Delhi HC stays JNU order terminating professor, a Congress MP, over sexual harassment allegations

A stay is a temporary court direction that pauses the operation of an earlier order. Here, the Delhi High Court has put JNU’s October 9 dismissal of Professor Angomcha Bimol Akoijam on hold while it considers his petition. The court has not finally ruled on the sexual-harassment allegations or the legality of the termination.

The immediate issue is procedural. Akoijam told the court that JNU dismissed him without first issuing him a notice. The High Court also issued notice to JNU, asking the university to respond to his challenge. This gives the court time to examine the university’s action and the arguments on both sides.

For now, the dismissal cannot operate as an unchanged, final decision. The case remains open, and the university’s internal findings have not been erased by the stay. The matter is scheduled to return to court in January 2027, when the review can continue.

An interim stay is used while a court is still examining a dispute. It prevents the challenged decision from operating immediately, without treating the petitioner as having already won. This matters because a final ruling can take time, and the court must first hear the institution’s response.

In this case, Akoijam told the Delhi High Court that JNU had not issued him a notice before deciding to dismiss him on October 9. The court then issued notice to the university and asked it to respond to his petition challenging the termination. The article identifies this procedural complaint as the basis for the interim order.

The High Court has therefore preserved the position while it reviews the challenge. It has not ruled that the allegations were false, nor that JNU’s internal committee acted unlawfully. The next stated step is another hearing in January 2027, after the university has had an opportunity to answer.

Angomcha Bimol Akoijam holds roles in both academia and national politics. At Jawaharlal Nehru University, he was a professor at the Centre for the Study of Social Systems. In Parliament, he is a Congress Lok Sabha MP from Manipur.

The article links these roles to the legal dispute because the university dismissed him after an internal committee investigated sexual-harassment allegations. Akoijam challenged that dismissal in the Delhi High Court. He told the court that JNU had not issued him a notice before deciding to terminate him on October 9.

The High Court has stayed the dismissal order temporarily and issued notice to JNU. That means the case is still being reviewed. The article does not state what parliamentary duties Akoijam is performing during the court proceedings. It says only that he is a Congress Lok Sabha MP and a JNU professor who is contesting the university’s action.

The allegations described conduct involving students both at Akoijam’s campus residence and in academic settings. Students accused him of inviting them to his home for gatherings and making sexual advances. Some complainants also alleged that he made lewd and inappropriate comments during classes and viva examinations.

The most serious specific allegation was that he demanded sexual acts in exchange for marks. JNU said its internal committee investigated the allegations. Based on that panel’s findings, the university dismissed Akoijam from service with immediate effect on October 9.

Akoijam denied the allegations. He said “racist schemers” were trying to damage his reputation using unverified claims and lies. The High Court’s stay concerns his termination challenge and the reported lack of notice before dismissal. The article does not state that the court has made a final finding about whether the allegations are true.

Three main stages are described. First, JNU’s internal committee investigated the sexual-harassment allegations. This stage examined the complaints and produced findings for the university. Second, JNU relied on those findings to dismiss Akoijam from service with immediate effect on October 9.

Third, the Delhi High Court began judicial review after Akoijam challenged the termination. The court did not conduct the university’s internal investigation again in the reported hearing. Instead, it stayed the dismissal temporarily, issued notice to JNU, and sought the university’s response. Akoijam’s complaint was that he received no notice before the dismissal decision.

These stages are connected but not identical. The committee addressed the allegations through the university’s process. JNU made the employment decision. The High Court is now examining the challenge, including the reported procedural issue. The article says the matter will return to court in January 2027, so the review remains unfinished.

While the stay remains in force, JNU’s October 9 dismissal order is temporarily put on hold. The article does not say that Akoijam has been formally reinstated, so the immediate effect should be described narrowly: the dismissal cannot proceed as an operative final action while the stay lasts. The court has not yet decided whether the termination was lawful.

JNU still has authority to respond to the petition and defend the action it took. However, its decision is now subject to the High Court’s review. The court issued notice to the university and asked for its response. The case will be heard again in January 2027.

The stay also does not decide the complainants’ allegations. It does not declare them false or dismiss the internal committee’s findings. Their complaints remain part of the background to the dispute, while the court considers Akoijam’s challenge and the reported lack of prior notice.

Universities need an internal process because complaints arise within their communities and require a structured investigation. An internal committee can examine allegations, hear relevant accounts, and give the institution a basis for action. In this case, JNU said its internal committee investigated the complaints before the university dismissed Akoijam.

Judicial review provides an outside check on how the institution acted. A court can examine whether a decision followed required procedure and whether the university’s authority was used lawfully. Akoijam told the Delhi High Court that JNU did not issue him a notice before dismissing him. The court responded with an interim stay and sought JNU’s response.

These processes serve different purposes. The internal committee addressed the allegations, while the High Court is reviewing the termination challenge. The stay shows that an internal finding does not end every legal question. The university’s decision and the court’s review will continue, with the next hearing set for January 2027.