Manipur Congress MP Bimol Akoijam disputes JNU Vice-Chancellor’s account of the sexual harassment inquiry following his dismissal, as Delhi Police registers an FIR after a security officer’s complaint.
Imphal, Oct. 12: Congress Lok Sabha MP and former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) professor Angomcha Bimol Akoijam has accused JNU Vice-Chancellor Santishree D. Pandit of misrepresenting facts about the sexual harassment inquiry that led to his dismissal. Separately, Delhi Police has registered an FIR against him following a complaint by the university’s Chief Security Officer.
In a social media post published around 11.30 pm on October 11, Bimol Akoijam disputed the Vice-Chancellor’s statements about the witnesses he presented, the number of communications from the university’s Internal Committee (IC), and his alleged lack of cooperation with the inquiry.
The FIR was registered on October 11 at Vasant Kunj North police station under Sections 75, 75(1)(i), 75(1)(iv) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), relating to sexual harassment and conduct intended to insult a woman’s modesty, according to police reports. The investigation is underway.
Bimol Akoijam said his witnesses had submitted their depositions on August 14, 2026, contradicting the Vice-Chancellor’s reported claim that he had not produced any witnesses.
He also disputed the university’s account of its correspondence with him. According to his post, the Internal Committee had sent him 43 emails, to which he said he had responded. He challenged the Vice-Chancellor’s reported figure of 300 emails.
Despite my witnesses having given their depositions on 14 August, 2026, VC of JNU tells a blatant lie saying that I have not produced any witness! And IC had written 43 mails, which I had responded to. And VC says on media, IC/JNU had written 300 mails! Shame! I had responded my written response to the allegations on 31 May 2026 and my deposition on 16 July 2026, and yet VC says I didn't co-operate! By the way, what is the number of the complainant? 2 or 3 or 11 or 13 (as per the statement of the VC) or 12 or 15 or 16? Obnoxious liars!!!! And the media and BJP talk about "sex for grades" which is not there even in the politically motivated complaint behind the witchunt! Anybody who cares for institutional propriety will know that any "procedural lapses" will benefit the either a "respondent" (if he has done anything wrong) or the "complainant" (if she has launched a false and malicious allegation). If a legitimate institution has been turned into a "Khap Panchayat", discarding the law, norms, and rules and regulations, no truth or legitimate conclusion can be arrived at. Beyond these two facts, having partaken in the deliberate procedural blunder, including remaining as mute spectators, to say that "procedural lapses" will benefit the "accused" (the "respondent"?) reveals an unmistakable prejudice and pretentious concern for justice, and most importantly, one's own culpability in committing the criminal act of perjury. The fact is the complainant can be "accused" of committing "frivolous" or "false and malicious" allegations, and the same can be upheld by ICC. And any "procedural lapse" can benefit such an unscrupulous complainant. A false and malicious allegation, pursued by abusing an institution as a "Khap Panchayat" to affirm it, and leaking out identity as well as concocting non-existent allegation and paddling the same through "media trial" to tarnish reputation is at the heart of the ongoing witchunt. The issue of technicalities/procedural lapses are important but far more important is to call out the lies and fabrication that form the complaint itself; it must be exposed... "Seeing like a feminist" (Nivedita Menon) will tell you that just being a "student" or "woman" doesn't mean that the person is essentially "vulnerable" or whatever she says is the truth... The rest, my team of lawyers will take care along with the people of my beloved Eramdam Manipur and those students who have understood and shared the process of learning with me as a part of lived experiences...
— A. Bimol Akoijam (@Bimol_Akoijam) October 11, 2026
The MP further maintained that he had submitted a written response to the allegations on May 31 and recorded his deposition on July 16, 2026. He questioned the claim that he had failed to cooperate with the inquiry.
Bimol Akoijam also raised questions about the number of complainants, pointing to what he described as differing figures mentioned publicly by the Vice-Chancellor. In his post, he referred to figures ranging from two to 16.
These statements represent Bimol Akoijam’s account of the proceedings. The claims could not be independently verified from his social media post alone.
Bimol Akoijam rejected the public characterisation of the case as involving “sex for grades”, arguing that this allegation did not appear in the complaint he described as politically motivated.
He accused the university authorities of procedural failures and alleged that the inquiry had been used to damage his reputation. Describing the proceedings as a “witch hunt”, he criticised what he said was the disregard of established laws, norms and institutional procedures.
He also argued that procedural lapses could prejudice either the respondent or a complainant, depending on the circumstances. He maintained that the allegations themselves, including what he described as false or malicious claims, needed to be examined rather than focusing solely on procedural questions.
Bimol Akoijam said his legal team would pursue the matter and referred to support from people in Manipur and students who, he said, had followed the process.
JNU dismissed Bimol Akoijam from university service with immediate effect on October 9 following an internal inquiry into sexual harassment allegations made by students. He was associated with the Centre for the Study of Social Systems under the university’s School of Social Sciences.
Media reports said the complaints involved 11 female students. The allegations reportedly included inappropriate remarks and alleged misconduct in interactions with students. Bimol Akoijam has denied the allegations and challenged the inquiry process.
The dismissal and the subsequent FIR are separate developments: the university’s action followed its internal inquiry, while the police case was registered following the Chief Security Officer’s complaint.
Delhi Police has taken up the investigation. The registration of an FIR does not, by itself, establish criminal guilt.
