IIT Bombay: SC/ST Act invoked in student death probe

Core News and Key Facts

At IIT Bombay, a dispute over what happened during an examination has now become a wider investigation into allegations of caste discrimination and institutional harassment. Sahil Ravindra Wakode, a second-year BTech student in the Energy Science and Engineering department, was found dead in his room at Hostel Number 4 on the Powai campus on September 18.

According to IIT Bombay, Sahil had allegedly used a mobile phone during a mid-semester examination and uploaded the question paper to ChatGPT in an attempt to obtain answers. The institute said no disciplinary action had been initiated against him. Police initially registered an accidental death report, but after his parents filed a complaint, a case of alleged abetment of suicide was registered.

Context and Official Statements

The investigation has now been transferred from Powai Police to the Mumbai Police Crime Branch. An IIT Bombay professor, identified in reports as Prof Suryanarayana Doolla, was named as an accused in the complaint. Police have invoked Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, relating to abetment of suicide, along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. No arrests had been reported at the time of the latest reports.

IIT Bombay maintained that Sahil was counselled by the instructor and Head of Department and was assured that the incident would not adversely affect his academic career. Students, however, have disputed this account and alleged that Sahil faced the possibility of disciplinary proceedings and suspension. These conflicting accounts are now part of the investigation.

Krihaa Analysis

The central issue is no longer simply whether a student violated examination rules. It is whether institutions handling academic misconduct have sufficiently transparent procedures to prevent a disciplinary incident from becoming a source of fear, uncertainty or perceived humiliation.

The case also highlights the importance of separating two questions that can easily become mixed together: whether Sahil violated examination rules, and whether anyone’s conduct or treatment of him contributed to his death. The first can be established through examination records and institutional procedures; the second requires a careful investigation into the allegations made by his family and students.

For students and families across India, the case may become a test of how elite institutions communicate disciplinary consequences, document counselling, and respond when allegations of caste discrimination arise. Until the investigation establishes the facts, claims about the precise circumstances leading to Sahil’s death should remain allegations rather than established conclusions.