Mumbai- The IITB students' collective, Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle (APPSC), issued a statement today accusing the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay of following a fixed "template" in investigating the deaths of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students. The collective says internal inquiry committees consistently find no evidence of caste discrimination. It warns that the same "institutional apathy" will be repeated in the case of Sahil Wakode, whose death it calls an "institutional death", and has renewed its demand for an independent external investigation.

The statement, titled "IIT Bombay's Casteist Templates for Investigation," points to the reports of two earlier internal committees.

The first was the committee headed by Prof. A. K. Suresh, set up after the death by suicide of Aniket Ambhore. The collective cites its conclusion (page 24) that "the Institute and its official organs do not, overtly or subtly, discriminate in any way."

The second was headed by Prof. Nand Kishore, in connection with the death of Darshan Solanki. The collective quotes its finding (page 6) that none of the people interviewed, including friends, wing-mates, teachers, teaching assistants, mentors and Hostel-16 staff, mentioned any discrimination, caste-based or otherwise, either reported by Solanki himself or by his friends.

The collective argues these conclusions show a pattern rather than independent findings. In its words, "the template is in place, and the conclusion is already decided."

Allegations about how the committees work

The statement says the committees are established by the Board of Governors and work "in tandem towards the swift dismissal of caste discrimination." It alleges that they are "highly isolated," draw on "the same sample size within an orchestrated institutional architecture," and invariably end by vindicating the institution. It describes the ad hoc committees as serving "only to work as a placeholder for institutional atrophy."

The collective also questions the committees' social composition. Their members, it says, "are not separate from the social fabric of this country," and for them caste "does not exist because it is not an intimate phenomenological fact of their life." Such categorical rejection of caste discrimination, it argues, shows how caste privilege conceals inequity inside the institution.

The "burden of proof" argument

A central argument is that investigations require evidence of "explicit acts of caste aggression," which turns a "multilayered, dense, and subtle" phenomenon into a narrow checklist. The statement says this leaves the burden of proof "on the person least equipped to produce it," since dominant groups "get to design what counts as 'intent' and 'explicit act'."

The collective also raises questions about campus preparedness:

• How can it be believed that people in positions of authority over students fresh out of school have undergone caste sensitisation?

• Is any mechanism in place to recognise and address the disparity in social location and material circumstances between peers?

• Why should SC/ST students carry the onus of creating a safe and inclusive space, when they already face "the double burden of proving their excellence" and working through "the stigma of quota," while staying hyper-vigilant about their caste identities?

Supreme Court guidelines

The statement notes that since 25 July 2025, the Supreme Court's guidelines in Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. have bound every educational institution in the country. These require:

• Written protocols for immediate referral to mental health services.

• Twice-yearly staff training in recognising warning signs.

• Dedicated mentors, "especially during examination periods."

The collective says IIT Bombay's administration is "culpable on many of these points," but expects it to be "vindicated at every turn" given institutional apathy and what it calls "the hegemony of caste-blind forces."

The statement attacks the image of the IITs as destinations for the country's brightest minds. It argues that rankings and research output are used to project "a well-oiled machinery of academic production" and that "a radical reordering is required" to counter an image amenable to "the champions of merit." The merit being flaunted, it says, "is nothing but Savarna dominance naturalised in idioms of modernity and castelessness."

The collective contends that the IIT system implicitly expects its students to be Savarna and "free of the stigma associated with the category," and that spaces for marginalised students are "limited and constrained." Acknowledging caste-based discrimination, it says, would be "deleterious" to the postcolonial idea of modernity and merit celebrated by privileged-caste communities, whose "seamless transition into a republic" solidified their caste credentials.

Citing RTI data, the statement says that as of September this year IIT Bombay had only five SC and six OBC professors among its 412 faculty members, and none from the ST community. The collective says that, by the logic IITians themselves would apply, this indicates that knowledge production is "limited to a certain section of society."

It also criticises the institute's Sanskrit motto, "Gyanam Paramam Dhyeyam" (knowledge is the ultimate goal). It describes the institution's knowledge-making as "an echo chamber of Savarna-disseminated knowledge, rendering it incestuous and devoid of diversity."

The statement notes that the IITs were designated "institutions of national importance" under the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961. It quotes scholar Jayaram (2011) as saying such institutes function autonomously and have been, by and large, free from political or governmental interference.

The collective argues it is "about time" the IITs were brought under intense scrutiny and made the subject of dialogue between stakeholders and wider civil society. It calls the institution's "caste amnesia" "farcical and violent," and says campus culture has been "inimical to the lower-caste consciousness." It also observes that the IITs have long been free from student politics, which, it says, in a democratic framework "should be deplorable and subject to some form of intervention." It describes the creation of "an obedient, caste-blind, and efficient workforce" as the objective of these premier institutions, and calls for a closer examination of the "indoctrination" of students on campus.

Referring to the Sahil Wakode case, the collective says: "We again, unequivocally and veritably, see that the same institutional apathy will be meted out." It says the "sham of IITs' excellence and prestige remains unchallenged." It reiterated its demands:

1. An external, independent investigation, conducted without institutional interference or "unconditional support for the accused."

2. A committee headed by an SC/ST person, with at least one external member who has expertise in such matters, to ensure an unbiased and impartial probe "without any authoritarian intervention."

3. At least 50% SC/ST representation on the committee.

4. A minimum of 50% women members, drawn from across disciplines.