In the hallowed halls of academia, the relationship between a professor and a student is built on a foundation of intellectual trust and professional boundaries. When those boundaries are breached, the impact ripples far beyond the individual classroom, shaking the very institutional structures designed to protect learners. This is the reality currently unfolding at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), where a long-standing faculty member has been removed from his position following a series of grave allegations.
Professor Angomcha Bimol Akoijam, a faculty member at the Centre for the Study of Social Systems and a Congress Lok Sabha MP from Manipur, has been terminated from his services at the university. The decision marks the conclusion of a rigorous internal process, but for the students involved, it represents the culmination of a harrowing experience that began months earlier.
The crisis began to take shape in May 2024. During that month, at least 11 female students came forward to file formal complaints of sexual harassment against Professor Akoijam. The allegations were not isolated incidents but suggested a pattern of behavior that permeated different facets of academic life.
Pandit confirmed the dismissal, noting that the action was taken after following due process and considering all available facts presented in the committee's report.
According to the complaints, the professor allegedly used the pretext of academic discussions to invite students to his private residence. Once there, the students reported that he behaved inappropriately and made sexually suggestive remarks. This pattern of misconduct was not confined to private settings; similar reports of inappropriate behavior were also brought forward regarding his conduct within the classroom environment.
Once the complaints were lodged, the university moved into a formal investigative phase. The Internal Complaints Committee (IC) was tasked with reviewing the allegations to determine if university protocols had been violated. Such committees are essential components of institutional governance, designed to provide a structured, quasi-judicial environment to handle sensitive claims of misconduct.
The investigation sought to parse through the testimonies of the 11 students and weigh them against the professor's conduct. This process is governed by strict frameworks, specifically the rules set forth by the University Grants Commission and the Central Civil Services, ensuring that the inquiry adheres to established legal and administrative standards.
Following a thorough review of the committee's findings, the university administration moved to impose what it described as the strictest possible penalty. On October 9, 2026, the decision was finalized, resulting in the immediate dismissal of Professor Akoijam.
JNU Vice-Chancellor Santishree D. Pandit confirmed the dismissal, noting that the action was taken after following due process and considering all available facts presented in the committee's report. The university's official order underscored the gravity of the situation, stating that the Internal Complaints Committee had recommended a major punishment based on their findings.
The administrative weight behind the decision was significant. The university's order noted: "An inquiry was conducted by the internal committee (IC) against a professor, pursuant to allegations of sexual harassment. Based on the findings, the IC recommended major punishment…Upon following the due process and considering all available facts, the punishment of dismissal from the services of the university is hereby imposed on the professor with immediate effect."
By invoking these specific service rules, the university signaled that the misconduct reached a threshold that could not be mitigated by lesser disciplinary measures. The dismissal serves as a formal institutional rejection of the behavior described in the students' testimonies.
As the details of the investigation and the subsequent dismissal became clear, the campus atmosphere was marked by tension. The incident sparked protests by various student organizations. For these groups, the dismissal was not merely an administrative update but a necessary response to a systemic issue of safety and respect within the university.
These protests highlighted a broader demand for swift and decisive action whenever allegations of this nature arise, emphasizing that the protection of students must remain a primary institutional priority. The visibility of these protests underscored the high stakes involved in how universities handle internal misconduct.
While the university has been vocal in its communication regarding the dismissal and the adherence to due process, the professor himself has remained silent. Professor Akoijam has not provided a comment regarding the allegations or the university's decision to terminate his services. This silence leaves the official university record as the primary narrative of the events that led to his removal.
As of October 9, 2026, the professor is no longer affiliated with the Centre for the Study of Social Systems. The university has closed this specific chapter through the implementation of its strictest disciplinary measures, following the recommendations of its internal investigative body. The case stands as a significant moment for JNU, illustrating the intersection of academic authority, student safety, and the rigorous application of institutional accountability.