matter remains under investigation, and the article does not establish the allegations as proven.

The article reports that 11 women students at JNU accused Akoijam of sexual harassment. This is the principal figure used in the account and in the description of the university’s inquiry. The number matters because it shaped the public and institutional scrutiny surrounding the case.

Akoijam gave a different account of the wider group mentioned in the allegations. He said, “There are 15 of them, out of 97 students, including boys.” He also questioned changing figures attributed to complainants, mentioning numbers such as 2, 3, 11, 13, 12, 15, and 16. These statements are his claims, not independently resolved findings in the article.

The article therefore presents 11 women students as the reported accusation figure, alongside Akoijam’s reference to 15 students within a group of 97. It does not explain how the figures relate to one another or determine which count is formally recorded.

The POSH framework is India’s system for preventing, prohibiting, and addressing sexual harassment at the workplace. It can apply within universities because students and staff need a formal, safer route for reporting misconduct. Its purpose is to provide a structured process rather than leave complaints to informal handling.

A university’s Internal Complaints Committee, often called an ICC or Internal Committee, receives complaints and examines them through an inquiry. It may hear the complainant and the person accused, review relevant material, and recommend disciplinary action to the institution. The article says JNU’s Internal Committee recommended major punishment after an inquiry under the POSH framework.

The framework also includes confidentiality and a fair opportunity to respond. Akoijam says JNU did not provide him the inquiry report and disclosed his identity too early, citing Section 16 of the POSH Act. These are his allegations about procedure. The article does not report the committee’s detailed findings.

JNU’s dismissal and the police FIR are separate processes. The dismissal is an institutional employment or disciplinary decision. It followed JNU’s Internal Committee recommending major punishment after an inquiry under the POSH framework. The article says JNU dismissed Akoijam on October 9.

The FIR is the formal starting point for a police investigation into alleged offences. Delhi Police registered it on October 11 at Vasant Kunj North police station, based on a complaint by JNU’s Chief Security Officer. It cites Sections 75(1)(i), 75(1)(iv), and 79 of the BNS. Police also served Akoijam a notice to join the probe.

These tracks can proceed alongside each other. The university decides institutional consequences through its internal process, while police investigate whether a criminal case should proceed. Akoijam denies the allegations and says the internal process was unfair. The article states that the police matter remains under investigation.

An FIR gives Delhi Police a formal basis to investigate the allegations described in the complaint. It does not by itself mean that Akoijam has been convicted or that the allegations have been proven. The article expressly says the matter is under investigation, so the facts and legal position remain developing.

Police have served Akoijam a notice asking him to join the probe. In practice, investigators may question him, speak with complainants and witnesses, collect documents or electronic material, and examine other evidence. The exact procedure and any later decision depend on what the investigation establishes. The article does not report that these further steps have occurred.

Akoijam denies the allegations and says the merits should be discussed in court rather than before JNU’s Internal Committee. Depending on the evidence, the investigation could lead to further criminal proceedings or closure. Any eventual court process would provide the setting for legal arguments and adjudication, but the article reports no court ruling.

JNU is the university where the alleged conduct was reported and where Akoijam worked as a professor. Its Internal Committee conducted the POSH inquiry and recommended major punishment. The university then dismissed him. Akoijam challenges that process and calls the committee a “khap panchayat.”

Delhi Police is handling the criminal investigation. The FIR was registered at Vasant Kunj North police station after a complaint by JNU’s Chief Security Officer. Police served Akoijam a notice to join the probe. Courts would consider criminal proceedings and legal arguments if the matter reaches them; Akoijam said the case’s merits could be discussed in court.

The National Commission for Women is also mentioned. The article says a BJP Mahila Morcha delegation led by Roop Kumari Choudhary met “NCW C,” but the provided text is cut off and does not state what the meeting achieved. It therefore does not establish a completed NCW action or finding.

India’s POSH system seeks to balance three needs: a usable complaint route, privacy for people involved, and a fair inquiry. A university Internal Complaints Committee is intended to examine allegations through a structured process rather than public rumor. Confidentiality can protect complainants and witnesses from exposure or pressure.

Fairness also requires giving the accused notice of the allegations and an opportunity to respond. The article says Akoijam submitted a written response on May 31 and gave a deposition on July 16. He nevertheless alleges that JNU did not provide the inquiry report, limiting his ability to appeal, and that his identity was disclosed prematurely under Section 16.

The article presents these as Akoijam’s criticisms, not as established findings about the committee’s conduct. JNU’s committee recommended major punishment, and the university dismissed him. Police separately investigate the FIR. The case shows why confidentiality, documented procedures, and a meaningful response opportunity matter, but its final outcome remains unknown.