Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) has dismissed Congress Lok Sabha MP and professor Angomcha Bimol Akoijam from university service following an inquiry into sexual harassment complaints filed by 11 women students. An official order dated October 9, 2026, stated that the university had considered the Internal Committee’s findings and imposed the punishment of dismissal after following due process.
Akoijam, who represents Inner Manipur in the Lok Sabha, has denied the allegations and questioned the action against him. The decision has brought renewed attention to student safety, institutional accountability and the importance of fair procedures when complaints of sexual misconduct are investigated.
Internal Committee Recommends Major Punishment
The dismissal follows an investigation by JNU’s Internal Committee (IC), which examined complaints of alleged sexual harassment against Akoijam. According to reports, 11 women students had complained of misconduct to the committee. Akoijam was associated with the Centre for the Study of Social Systems under the School of Social Sciences, where he worked as a professor alongside his responsibilities as an elected representative.
The university’s order, issued on October 9, stated that the committee had recommended “major punishment” following its inquiry. It said the decision was taken after considering the available facts and the committee’s report. The order read: “Upon following the due process and considering all available facts and as per the report of the Internal Committee (IC), the punishment of dismissal from the services of the University is hereby imposed on Prof Angomcha Bimol Akoijam.”
The university cited the applicable service rules, including Rule 11(ix) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, while imposing the penalty. The order was signed by Vice-Chancellor Santishree D Pandit and made the dismissal effective immediately. The university’s stated position is that the action followed the prescribed disciplinary process and the findings submitted by the committee.
The case has drawn attention because Akoijam holds two prominent public roles: he is a university academic and a member of Parliament representing Inner Manipur in Manipur. The complaints concern alleged conduct within an academic setting, where teachers hold considerable authority over students’ academic assessments, research opportunities and professional futures. However, the allegations and the disciplinary action should be reported separately from any criminal proceedings, and the university’s employment decision should not automatically be treated as a criminal court conviction.
Complaints, Denial And Earlier Developments
The complaints against Akoijam were reportedly submitted to JNU’s Internal Committee on May 18, 2026. According to media reports, the allegations included sexually suggestive remarks during viva examinations and classes, inappropriate advances at gatherings at his university residence, and alleged offers of higher marks in exchange for sexual favours. These claims remain allegations made by the complainants and should be understood in the context of the university’s inquiry and disciplinary findings.
Akoijam has rejected the allegations and questioned the process that led to his dismissal. In his response to the decision, he described the development as a potential “blessing in disguise” and alleged that he was being subjected to a “witch hunt”. He also demanded access to the inquiry report and the evidence against him, saying he wanted the allegations to be presented to him. Referring to the Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013, he said the law was enacted by the Indian Parliament and should apply to everyone. His response places the focus on his demand for disclosure of the findings and evidence, while the university maintains that it followed due process.
The case had also prompted protests at the university. The Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), a student organisation, had demanded action over the complaints and called for a fair, independent and time-bound investigation. Reports also indicated differences within the Internal Committee over the recommended punishment, with student representatives reportedly favouring a lesser penalty than the one supported by the presiding officer and other members. The report was submitted with dissent, according to sources cited by The Times of India. These details underline why transparency around institutional inquiries and the procedures followed is important, particularly in cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Educational institutions must provide students with environments where they can learn, participate in academic activities and raise concerns without fear of harassment or retaliation. Complaints of sexual misconduct deserve serious, timely and sensitive investigation, with complainants treated with dignity and their privacy protected. At the same time, disciplinary proceedings must follow established rules, and those facing allegations must have access to a fair process. Akoijam’s dismissal makes it important for JNU to communicate the basis of its decision transparently, within the limits of confidentiality and the law.
The wider issue extends beyond one professor or political party: institutions must ensure that positions of authority are never used to undermine students’ dignity, safety or academic futures. Accountability and fairness are not competing values; both are essential to building trust. How can universities strengthen safeguards against sexual harassment while ensuring transparency, fairness and dignity for everyone involved?
