Delhi court halts police action against JNU professor, a Congress MP, in sexual harassment case

The court did not end the police investigation. It directed the Delhi Police not to take coercive action against Professor Angomcha Bimol Akoijam for now. If police decide to arrest him, they must give him seven days’ notice first.

This protection reflects the court’s observation that Akoijam had been cooperating with investigators. The order gives him advance warning rather than allowing an immediate arrest. It does not decide whether the allegations are true or whether he will ultimately face prosecution.

The investigation continues. The court specifically warned that if Akoijam stops cooperating, the Delhi Police can approach it for appropriate directions. The university’s internal inquiry and dismissal are separate matters; the Delhi High Court had already stayed the October 9 dismissal order.

In a criminal investigation, coercive action generally refers to compulsory steps by authorities, especially arrest, custody, or other measures that restrict a person’s freedom. The Delhi court used the term while directing police not to take such action against Akoijam immediately. This is a procedural protection, not a finding that the allegations are false.

The seven-day notice is significant because police must warn Akoijam before arresting him. He therefore has time to seek legal advice, arrange representation, and respond through the legal process. The order also reflects the court’s stated view that he had been cooperating with the investigation.

The protection is conditional in practice. Akoijam still has to cooperate. If he does not, the Delhi Police can approach the court for appropriate directions. The article does not state that the court permanently barred an arrest or ended the investigation.

The case involves complaints from 11 students, a notable number because the allegations concern the same professor and prompted both university and police action. The Delhi court highlighted that the investigation was not yet complete because important complainant information was still missing.

Specifically, the university administration had not provided the students’ names and details. Their statements also had not been recorded. Those statements are important because investigators need to document what each student alleges before assessing the evidence and deciding what further steps may be needed.

The article does not identify the students or describe separate outcomes for each complaint. It only records the court’s concern about the missing information and pending statements. Akoijam denies the allegations, while the police investigation remains ongoing under the court’s direction.

The university’s internal committee handled the institutional complaints against Akoijam. The university said the allegations were investigated by that committee, and its findings led to his dismissal from service on October 9. That was an employment decision within the university system.

The Delhi Police are handling the criminal investigation. Their work includes gathering information and recording complainants’ statements, which had not yet happened according to the court. Police may seek further court directions if Akoijam does not cooperate. The article does not report a final police conclusion.

The court’s role is to set legal conditions and respond to disputes during the process. Justice Digvinay Singh ordered seven days’ notice before arrest and allowed police to return if cooperation ends. Separately, the Delhi High Court stayed the university’s dismissal order on Monday.

A university disciplinary proceeding asks whether an employee breached institutional rules or workplace standards. Its possible outcome here was dismissal from service. The university said its internal committee investigated the allegations and that the professor was dismissed based on the panel’s findings.

A criminal investigation has a different purpose. Police collect evidence, record statements, and assess whether a criminal case should proceed. If prosecution follows, a criminal court would determine criminal responsibility under the applicable law. The Delhi court’s order concerned arrest safeguards and cooperation, not a final finding of guilt.

Both processes can address the same alleged conduct but remain separate. The university’s October 9 dismissal order was stayed by the Delhi High Court, while the police investigation continued under the Delhi court’s directions. The article reports allegations and denials, not a completed criminal prosecution or final criminal judgment.

The immediate condition is clear: Akoijam must continue cooperating with the police investigation. Justice Digvinay Singh said that if he fails to cooperate, the Delhi Police may approach the court for appropriate directions. The article does not specify what direction the court would then issue.

The complainants’ statements are another unresolved part of the investigation. The court noted that statements from the 11 students had not yet been recorded. Recording them would provide investigators with the students’ accounts, alongside the names and details the university had not supplied.

The article does not say that recording statements will automatically lead to arrest, charges, or prosecution. It only establishes that this investigative step was still pending. The court’s current order gives Akoijam seven days’ notice before arrest, while keeping police powers and the investigation in place.

Sexual harassment generally means unwanted sexual advances, comments, requests, or other sexual conduct that creates pressure, humiliation, or an unsafe environment. The article describes allegations that Akoijam invited students to his residence, made sexual advances, and made lewd comments during classes and viva examinations. Some students also alleged demands for sexual acts in exchange for marks.

A university may examine such allegations through an internal committee because it concerns conduct in an educational workplace and the professor’s employment. Police may investigate the same alleged conduct because some acts could potentially involve criminal offences. These processes use different procedures and can lead to different outcomes.

Here, the university said its committee’s findings led to dismissal, although the Delhi High Court stayed that order. Separately, police are investigating, and the Delhi court imposed arrest safeguards. Akoijam denies the allegations and calls the claims unverified.