The dismissal of Congress MP from Inner Manipur and Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) professor Angomcha Bimol Akoijam over allegations of sexual harassment has raised serious questions about institutional accountability, due process and the right to defend oneself. The case must be approached with care. Allegations of sexual harassment deserve serious attention, and complainants must be protected from intimidation. At the same time, disciplinary action carrying grave consequences must follow a fair and transparent procedure. Neither public outrage nor political affiliation should determine the outcome. In May 2026, 11 female students reportedly filed complaints against Akoijam, alleging inappropriate remarks and advances at gatherings. JNU’s Internal Committee conducted an inquiry and recommended major punishment under the applicable service rules. On October 9, Vice-Chancellor Santishree D. Pandit ordered his dismissal with immediate effect, citing the committee’s findings and Rule 11(ix) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. On October 12, Delhi Police registered an FIR against him following a complaint and documents submitted by JNU’s Chief Security Officer. These developments have taken the matter beyond an internal university dispute and placed it under greater public scrutiny. Akoijam has described his dismissal as a witch hunt and questioned whether he received a fair hearing. His principal objection is that he was not shown the internal inquiry report on which the university based its decision. If that claim is correct, it raises an important question. How can a person effectively challenge findings that have not been disclosed to him? An institution exercising disciplinary authority must be able to explain its decisions and demonstrate that the prescribed safeguards were followed. Akoijam’s response, however, should not be reduced to public statements alone. Rather than merely accusing the university of unfairness, he would be better served by promptly seeking the inquiry report, the findings against him and the evidence relied upon, through the appropriate legal process. If access is denied or the inquiry is found to have violated the rules of natural justice, he can challenge the dismissal before the competent court. A formal legal challenge would place the university’s actions under judicial scrutiny and allow the disputed questions to be examined on their merits. However, the suggestion that he should issue an ultimatum and set a deadline for JNU to produce the report is not necessarily the strongest legal strategy. An ultimatum does not compel an institution to comply, nor does failure to meet a self-imposed deadline establish that the allegations are false. What matters is whether the university followed the law, whether Akoijam received the opportunity required to defend himself, and whether the findings can withstand legal scrutiny. There is an equally important danger in turning this case into a political contest. Akoijam’s position as a sitting MP from Inner Manipur does not place him above institutional rules. Nor should his political identity make him a convenient target. The complainants deserve a process in which their accounts are taken seriously and their dignity protected. The accused deserves a fair opportunity to answer the charges. These principles are not contradictory; they are essential to credible justice. JNU must not expect the public to accept its decision merely because an internal committee has acted. Akoijam, for his part, must pursue remedies that can establish whether the process was lawful. The issue is not who controls the public narrative, but whether the truth has been tested through a fair procedure.
The post MP In The Dock first appeared on Nagaland Post.