Refuting the figure, Akoijam clarified that institutional logs document a total of 43 emails received from the committee—each of which was duly acknowledged, monitored, and responded to.
KRC TIMES Manipur Bureau
The controversy surrounding the disciplinary action initiated by Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) against Inner Manipur MP and Professor Angomcha Bimol Akoijam has escalated, with the parliamentarian strongly rebutting public statements made by JNU Vice-Chancellor Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit regarding procedural compliance during the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) probe.
The confrontation comes in the wake of the JNU administration issuing a dismissal order following an ICC inquiry, which Akoijam has publicly denounced as a targeted “witch hunt.” Countering recent claims aired in national media by the Vice-Chancellor alleging total non-cooperation and the absence of defense witnesses, documentary timelines released by the MP present a starkly conflicting account of the proceedings.
Documentary Timeline Contradicts Administration Narrative
According to correspondence logs and procedural records maintained throughout the inquiry:
- Initial Written Submission: A comprehensive response to the initial communication was formally submitted on 31 May 2026.
- Personal Deposition: The MP appeared in person and completed his formal deposition before the committee on 16 July 2026.
- Defence Witnesses Deposed: Key defence witnesses presented their testimonies and completed their depositions before the ICC on 14 August 2026.
Discrepancy Over ‘300 Mails’ Claim
A major point of contention centres on public remarks made by the Vice-Chancellor, who asserted in television interviews that the administration and the inquiry committee had issued approximately “300 emails” to secure participation.
Refuting the figure, Akoijam clarified that institutional logs document a total of 43 emails received from the committee—each of which was duly acknowledged, monitored, and responded to. The parliamentarian labelled the public inflation of routine administrative correspondence into “300 unheeded notices” as a deliberate attempt to build a misleading public narrative of evasion.
The claim has also drawn sharp debate within regional circles in Manipur, where legal commentators aligned with opposing narratives attempted to equate procedural institutional emails with formal statutory “show-cause” notices. Legal observers note that conflating routine procedural correspondence with statutory show-cause notices betrays fundamental legal ignorance, confusing basic administrative communication with disciplinary charges.
With recorded depositions, acknowledged written submissions, and documented email threads establishing compliance on key inquiry dates, legal representatives indicate that institutional attempts to portray procedural non-cooperation could become a central challenge in higher judicial forums.
The context of these statements and the administration’s initial claims are covered in this interview report: JNU VC Breaks Silence on Probe Findings.
This video report captures the official statements made by JNU Vice-Chancellor Santishree D. Pandit regarding the 300 emails claim and the disciplinary action, which forms the direct basis of the refutation.
