JNU dismisses Manipur MP Bimol Akoijam after a POSH inquiry. He questions the procedure, while Section 13 requires findings to be shared with concerned parties.
Imphal, Oct. 9: The Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) has dismissed Inner Manipur Congress MP Angomcha Bimol Akoijam from its faculty with immediate effect following an internal inquiry into allegations of sexual harassment. Responding to the reported order, Bimol Akoijam questioned whether the procedure under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, had been followed, saying he had not received the order or the inquiry report when he spoke to Republic TV.
The university's order, dated October 9, 2026, imposed dismissal from service based on the findings of its Internal Committee (IC) and the applicable service rules. News reports said the committee recommended major punishment following complaints by 11 women students.
The dismissal concerns Bimol Akoijam's employment as a professor at JNU's Centre for the Study of Social Systems under the School of Social Sciences.
Bimol Says He Has Not Received Inquiry Report
In the video interview with Republic TV, Bimol Akoijam said he wanted to examine the official documents before responding to the reported decision. When the reporter told him the order was already circulating on social media, he replied that he did not want to respond to social media reports and needed to see the order himself.
“If it is really true, there is nothing… it is a blessing in disguise for me,” he said, describing the development as an opportunity to expose what he called a “witch-hunt”.
Bimol Akoijam argued that the POSH Act was Indian legislation enacted by Parliament and said its provisions should apply to his case.
“If the recommendations have gone from the investigation, I need to be informed,” he said, adding that a respondent should have an opportunity to raise concerns about the committee's findings.
He repeatedly maintained that he had not received the inquiry report or dismissal order at the time of the interview. He also challenged the allegations, including claims relating to sexual favours in exchange for marks, and demanded that the evidence supporting them be made available through the appropriate process.
Bimol Akoijam alleged that efforts were being made to silence him because of his political positions. He said he would emerge stronger from the episode and emphasised that he had taught sexuality and gender issues for decades and served as a faculty member in different institutions for more than 30 years.
His comments represent his response to the reported dismissal and his allegations about the process. The university's inquiry findings and the complete report were not independently available for examination in the material reviewed for this report.
What the POSH Act Says About the Respondent's Rights
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, provides a framework for investigating workplace sexual harassment complaints. It also sets out procedures governing the inquiry report, disciplinary recommendations and appeals. The relevant provisions distinguish the committee's findings from the employer's decision on punishment.
1. Inquiry findings must be made available to the concerned parties
Section 13(1) of the Act requires the Internal Committee or Local Committee, after completing its inquiry, to send its report of findings to the employer or District Officer within 10 days. The report must also be made available to the concerned parties.
This provision is directly relevant to Bimol Akoijam's statement that he had not received the report. If a respondent has not been provided the findings, the question of compliance with Section 13(1) arises and would need to be examined against the actual records, including when the report was completed, submitted and communicated.
2. The committee recommends action; the employer implements it
Under Section 13(2), if the committee concludes that the allegations have not been proved, it must recommend that no action be taken. If it finds the allegations proved, Section 13(3) provides for recommendations such as disciplinary action under the applicable service rules. Section 13(4) requires the employer or District Officer to act on the recommendations within 60 days of receiving them.
In JNU's case, news reports say the Internal Committee recommended major punishment and the university subsequently dismissed Bimol Akoijam under the applicable service rules. The official order reportedly cited the committee's findings and Rule 11(ix) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.
3. Is the respondent entitled to receive the findings before final action?
Section 13(1) expressly requires that the inquiry report be made available to the concerned parties. That is a statutory disclosure requirement, not merely a matter of discretion.
4. The respondent has a right to appeal
Section 18 of the POSH Act allows a person aggrieved by specified committee recommendations, certain actions under Section 14, action under Section 17, or non-implementation of recommendations to appeal through the applicable service-rule mechanism or the prescribed legal route. The statutory period is 90 days from the recommendations.
5. Confidentiality applies to both the complaint and inquiry proceedings
Section 16 of the POSH Act restricts the publication or communication of information relating to the complaint, the identities and addresses of the parties and witnesses, and details of the conciliation and inquiry proceedings. Section 17 provides for penalties where a person entrusted with handling the matter violates these confidentiality requirements.
Due process and accountability
The case raises questions about the distinction between an employer's authority to impose disciplinary action and the statutory requirement to make inquiry findings available to the parties concerned.
Bimol Akoijam has said that he had not received the inquiry report or dismissal order when he spoke to Republic TV. JNU's reported order, meanwhile, states that the university acted on the Internal Committee's findings and followed due process.
