The Delhi High Court has stayed Jawaharlal Nehru University's (JNU) decision to dismiss professor and Congress MP Angomcha Bimol Akoijam over allegations of sexual harassment, observing that a major penalty such as termination from service could not be imposed without issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity for a personal hearing.
Justice Anup J Bhambhani, while granting interim relief to Akoijam, who represents the Inner Manipur Lok Sabha constituency, questioned the university's decision to impose the severe punishment without following procedural safeguards.
The court passed the interim order on November 2, which was subsequently uploaded on its website. The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 25.
๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ช๐ฎ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ
"This court is of the prima facie view that regardless of what other ancillary regulations may provide, it is difficult to accept, at least at this stage, that the drastic and severe 'major' penalty of dismissal from service could have been imposed upon the petitioner without issuing to him a show cause notice and without granting to him a personal hearing in relation to the penalty proposed to be imposed," Justice Bhambhani observed.
The court stayed the operation of the university's October 9 termination order and all subsequent actions taken pursuant to it.
"The effect and operation of order dated 09.10.2026 and all actions taken by respondent No. 1 university pursuant to that order, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing before this court," the order stated.
The observations were made at the interim stage, and the court has not delivered a final ruling on the allegations against the professor.
๐๐๐ฑ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ ๐ก๐๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ
According to reports, at least 11 female students had submitted complaints of sexual harassment against Akoijam in May.
The complainants alleged that the professor invited students to his campus residence on the pretext of meetings or social gatherings and attempted to sexually harass them.
Some students also accused him of making obscene and inappropriate remarks during classroom interactions.
Following the complaints, the university's Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) conducted an inquiry into the allegations.
On October 9, the JNU administration terminated Akoijam's services as a professor at the School of Social Sciences.
๐๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง
Challenging the termination order, Akoijam's counsel argued that the inquiry had been initiated on complaints purportedly submitted by students other than the aggrieved parties.
His counsel also alleged irregularities in the ICC proceedings, claiming that the student representative had refused to sign the committee's October 9 report.
The petition contended that the university had violated provisions of the JNU Act by imposing the penalty without placing the professor under suspension or allowing him to respond to the proposed punishment.
Akoijam's counsel further alleged that the university's action was motivated by mala fides and vindictiveness.
The petitioner maintained that the dismissal was procedurally defective and could not be sustained without compliance with the applicable safeguards.
๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ง๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง
Opposing the petition, JNU's counsel disputed the allegation that the sexual harassment complaints had not been filed by the aggrieved students themselves.
The university argued that the disciplinary action was governed by the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015, rather than the procedure prescribed under the JNU Act.
According to the university, the UGC regulations did not require a separate show-cause notice before termination of services.
However, the court expressed reservations about whether such a severe punishment could be imposed without providing the employee an opportunity to respond specifically to the proposed penalty.
The High Court issued notice on Akoijam's petition and directed the university to file its response within six weeks.
๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐ฐ๐๐ฒ
Separately, Delhi Police registered a First Information Report (FIR) against Akoijam following a complaint lodged by JNU's chief security officer on October 11.
The case was registered at the Vasant Kunj North police station under Sections 75, 75(1)(i), 75(1)(iv) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The provisions relate to sexual harassment and acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman, among other offences.
Police said an investigation had been initiated into the allegations.
The High Court's interim order concerns the legality of the university's dismissal procedure and does not determine the outcome of the criminal investigation or the merits of the sexual harassment complaints.
The stay on the termination order will remain in force until the next hearing, scheduled for January 25.