Imphal | Congress Lok Sabha MP Angomcha Bimol Akoijam has accused Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) of denying him due process in an inquiry into sexual harassment allegations, describing the proceedings as a “witch hunt” and alleging that the action against him was intended to silence his views on Manipur and the Northeast.

Speaking to ANI, Akoijam, who was dismissed from his position as a JNU faculty member, claimed that the university administration acted in haste and violated the principles of natural justice during the inquiry. The MP alleged that the inquiry report was submitted directly to the Vice-Chancellor without being shared with him. He further claimed that the dismissal order followed within hours of the inquiry being declared closed.

“At 12.40 pm, they sent me an email stating that the inquiry was closed. Within an hour, they prepared the report and submitted it to the Vice-Chancellor, not to me. Shortly after, the dismissal order was issued, and by 2.30 pm, everything was leaked to the press,” Akoijam said.

He denied the sexual harassment allegations and rejected the suggestion that he had failed to cooperate with the inquiry. According to him, the dispute originated in academic and pedagogical matters, and he questioned the manner in which the complaints were handled.

Questions complainants and inquiry procedure

Akoijam also questioned the composition of the group of complainants. He claimed that 15 of the 97 students concerned had signed the complaint, including three male students. Raising questions about the applicability of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, commonly known as the POSH Act, he challenged the inclusion of male students in the complaint process.

“This is a complete mockery of a system established to ensure gender justice,” he said. The MP also disputed the inquiry’s findings regarding his alleged non-cooperation, maintaining that he would place relevant records before the court to substantiate his claims.

His objections centre on whether he was given an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations and whether the university followed the prescribed procedures before taking disciplinary action.

Akoijam alleges political motive

The Congress MP further alleged that the proceedings were politically motivated and linked the action against him to his public statements on the situation in Manipur and wider issues affecting the Northeast. However, these claims represent Akoijam’s account of the matter and have not been independently established in the information available.

The allegations against him, his denial and his objections to the inquiry procedure remain distinct aspects of the dispute. The university’s response to his claims, including its justification for the dismissal and its account of the inquiry process, was not available in the report.

The case raises questions about the procedures followed in disciplinary inquiries, the rights of those accused and the need to ensure that complaints of workplace sexual harassment are examined fairly and in accordance with the law.