Delhi High Court Stays JNU Termination of Professor and MP Angomcha Bimol Akoijam

Interim protection granted to the petitioner

The Delhi High Court on November 2, 2026 stayed an order by Jawaharlal Nehru University terminating the services of professor and Lok Sabha member Angomcha Bimol Akoijam. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani passed the interim direction while hearing Akoijam’s challenge to the university action. The Court also issued notice to JNU and fixed the matter for further hearing in January 2027.

The reported basis of the immediate intervention was the petitioner’s submission that no notice had been issued to him before the termination decision. That submission is important to the interim procedural issue, but the available report does not establish that the High Court has finally accepted every allegation of procedural illegality. The stay preserves the position pending further examination of the parties’ cases.

Background to the university action

JNU dismissed Akoijam with immediate effect on October 9 following an inquiry into complaints of sexual harassment made by several women students. According to the reported university account, its internal committee examined the complaints and recommended a major penalty. The administration then acted on that recommendation by removing him from service.

Akoijam was associated with the Centre for the Study of Social Systems in JNU’s School of Social Sciences. He has denied the allegations and described the disciplinary process as procedurally defective and politically motivated. Those assertions remain his position in the dispute and should not be confused with findings made by the High Court. The university and complainants have interests that must be considered when the matter is heard in detail.

What the Court has and has not decided

The operative development is a stay of the termination order and issuance of notice. An interim stay does not amount to acquittal, exoneration or a judicial finding that the underlying complaints are false. Nor does it establish that the university inquiry was valid. The Court will have to examine the relevant procedural record, the governing service and institutional rules, and the competing submissions before reaching any final conclusion.

Questions about advance notice, a meaningful opportunity to respond, and the legal effect of an internal committee recommendation may become important at the substantive hearing. However, without the written interim order or pleadings, it would be unsafe to state that the Court decided a particular statutory interpretation or applied a named precedent. The immediate judicial act is narrower: it temporarily suspends the operation of the employer’s decision.

Separate police proceedings

The Delhi Police have registered an FIR concerning the allegations and the investigation is reported to be continuing. That criminal investigation is distinct from the university’s disciplinary proceedings and the High Court’s service-related challenge. The interim stay does not, on the available material, terminate the FIR, prevent lawful investigation or decide any question of criminal responsibility.

The distinction is particularly significant where the same allegations give rise to different legal processes. Institutional disciplinary decisions are assessed under their own governing rules and standards, while criminal liability depends on the applicable criminal law and proof in the competent forum. A stay in one proceeding should not be reported as a verdict in another.

Practical significance and next hearing

The decision underscores the importance of procedural safeguards when public institutions impose major employment penalties. Even where allegations are serious, courts may scrutinise whether the decision-making process provided the legally required notice and opportunity. At the same time, an interim order is designed to manage the dispute until the record can be tested, not to settle contested facts prematurely.

JNU must respond to the petition following notice. The High Court will then have the opportunity to consider the institution’s explanation, the inquiry process and the petitioner’s objections. The next reported listing is in January 2027. Until then, the status of the termination is governed by the interim stay, subject to any subsequent judicial order.