JNU Sexual Harassment Case: Delhi Court Seeks Police Reply on MP Angomcha Akoijam’s Anticipatory Bail Plea

High Court Stays University Sacking While Judicial Scrutiny Intensifies Over Procedural Rights and Police Investigation

By Legal Editor

New Delhi: November 03, 2026:

The legal and academic corridors of the national capital are witnessing high-stakes developments following mounting allegations against prominent academic and parliamentarian Professor Angomcha Bimol Akoijam. A Delhi court has officially sought a formal response from the Delhi Police regarding an anticipatory bail application filed by Professor Akoijam, who also serves as a Lok Sabha Member of Parliament representing the Inner Manipur constituency. Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh presided over the hearing, directing law enforcement authorities to submit their reply while ordering that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner until the subsequent hearing date.

This judicial intervention follows a turbulent series of events that began with multiple complaints filed by female students, culminating in an internal university inquiry, a sudden dismissal from service, the filing of a criminal First Information Report (FIR), and an interim stay on the termination order by the Delhi High Court. As institutional accountability, due process, and criminal allegations intersect, the case has drawn widespread public and media attention, raising questions about academic governance, legal rights, and parliamentary privileges.

Background of the Allegations and Internal Committee Inquiry

The core of the legal controversy traces back to May, when a group of at least 11 female students formally lodged sexual harassment complaints against Professor Akoijam, who taught at the Centre for the Study of Social Systems within JNU's School of Social Sciences. According to details emerging from the institutional findings and police records, the complainants alleged that the professor invited students to his campus residence under the pretext of academic meetings or gatherings, where attempts at sexual harassment were made. Furthermore, several students stated that inappropriate and sexually suggestive remarks were made during regular classes and viva examinations.

In accordance with institutional guidelines, the matter was referred to Jawaharlal Nehru University’s Internal Committee (IC). The IC conducted a thorough inquiry, examining witness testimonies, defence statements, and documentary evidence. The committee's cumulative assessment pointed to a recurring pattern of boundary violations, unwelcome physical contact, and conduct that created an intimidating and hostile learning environment for women students.

However, the inquiry process itself became a point of discussion among academic and administrative circles. Reports indicated internal divisions within the panel during final recommendations; while the presiding officer and certain members favoured a major penalty, student representatives on the panel reportedly dissented and advocated for alternative measures. Ultimately, the report was submitted to the university administration, leading to administrative actions.

University Dismissal and Legal Defence

Acting on the recommendations of the Internal Committee, the Jawaharlal Nehru University administration issued an order on October 9 dismissing Professor Akoijam from service with immediate effect. The termination order, bearing the signature of Vice-Chancellor Santishree D. Pandit, invoked provisions under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, specifically noting that a major penalty was warranted based on the proven findings of the IC report.

Professor Akoijam vehemently rejected the allegations and the dismissal, characterizing the university's actions as a politically motivated "witch hunt" and raising serious questions regarding procedural irregularities and the denial of a fair hearing. Denying all charges of misconduct, his legal counsel maintained that the academic procedures lacked fundamental fairness and targeted him unfairly.

Seeking immediate legal redress, Professor Akoijam moved the Delhi High Court to challenge the termination order. On Monday, November 2, Justice Anup J. Bhambhani of the Delhi High Court issued a notice to JNU and granted significant relief by staying the university's termination order until the next substantive hearing scheduled for January. The High Court clarified that the interim stay freezes the dismissal but does not constitute a final ruling on the underlying sexual harassment allegations.

Criminal Investigation and Anticipatory Bail Proceedings

Parallel to the internal university proceedings, the criminal justice machinery was activated. Following a formal complaint and documentation submitted by JNU's Chief Security Officer (CSO), the Delhi Police registered an FIR at the Vasant Kunj North police station on October 11. The case was registered under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), addressing charges related to sexual harassment, insult to the modesty of a woman, and related offenses.

As law enforcement stepped up its investigation, Professor Akoijam sought legal protection against potential arrest. Having initially secured transit protection through judicial forums in Manipur, he approached trial courts in Delhi for anticipatory bail. Jurisdictional complexities arose due to his status as a sitting Member of Parliament, prompting shifts between the Patiala House Court and the Rouse Avenue Court.

During the latest court proceedings on Tuesday, Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh issued a formal notice to the Delhi Police, seeking their comprehensive reply on the anticipatory bail plea. The court explicitly directed that no coercive measures be taken against the petitioner until the next date of hearing on November 5. Additionally, the Investigating Officer (IO) was instructed to personally appear before the court with the complete case file during the upcoming session.

Broader Implications and Institutional Discourse

The concurrent unfolding of internal disciplinary reviews, high court stays on employment termination, and criminal anticipatory bail hearings highlights the complex legal landscape governing workplace and educational harassment in India.

• Balancing Rights and Safety: The case underscores the delicate balance courts must maintain between protecting institutional mechanisms designed to safeguard student welfare (such as Internal Committees) and ensuring that accused individuals receive due process, transparent investigations, and fair legal representation.
• The Role of Statutory Bodies: The involvement of the Internal Committee highlights the critical function academic institutions play in primary fact-finding, while also illustrating the challenges when findings translate into criminal prosecution and employment termination.
• Parliamentary and Public Scrutiny: Because the accused is a sitting parliamentarian, the case has transcended ordinary campus boundaries, bringing questions of political accountability, public office ethics, and institutional autonomy into sharp national focus.

As the legal proceedings continue, all eyes remain fixed on the upcoming judicial hearings in November to determine the trajectory of the police investigation and the status of the anticipatory bail plea.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What are the primary allegations against Professor Angomcha Bimol Akoijam?

At least 11 female students lodged formal complaints with JNU's Internal Committee alleging sexual harassment. The complaints included allegations of inappropriate invitations to his campus residence under the guise of meetings, unwelcome advances, and sexually suggestive remarks made during classes and viva examinations.

2. Why did JNU dismiss Professor Akoijam?

The university dismissed Professor Akoijam on October 9 following an inquiry conducted by its Internal Committee (IC). The IC submitted a report concluding that the allegations were supported by witness testimonies and material evidence, recommending a major penalty under service rules, which led the university administration to terminate his services.

3. What action has the Delhi High Court taken regarding his dismissal?

On November 2, the Delhi High Court stayed JNU’s order terminating Professor Akoijam's services. The court issued a notice to the university and listed the matter for a detailed hearing in January 2027, clarifying that the interim stay halts the termination but does not rule on the merits of the harassment allegations.

4. What is the current status of the police case and bail plea?

Following a complaint by JNU’s Chief Security Officer, the Delhi Police registered an FIR against Professor Akoijam under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Seeking protection from arrest, he moved a Delhi court for anticipatory bail. Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh sought a response from the Delhi Police and ordered that no coercive action be taken against him until the next hearing on November 5.

5. How has Professor Akoijam responded to the charges?

Professor Akoijam has consistently denied all allegations of sexual harassment. He has characterized his dismissal and the subsequent legal actions as a politically motivated "witch hunt," raising concerns about procedural fairness and due process.