Delhi HC stays JNU professor Bimol Akoijam's termination over sexual harassment case

The High Court’s stay puts JNU’s termination decision on hold. It matters because Akoijam challenged the university’s order, and the court has not yet finished examining the dispute. A stay is a temporary judicial direction, not a final decision about whether the dismissal was justified or whether the allegations are proved.

JNU terminated Akoijam’s services on October 9. Its order said the Internal Complaints Committee had conducted an inquiry and recommended disciplinary action. Akoijam denied the allegations and asked the court to challenge his dismissal. Justice Anup J Bhambhani then issued notice to JNU and stayed the termination decision.

While the stay remains effective, JNU’s dismissal cannot proceed as though the case were settled. The exact practical effect on Akoijam’s duties or employment conditions will depend on later court directions. The matter is listed for hearing in January, when the court may consider the university’s response and the legal challenge more fully.

Angomcha Bimol Akoijam has two public roles at the center of this case. He was a professor at JNU’s School of Social Sciences, and he is also a Congress MP. This connects the dispute to both a university employment decision and his work as an elected member of Parliament.

The article identifies Akoijam as representing the Inner Manipur Lok Sabha constituency. His JNU position is the one affected by the university’s October 9 termination order. The order followed complaints from female students and an inquiry by the university’s Internal Complaints Committee. Akoijam has denied all allegations against him.

His parliamentary role does not remove the university’s authority to address an employment-related complaint, according to the facts presented. The court case concerns his dismissal from JNU. It does not, in the article, describe any separate parliamentary proceeding or action against his position as an MP.

At least 11 female students complained against Akoijam in May. That number gives the case significant scale and led JNU to begin its disciplinary process. The complaints concerned alleged conduct in both private university settings and classroom interactions.

According to reports cited in the article, students alleged that Akoijam invited them to his campus residence under the pretext of meetings or gatherings. They said he attempted to sexually harass them. Some students also alleged that he made obscene and inappropriate remarks during classes. These remain allegations, and Akoijam has denied them.

JNU’s Internal Complaints Committee conducted an inquiry into the complaints. The university said the committee recommended disciplinary action, after which JNU terminated Akoijam’s services on October 9. The High Court has now stayed that decision while considering his petition. The court’s involvement means the dismissal and the process behind it remain under challenge.

An Internal Complaints Committee, commonly called an ICC, is a formal institutional body for handling sexual harassment complaints. Its purpose is to provide a structured process rather than leaving complaints to informal decisions. It can receive complaints, hear relevant accounts, examine available information, and prepare findings or recommendations.

In this case, JNU said its Internal Complaints Committee conducted an inquiry into complaints from at least 11 female students. The university’s termination order said the committee recommended disciplinary action based on its findings. The article does not provide the committee’s detailed reasoning or the evidence it considered.

An ICC’s work can matter to both complainants and the person accused. A formal inquiry creates a record and gives the institution a basis for deciding whether disciplinary action is warranted. Here, Akoijam has denied the allegations and challenged the resulting dismissal. The High Court’s review may examine how the committee’s recommendation fits within the university’s decision-making process.

JNU said it followed a formal disciplinary process before dismissing Akoijam. Its order stated that the Internal Complaints Committee conducted an inquiry, considered the available facts, and recommended disciplinary action. The university then imposed dismissal from service, describing the decision as the result of due process.

The key mechanism was the committee’s inquiry and report. JNU’s Vice-Chancellor, Santishree D Pandit, signed the October 9 termination order. The order said the punishment was imposed after considering the Internal Committee’s findings. Akoijam denied the allegations and filed a petition challenging the dismissal.

The court may examine whether the process met applicable legal and procedural requirements. That could include questions about how the inquiry was conducted, how the findings were used, and whether the termination order was properly supported. The article does not state what specific procedural defect Akoijam alleges. The High Court has issued notice to JNU and listed the matter for January.

The immediate consequence is that JNU’s termination decision is paused while Akoijam’s petition is pending. This gives the court time to examine the dispute before the university’s dismissal becomes final in practical and legal terms. The stay does not itself decide whether the allegations are true or whether dismissal was justified.

JNU terminated Akoijam on October 9 after its Internal Complaints Committee conducted an inquiry and recommended disciplinary action. Akoijam denied the allegations. The High Court issued notice to JNU and stayed the termination order. The article does not specify whether he has resumed teaching, received pay, or taken any other step during the stay.

The next important step is the hearing listed for January. The court could maintain the stay, change it, or ultimately decide the challenge after considering the university’s response. JNU’s disciplinary action therefore remains unresolved. Any final outcome could affect Akoijam’s university employment, but the article does not predict what that outcome will be.

Sexual harassment generally means unwelcome sexual conduct, advances, comments, or behavior that affects a person’s dignity or safety in an educational or workplace setting. It can involve spoken remarks, invitations linked to pressure, or other conduct with a sexual character. An allegation is not the same as a proven finding, so careful procedures matter.

In the article, students alleged that Akoijam invited them to his campus residence for meetings or gatherings and attempted to sexually harass them. Some also alleged obscene or inappropriate classroom remarks. At least 11 female students complained. Akoijam denied all allegations, while JNU said its Internal Complaints Committee investigated and recommended disciplinary action.

Formal procedures help institutions receive complaints, gather information, hear relevant accounts, and record findings. They can protect complainants from being ignored and protect accused people from decisions based only on rumor. They also give institutions a consistent basis for discipline. In this case, the High Court’s stay means the dismissal and the process behind it remain subject to judicial review.