The has granted significant to Angomcha Bimol Akoijam, a professor at and a serving Congress Member of Parliament, by staying the university’s order that terminated his services. The decision, handed down by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, temporarily halts the immediate effect of the university’s dismissal, which had been issued following internal findings regarding allegations of lodged by at least 11 students. The court has issued a formal notice to the university, with the matter now scheduled for a comprehensive hearing in .
The legal challenge arises from a series of events that began in , when a group of students filed complaints with the university’s , alleging a pattern of inappropriate behavior. The complainants, who included both female and male students from the Centre for the Study of Social Systems, claimed that Professor Akoijam had utilized his position to solicit private meetings at his campus residence under the guise of academic gatherings. Further allegations detailed in the inquiry report suggested that the professor made sexually explicit remarks during classroom interactions and viva voce examinations, with some students specifically alleging that favorable marks were promised in exchange for sexual favors.
In the wake of these complaints, the university’s administration, led by Vice-Chancellor Santishree D. Pandit, initiated a formal inquiry. According to the termination order released on , the concluded its investigation and recommended major against the professor. The university maintained that it had strictly adhered to the prescribed and the , ultimately deeming the dismissal a necessary consequence of the committee’s findings, which highlighted a hostile and intimidating learning environment created by the professor’s alleged conduct.
Procedural Disputes and Disciplinary Claims
Professor Akoijam, who represents the Inner Manipur Lok Sabha constituency, has steadfastly denied the allegations, characterizing the entire disciplinary process as a "witch hunt" motivated by political agendas and influenced by "racist schemers." In his before the High Court, he contended that the university acted without proper legal footing. Central to his argument is the claim that he was not issued the mandatory notice required by service regulations prior to the issuance of the termination order. By skipping this procedural step, he argues, the university denied him a fair opportunity to contest the findings before his employment was severed.
The professor’s legal team emphasized that the disciplinary proceedings were marked by irregularities, and he has further challenged the validity of the inquiry, labeling the committee’s process as a "khap panchayat" that failed to uphold principles of . Beyond the internal university action, the situation has escalated into the criminal sphere; on , the registered a against Akoijam following the submission of the ’s documentation by the university’s security office. This FIR invokes various provisions related to and outraging the modesty of a woman, with investigations currently ongoing independently of the granted by the High Court.
Political Fallout and Institutional Tensions
The academic and legal conflict has spilled over into the political arena, creating a visible friction between opposing ideological factions. Following the professor's initial dismissal, political protests intensified, particularly in his home constituency of Manipur. Members of the Bharatiya Janata Party have staged various demonstrations, including marches at Congress offices in Imphal, demanding the professor’s resignation from Parliament. These actions have been met with counter-allegations from the Congress party, which maintains that the accusations are being weaponized by political rivals to discredit a vocal opposition MP.
The institutional response has not been without its own internal debates. Even within the university, questions were raised regarding the scope of administrative power. The Teachers’ Association recently questioned the legality of the termination, pointing to . The association raised concerns that the power to dismiss a faculty member rests with the , suggesting that the Vice-Chancellor’s solo action in signing the termination order may have bypassed established oversight mechanisms. Furthermore, reports regarding the potential leaking of the confidential report added a layer of complexity to the institutional handling of the case, raising concerns about the confidentiality and integrity of inquiry processes within academic spaces.
As the matter moves toward the scheduled hearing in , the High Court’s stay order serves as a procedural pause, keeping the professor’s service status in suspense. It is important to note that the interim ruling does not serve as a final determination on the merits of the harassment allegations themselves or the validity of the professor’s defense. Instead, the court’s intervention focuses on ensuring that the disciplinary process—and the consequential loss of employment—was conducted with rigorous attention to and procedural compliance.
With the criminal investigation by the proceeding along its own timeline and the university’s administrative case suspended, the focus for all involved parties shifts toward the upcoming . The university has yet to issue an extensive public response to the High Court’s development, leaving the immediate operational status of the faculty member and the institutional disciplinary hierarchy under ongoing judicial observation. The case remains a focal point for discussions regarding the intersection of internal university discipline, faculty rights, and the protection of students in higher education.
academic employment termination - internal complaints committee inquiry - sexual harassment disciplinary proceedings - university service rules
