The Power Corridors sought Bimol Akoijam’s response over WhatsApp before publication. He did not respond. The allegations remain unproven, but the political question over Congress’s silence is becoming harder to ignore.
BY Navin Upadhyay
New Delhi: Eleven women students at Jawaharlal Nehru University have allegedly accused Congress Lok Sabha MP and JNU professor Angomcha Bimol Akoijam of sexual harassment. Their complaints, filed before the university’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) in May, include allegations of sexually suggestive remarks during viva examinations, offers of higher marks in exchange for sexual favours, invitations to gatherings at his on-campus residence and lewd comments in class.
The allegations remain allegations. The ABVP and hundreds of students have publicly named Bimol Akoijam, and the claims have spread widely across social media. Yet the university has remained silent, while Akoijam himself has not publicly addressed the allegations.
The ICC has not yet delivered its findings. Some media reports have claimed that Akoijam has denied the allegations as false, but he has not, to our knowledge, made any such denial on the record. He has also not issued a public statement or posted a response on his social media accounts. The Power Corridors contacted him directly for his version before publication, but received no response.
That is the legal position: there has been no finding of guilt, and the allegations remain unproven. But the absence of a finding does not make the controversy disappear. With complaints reportedly pending for months and the allegations now circulating widely, both JNU and the Congress MP face legitimate questions about transparency, accountability and the delay in the inquiry.
The Congress and its leader, Rahul Gandhi, have repeatedly argued that silence in the face of crimes against women is itself a form of complicity. Gandhi has made the safety, dignity and rights of women a recurring part of his political messaging. The question now is whether that standard applies when the accused is not a BJP politician or a government functionary, but a Congress MP who continues to teach at JNU.
Allegations of harassment agents Congress MP from Manipur Angomcha Bimol Akoijam who is also a JNU professor include an offer of extra marks in exchange for sexual favors.
These allegations reportedly gained further traction when a female student shared her experience in a… pic.twitter.com/ZaJINXuZz8
— Prince (@iprince_4) September 8, 2026
What is on record
The sequence of events is relatively clear. Viva examinations took place in the first week of May. One student’s account was subsequently shared in a students-only WhatsApp group, following which other women came forward with similar allegations.
Complaints were then submitted to the ICC in May. The university subsequently went into its long semester break. When the campus reopened in July, the controversy resurfaced, with senior students also joining the complaints.
By early September, mainstream reports were still generally referring to the accused as a professor without naming him. The ABVP publicly identified Akoijam during protests outside the School of Social Sciences on September 8 and 9 and demanded his dismissal and a time-bound inquiry.
JNU’s own framework, read alongside the applicable UGC regulations, envisages a prompt inquiry into complaints of sexual harassment. ABVP and several reports have pointed to a roughly 90-day period for the process, which has already been exceeded.
A semester break may explain part of the delay. It does not answer the central question of why an inquiry concerning 11 women has remained unresolved for months while the accused continues to occupy both a classroom and a seat in Parliament.
Serious allegations against Congress MP & JNU professor Angomcha Bimol Akoijam over claims of seeking sexual favours from female students for marks. Allegations must be investigated fairly—but if proven, there can be no political shielding, excuses or double standards. 🚨 #JNU pic.twitter.com/r0xdtQmO4f
— Public Check (@public__check) September 10, 2026
Why Akoijam’s position matters
Akoijam is not an obscure junior lecturer. He is an associate professor at JNU’s Centre for the Study of Social Systems in the School of Social Sciences. His listed academic interests include identity, conflict, minorities and gender relations.
In 2024, the Congress fielded him from Inner Manipur, where he defeated the BJP candidate by a substantial margin. He subsequently became one of the prominent political voices challenging the Centre and the Manipur government’s handling of the ethnic conflict.
He has retained his JNU position while serving as an MP.
That dual status makes the allegations politically sensitive. It also makes any prolonged delay in the university process more difficult to dismiss as an ordinary campus dispute. An MP-professor accused by multiple students is inevitably going to attract a higher level of public scrutiny.
The silence is the story
JNU is hardly a campus unfamiliar with protests over allegations of sexual harassment involving faculty members.
In 2018, allegations by eight women against another professor triggered demonstrations at police stations, a march involving more than a thousand students and teachers and weeks of campus agitation. Protests over women’s safety and gender discrimination have repeatedly become major political events at JNU.
This time, the response has been markedly subdued.
There has been no comparable wave of class boycotts or campus mobilisation. The Left-led student organisations that have historically made sexual harassment and women’s rights central political issues have not turned this case into a major national campaign. Nor has Congress’s student wing, NSUI, transformed the allegations against a Congress MP into a prominent national issue.
The Congress leadership, too, has not publicly asked Akoijam to step aside from teaching or examinations while the inquiry is pending.
There have also been claims on social media that the All India Mahila Congress posted and subsequently deleted a comment on the issue following intervention from the party leadership. Those claims remain unverified and should not be presented as established fact. What is demonstrable, however, is the absence of a major official Congress response comparable to the party’s public reactions when allegations of sexual misconduct involve political opponents.
