The intervention comes amid an ABVP demand for a time-bound inquiry into complaints reportedly filed by women students against Congress MP and JNU professor Bimol Akoijam. Akoijam has denied the allegations, which remain unproven.
BY PC Bureau
New Delhi: The Delhi Manipuri Academic Fraternity (DMAF), a Delhi-based body regarded as predominantly representing the Meitei academic community, has urged restraint in public discussion of the sexual-harassment complaints being examined by Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), saying the circulation of leaked chats, media reports and social-media speculation could undermine a confidential institutional inquiry.
The intervention comes amid a controversy surrounding complaints reportedly filed by women students against Angomcha Bimol Akoijam, a JNU professor and Congress MP representing Inner Manipur. JNU Vice-Chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit has confirmed that the university’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) is examining sexual-harassment complaints and has said the university will follow its rules and statutory procedures. No finding has been announced.
DMAF said information relating to a complaint before the ICC was being circulated and debated in the public domain. It cited Section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, which restricts disclosure of information relating to such proceedings, and the relevant UGC regulations on confidentiality.
The organisation said the identities and details connected with a sexual-harassment complaint should not become the subject of public speculation while the competent institutional body is still examining the matter. It warned that selective reports, conjecture and unverified claims could affect both the complainants’ privacy and the reputation and rights of the person accused.
DMAF stressed that the ICC should be allowed to examine the complaints, assess the evidence and hear the parties before reaching its findings. It appealed to the media, social-media users and other stakeholders to refrain from speculation, misinformation and personal attacks.
The organisation said its intervention should not be interpreted as support for either side in the dispute. Its stated position, it said, was that due process, confidentiality and institutional procedure should prevail until the inquiry is completed.
The controversy returned to the JNU campus on September 18 when ABVP activists demanded a time-bound inquiry into complaints they said had been filed by 11 women students against Akoijam. The organisation questioned the delay in the proceedings and sought clarity from the university on the status of the inquiry.
The allegations reportedly relate to conduct during academic interactions, including viva examinations. Whatsapp chats have also carried claims of sexually suggestive remarks and alleged offers of higher marks in exchange for sexual favours. These allegations have not been established by the ICC and should not be treated as findings of fact.
Akoijam has denied the allegations and has characterised the public reporting around the case as an attempt to damage his reputation. He has maintained that the matter should be dealt with through the appropriate legal and institutional processes.
The case has attracted additional attention because Akoijam occupies two public roles—as a JNU academic and as a sitting Congress MP. ABVP has questioned what it describes as a lack of clarity over the status of the inquiry and has also criticised what it considers a muted response from Congress, NSUI and Left student organisations. Those political criticisms are separate from the ICC’s determination of the complaints.
The Delhi Commission for Women has also taken suo motu cognisance of the matter and sought information from JNU concerning the complaints, the action taken and measures for the safety of students.
DMAF’s intervention shifts part of the debate away from the allegations themselves and towards the question of how a sensitive sexual-harassment inquiry should be discussed in public while proceedings remain pending.
The fraternity said the credibility of the process depended on allowing the university’s competent body to work independently and confidentially. For now, the allegations remain allegations, Akoijam’s denial remains on record, and any finding on the merits rests with the JNU Internal Complaints Committee and the competent authorities.
