In a significant development for the ongoing investigation into allegations of professional misconduct, a Delhi court has formally directed the Delhi Police to refrain from taking any coercive action against A Bimol Akoijam, a Congress Member of Parliament and a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). The order, passed by Special Judge Digvinay Singh at the Rouse Avenue Courts, provides a crucial layer of judicial oversight in a high-profile case that has gripped both academic and political circles in the national capital.

The court’s directive specifies that in the event the investigating agency determines an arrest is necessary, it must provide a seven-day notice period to the lawmaker. This procedural safeguard comes amidst an active investigation into sexual harassment allegations, which were formalized through a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The ruling serves as an interim protective measure while the investigation proceeds, balancing the need for law enforcement efficacy with the rights of the accused during the initial stages of inquiry.

Court Mandates Seven-Day Notice Period

During the proceedings, counsel representing A Bimol Akoijam submitted that the professor has been consistently engaging with the investigative process and has complied with requests to join the probe. Special Judge Digvinay Singh, upon reviewing the current status of the file, acknowledged that the MP possesses clear antecedents and has demonstrated a willingness to cooperate with the authorities. The judge emphasized that while the investigation must remain robust, it should not disregard the rights of the individual during the pre-arrest phase.

The court’s order acts as a tether on the police department’s powers, requiring that the authorities provide adequate time for the defense to respond to any potential custodial claims. However, the order is not unconditional. Special Judge Singh explicitly stated that the Delhi Police retain the liberty to approach the court for further directions if it is determined that the investigation is being hampered by a lack of cooperation from the accused. This caveat ensures that the protection is linked directly to the ongoing integrity of the police probe, rather than acting as a blanket immunity from future legal processes.

Ongoing Investigation Hurdles at University

A substantial portion of the delay in the investigation has been attributed to the lack of evidentiary clarity regarding the specific complainants. The public prosecutor informed the court that while notices have been dispatched to Jawaharlal Nehru University seeking information and details of the complainants, the response from the institution has not yet facilitated the completion of witness statements.

The investigation has reached a point where the recording of victim testimonies is considered essential, yet these statements remain pending as the university administration has reportedly not yet provided the names and specific details of those involved. The court noted that because the investigation is fundamentally dependent on these details, the pace of the police work is currently contingent upon institutional cooperation. The legal challenge highlights the complex interplay between administrative inquiries and criminal law investigations, where university internal proceedings often intersect with, and sometimes complicate, the standard operations of law enforcement.

Legal Battle Over Professional Tenure

The current legal standoff regarding the criminal investigation is compounded by a separate, ongoing civil dispute concerning the professor’s tenure at Jawaharlal Nehru University. On October 9, the university administration dismissed A Bimol Akoijam from his position with immediate effect following an internal inquiry into the sexual harassment allegations. This abrupt termination sparked immediate pushback from the professor, who initiated legal action to challenge the university's decision.

Subsequently, on November 2, the Delhi High Court granted a stay on his termination, effectively protecting his employment status until further judicial consideration of the matter. This parallel litigation in the High Court underscores the high stakes of the situation, as the academic’s career at the Centre for the Study of Social Systems under the School of Social Sciences remains in a state of flux. The professor has consistently maintained his innocence, characterizing the accusations and the subsequent departmental actions as politically motivated efforts to stifle his voice and professional standing.

Political Tensions and Procedural Defense

The involvement of a sitting Member of Parliament in such a sensitive case has brought additional layers of scrutiny to the procedural developments at the Rouse Avenue Courts. While the public prosecutor remains focused on the technical requirements of gathering witness testimonies from the university, the defense team has emphasized the lack of prima facie evidence that would necessitate immediate arrest. The assertion that the allegations are politically motivated has been a persistent theme in the public discourse surrounding the case, though the court’s focus remains strictly on the procedural adherence of the police and the fair conduct of the investigation.

The directive issued by Special Judge Digvinay Singh provides a window of stability for all parties involved, ensuring that the investigation into the alleged violations of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita can continue in a structured, transparent manner. By requiring a seven-day notice period, the court has effectively placed the burden of proof on the police to demonstrate a clear and present necessity for custodial intervention before any such step is taken.

As the matter stands, the Delhi Police are expected to continue their attempts to secure the necessary documentation from Jawaharlal Nehru University. The court has signaled that it will keep the case under active monitoring, ensuring that the investigative momentum is maintained without sacrificing due process. The next procedural steps will likely hinge on the university’s cooperation in identifying the complainants and the subsequent recording of their statements by the police, a process that is now being conducted under the watchful eye of the judicial authority. The protection order remains effective, providing a defined framework for the interactions between the law enforcement agencies and the respondent in the coming weeks.