The same question can be asked of the student and civil-society groups that routinely frame campus sexual-harassment cases as tests of patriarchy and institutional accountability.
The 2026 student protest formation widely referred to as CJP has also been relatively quiet.
ABVP’s involvement does not automatically make the organisation a neutral or moral authority on women’s rights. But its protests have brought one uncomfortable contrast into the open: the organisation routinely accused by its political opponents of communal and ideological politics is currently demanding that the university explain the delay, while several groups that have historically claimed the strongest ownership of the “believe women” discourse have largely stayed away.
That does not establish anyone’s guilt. It does expose what looks like a troubling hierarchy of outrage.
Rahul Gandhi’s own words
This is where the Congress faces a political test.
In July 2025, after an Odisha college student died following a self-immolation attempt over alleged inaction on a professor’s harassment, Rahul Gandhi described the death as “nothing less than a murder by the BJP’s system.” He accused those responsible for protecting the student of having failed her and questioned the silence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Gandhi demanded accountability rather than asking the public simply to wait for an internal process.
The same principle can reasonably be applied here.
The JNU case involves 11 complainants, complaints that were filed months ago and an accused who is simultaneously a university professor and a Congress MP. The allegations are serious and specific, even though they remain unproven.
If institutional inaction shielding an accused is politically intolerable when the administration is controlled by the BJP, why should the language become softer when the accused belongs to Congress?
This is not a demand that Gandhi declare Akoijam guilty. It is a demand for consistency.
We sought Akoijam’s response
The Power Corridors also contacted Akoijam directly before publication and sought his response to the allegations.
In a WhatsApp message, we specifically referred to the allegations concerning sexual harassment and the reported complaints by 11 students. We asked him to share his version or any clarification so that the report would not remain one-sided.
The message sent to him read:
“Hello, I’m reaching out to you on behalf of The Power Corridors, a digital news platform.
This is regarding the allegations levelled against you by the ABVP concerning the alleged sexual harassment of students and the complaint reportedly filed by 11 students with the university authorities.
I want to seek your version on the allegations, if possible, so that our story does not remain one-sided. We would be grateful if you could share your response or any clarification you may wish to provide.
Navin Upadhyay”
Akoijam did not respond to the message.
His lack of response does not constitute an admission of the allegations. It simply means that, despite being given an opportunity to respond directly to the report, no response was received from him at the time of writing.
READ: Porn Videos Found on Phone Seized From Convicted Ex-MP Revanna in Jail
What Congress could do
There is a straightforward way for Congress to demonstrate that its position on women’s safety is not dependent on the political identity of the accused.
The party could ask Akoijam to recuse himself from teaching, evaluating students or conducting vivas until the ICC completes its inquiry. It could publicly affirm that the complainants will be protected from retaliation or intimidation. It could call on JNU to provide a transparent timeline for the proceedings without disclosing the identities or confidential details of the students.
None of these steps would prejudge the outcome.
They would simply demonstrate that an accused Congress MP receives no institutional protection because of his political affiliation.
So far, the party has not taken that route.
JNU’s credibility is also on trial
JNU’s record on faculty sexual-harassment complaints has been mixed. In some cases, professors have faced disciplinary action following ICC findings. In others, complainants have criticised institutional responses and alleged that the process itself became another source of pressure.
Confidentiality under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act is legitimate and necessary. Complainants should not be publicly exposed, and details of proceedings cannot simply become political ammunition.
But confidentiality cannot mean institutional silence without accountability.
Nor can confidentiality become selective — invoked when it protects a politically useful figure and discarded when the accused belongs to the other camp.
A university that expects society to trust its internal complaints mechanism must also demonstrate that the mechanism is capable of functioning independently, promptly and without regard to the political standing of the accused.
What “walk the talk” requires
Akoijam is entitled to the presumption of innocence and to a fair inquiry.
The 11 women who have complained are entitled to an investigation that is timely, impartial and free from intimidation.
JNU is entitled to conduct its proceedings according to law and its own rules.
And Rahul Gandhi is entitled to no exemption from the standards he applies to political opponents.
He cannot describe institutional silence in one sexual-harassment case as “murder” while treating silence in another as merely an internal matter because the accused happens to be a Congress MP and a JNU academic.
If the ICC clears Akoijam, Congress should be able to say so loudly and defend him against unjust allegations. If the committee finds otherwise, the party will have to confront the consequences.
Until then, the most troubling fact is not whether Akoijam is guilty or innocent — that is precisely what the inquiry is supposed to determine.
It is that 11 women have made serious allegations, months have passed, the inquiry remains unfinished and the accused continues to hold both academic and political power.
Rahul Gandhi has spent years telling India that women deserve justice without fear or favour. The JNU case now offers him an opportunity to demonstrate whether that principle is universal — or merely political rhetoric.
The talk is clear. The walk is still missing.
