A controversy has erupted at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT Bombay) over the way an academic malpractice case involving second‑year BTech student Sahil Wakode was handled. According to faculty forum representatives, Wakode submitted a written “confession” after being allegedly caught using a mobile phone during a mid‑semester examination. The incident has reignited debate about whether the institute followed its own disciplinary procedures, which prescribe a formal, committee‑led process.
Procedural expectations versus reported actions
IIT Bombay’s publicly available “Procedures for handling acts of academic malpractices by students” outline a multi‑step protocol. When an instructor discovers a breach, the guidelines require the faculty member to prepare a report, collect all evidence, and forward the material to the Head of the Academic Unit. The case is then referred to the Departmental Academic Disciplinary Action Committee (D‑ADAC), which reviews the evidence, recommends disciplinary action and forwards its recommendation through the department head to the Dean (Academic Programs). More serious violations may be escalated to the institute‑level Academic Disciplinary Action Committee (ADAC).
For examination‑related infractions, the rules specifically state that an invigilator must confiscate the offending material—such as chits, phones or answer sheets—issue a fresh answer book, allow the student to continue the exam, and then submit a detailed report to the department head. The guidelines further emphasize that any disciplinary measures beyond the academic penalties prescribed for the assignment or examination must be decided by the D‑ADAC or ADAC, not by the individual instructor.
Sources familiar with the case have questioned whether these steps were observed. They note that handling academic malpractice is overseen by disciplinary committees and that an instructor does not have the authority to extract a confession from a student. The claim that Wakode wrote a confession after being found with a phone suggests a possible deviation from the prescribed process, prompting calls for clarification from the institute.
Events leading to the tragedy
Wakode, 22, was discovered hanging in his hostel room on the evening of 18 September, hours after he was allegedly caught accessing ChatGPT on a mobile phone during the same mid‑semester examination. His parents allege that the student faced caste‑based harassment at IIT Bombay. In response, they filed a First Information Report (FIR) against Professor Suryanarayana Doolla, asserting that their son had told them Doolla subjected him to casteist abuse and that the student feared being implicated in a false case.
The FIR, lodged by Wakode’s father, has not yet been proven in any court and remains under investigation. Nonetheless, the allegations have intensified public scrutiny of the institute’s environment and its handling of grievances.
Investigation and institutional response
The Mumbai Crime Branch, which is leading the criminal investigation, has recorded statements from approximately 40 individuals, including Wakode’s parents, fellow students and hostel staff. As of the latest update, Professor Doolla’s statement has not been taken. Investigators have also sent two mobile phones, a laptop and a tablet belonging to Wakode to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina for digital analysis. Police officials indicated that the forensic examination could clarify the sequence of events that preceded the student’s death.
Amid the ongoing probe, Wakode’s parents have continued a hunger strike at Azad Maidan for three consecutive days, demanding the arrest of Professor Doolla and IIT Bombay Director Shireesh Kedare. Their protest underscores broader concerns about alleged caste discrimination and institutional accountability.
In parallel, the IIT Bombay board has constituted a ten‑member committee tasked with inquiring into the circumstances surrounding Wakode’s death. The committee’s mandate includes examining whether the institute’s disciplinary guidelines were adhered to and assessing any systemic issues that may have contributed to the tragedy.
Media reports, including coverage by the Times of India, have highlighted the parents’ allegations and the ongoing protests, further amplifying public attention on the case. The combination of a student’s suicide, claims of caste‑based harassment, and questions about procedural compliance has placed IIT Bombay under unprecedented scrutiny.
While the criminal investigation proceeds, the institute faces pressure to demonstrate transparency in its disciplinary processes. Observers note that any deviation from the established protocol—such as an instructor obtaining a written confession without involving the D‑ADAC—could be viewed as a breach of the institute’s own rules. The outcome of the internal committee’s inquiry and the forensic analysis of Wakode’s devices will likely shape the narrative around accountability and reform at IIT Bombay.
Stakeholders, including students, faculty and civil‑rights advocates, are watching closely to see whether the institute will implement corrective measures, revise its malpractice handling procedures, or address the broader allegations of caste discrimination. The case remains a focal point for discussions about student welfare, institutional governance and the balance between academic integrity and due process in India’s premier technical institutions.
Be First to Comment