The Rouse Avenue Courts in Delhi have issued a significant directive restraining the Delhi Police from taking immediate coercive measures against Congress Member of Parliament and Jawaharlal Nehru University professor A. Bimol Akoijam. In an order delivered by Special Judge Digvinay Singh, the court mandated that investigating authorities must provide a minimum of seven days' written notice to the MP should his arrest become necessary as the sexual harassment probe continues. This procedural safeguard comes as part of the court’s disposal of Akoijam’s anticipatory bail application, following his voluntary cooperation with the ongoing investigation.

The directive arrived amid heightened scrutiny regarding a criminal case registered under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which pertains to charges of sexual harassment. The investigation was initiated following complaints lodged by 11 female students in May, alleging misconduct during the professor's tenure at the university’s Centre for the Study of Social Systems.

Navigating the Police Investigation

Central to the court’s decision was the current status of the evidence-gathering process. During the hearing, it was revealed that while the Delhi Police have actively sought to advance the investigation, they have encountered significant hurdles in securing witness accounts. The public prosecutor informed the bench that the investigating agency had issued formal notices to Jawaharlal Nehru University seeking the names and particulars of the complainants. However, the university administration has yet to provide the necessary details, effectively stalling the police's ability to record the students' statements.

The court observed that Akoijam has maintained a consistent pattern of cooperation with law enforcement, having appeared at the Vasant Kunj North police station in October to respond to summons. Counsel for the MP emphasized that his client remains committed to the legal process, asserting that his presence during questioning was intended to dispel any perception of evasion. In turn, the court clarified that its protective order is contingent upon the continued cooperation of the accused. If the Delhi Police determine that the investigation is being obstructed, they remain at liberty to return to the bench to request a modification of the current order.

Furthermore, the judge instructed Akoijam to furnish the contact information of two family members to the investigating officer, ensuring that any future notice regarding potential custody can be served promptly and personally. This dual-requirement—a seven-day window for the defense and a robust communication channel for the police—is designed to ensure both the rights of the accused and the efficacy of the investigative process.

Interplay Between Academic Tenure and Criminal Charges

The legal developments at the Rouse Avenue Courts occur against the backdrop of a broader, separate challenge regarding Akoijam’s employment status. On October 9, the Jawaharlal Nehru University administration, led by Vice-Chancellor Santishree D. Pandit, issued an order terminating Akoijam’s service with immediate effect, citing findings from an internal inquiry conducted by the university’s Internal Complaints Committee.

Akoijam subsequently challenged this dismissal in the Delhi High Court. On November 2, the High Court provided a crucial layer of relief, with Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani staying the operation of the termination order. By issuing a notice to the university and listing the matter for a further hearing in January, the High Court effectively prevented the finalization of the professor’s exit while the judicial review of the disciplinary proceedings remains active.

This stay of termination is distinct from the criminal proceedings, yet the two matters are inextricably linked by the same factual allegations. Akoijam has consistently denied the claims against him, characterizing the case as a politically motivated effort to impact his professional standing and his role as a public representative. His legal team maintains that the internal inquiry process lacked necessary safeguards, a central argument in his petition before the High Court.

Procedural Mandates and Future Cooperation

The current position is defined by a delicate balance between the urgency of the criminal allegations and the rights afforded to the accused under the law. The directive from the Rouse Avenue Courts imposes a strict timeline on the Delhi Police, requiring them to finalize their documentation and approach the court with a concrete status report. While the court has stopped short of granting permanent anticipatory bail, the imposition of a seven-day notice requirement functions as a significant check against sudden custodial action.

As the matter stands, the onus remains on the Delhi Police to obtain the required cooperation from the university administration to move forward with witness depositions. Without the names and testimony of the complainants, the investigation is inherently limited, a point that both the court and the prosecution have acknowledged. The court’s insistence that the police continue their efforts to file a final chargesheet reflects a desire to resolve the legal uncertainty that currently surrounds both the university’s internal disciplinary actions and the criminal investigation.

For the coming weeks, the situation remains fluid. Akoijam is required to adhere to the court’s instructions regarding his availability and communication with investigators. Meanwhile, the university awaits further directives from the Delhi High Court, while the police continue to wait for the essential documentation from the administration that will determine the next phase of the criminal inquiry. The court’s role, in this instance, has been to ensure that the investigation proceeds with procedural regularity, preventing the premature use of arrest powers while the underlying facts are still being established through formal investigation channels. The next stages of this case will likely turn on whether the university provides the requested victim information and how the Delhi Police incorporate such data into their final report for the trial court.