Mumbai- As CCTV footage from the September 18 examination at IIT Bombay continues to circulate on social media, questions are being raised over the procedure that should be followed when a student is suspected of academic malpractice during an examination. IIT Bombay’s own published “Procedures for Handling Acts of Academic Malpractices by Students” lays down a specific process for invigilators, instructors and the disciplinary committees.
IIT Bombay Sociology Professor Suryakant Waghmore has now shared these guidelines while questioning the manner in which the case involving deceased student Sahil Wakode was handled and continuing to challenge the Faculty Forum’s public support for Professor Suryanarayana Doolla.
The institute’s published guidelines state that when an act of indiscipline or academic malpractice is discovered during an examination, the invigilator should confiscate the relevant material, including items such as chits, phones and answer papers. The guidelines then specifically require that a fresh answer book be issued to the student and that the student be allowed to resume writing the examination.
The invigilator is also required to prepare a detailed report describing the incident and the evidence collected and submit it to the Head of the Department or academic unit conducting the course. The broader procedure then moves the matter into the institute’s academic disciplinary mechanism rather than leaving the final determination of guilt or punishment solely with the invigilator.
This provision has become particularly significant in the Wakode case because CCTV footage from the examination hall is now circulating widely on social media. Reports based on the footage say Wakode can be seen looking towards something near his pocket during the examination, after which Professor Doolla approaches him and questions him. The footage also appears to show Doolla taking Wakode away from the other students before an exchange between them. Police have taken the CCTV footage into custody as part of their investigation.
The institute's guidelines say that after the relevant material is confiscated, a fresh answer book should be issued and the student should be allowed to resume writing the examination. Professor Waghmore has shared this provision in the context of the Wakode case.
A report by The New Indian Express said the CCTV footage shows Wakode leaving the examination hall after the interaction with Doolla. The report also noted the question being raised over whether another answer book was provided before he left.
The guideline establishes what the prescribed procedure says should happen; but whether every step was or was not followed in Wakode’s particular case, is now a matter for the ongoing institutional and police investigations.
The guidelines go beyond what happens inside the examination hall. Once a complaint is made, the Departmental Academic Disciplinary Action Committee (D-ADAC) examines the evidence. The committee may call both the instructor and the student for a meeting.
The rules require at least three faculty members to attend a D-ADAC meeting. The instructor who filed the complaint and the student against whom the complaint was made cannot participate in the committee's decision-making, even if they otherwise happen to be members of the relevant student or academic committee. An elected student representative is also to be invited to attend the meeting.
The committee's role, according to the guidelines, is to examine the evidence and determine whether academic malpractice occurred and, if so, what type of malpractice was involved. Importantly, the rules state that if the evidence is not clear, the benefit of doubt goes to the student. The committee's recommendation is then forwarded through the Head to the Dean (Academic Programmes), who can approve it, seek clarification or refer the matter to the institute-level Academic Disciplinary Action Committee if a more stringent measure is considered necessary.
The procedure also provides for a formal communication to the student. According to the guidelines, office staff assisting the D-ADAC provide the student copies of the instructor's report and the evidence submitted. The student is then given two working days to submit a written response. The office subsequently informs the D-ADAC and checks whether the student has any previous academic malpractice record.
Thus, the published procedure separates the immediate handling of suspected malpractice in the examination hall from the subsequent determination of whether the student actually committed an offence and what disciplinary action, if any, should follow.
According to the police investigation reported by The New Indian Express, CCTV footage places him inside the examination hall between approximately 12:30 pm and 12:45 pm, with the examination scheduled to end at 1 pm. Police sources said the footage shows Wakode bending and looking towards something in his pocket, after which Doolla questions him and takes him aside from the other students. Police have described a verbal confrontation between the two. Wakode subsequently went to his room at around 1:25 pm and was later found dead.
The Crime Branch has questioned, and is continuing to question, students who were present in the examination hall about what happened during those minutes. Investigators have also said they will record Doolla's statement.
Another important development is that the CCTV footage does not establish by itself that Wakode used ChatGPT to upload the examination paper and seek answers, according to a police officer quoted by The New Indian Express. The Crime Branch has sent his mobile phone for forensic examination and is examining his chats and other digital evidence to reconstruct the sequence of events.
This is significant because IIT Bombay had initially issued a communication saying that Wakode had been caught using ChatGPT during the examination. The institute subsequently apologised and withdrew that characterisation, saying the circumstances leading to his death remained under investigation and that it had been inappropriate to describe events preceding his death before they were established through the appropriate investigative process.
The controversy over the institute's communication resurfaced on Thursday, September 24. IIT Bombay deleted its September 21 apology post from its official account on X, but reposted the same message within minutes following backlash. The apology had said that the institute regretted its earlier statements concerning the circumstances surrounding Wakode's death and that the details remained subject to investigation.
The development has added another layer to the debate over how the institute communicated information about the examination incident before the investigation was complete.
Professor Suryakant Waghmore has been questioning the Faculty Forum's position since it publicly expressed solidarity with Doolla. He has argued that the Forum is not a legal body, that not all faculty members identify with its position and that its public support for Doolla during an ongoing investigation could put pressure on the inquiry.
Waghmore has now brought the institute's own academic-malpractice procedure into the discussion by sharing the rules governing the conduct of invigilators. His intervention effectively shifts part of the debate from whether Doolla was entitled to report suspected malpractice to what the institute's prescribed procedure required after such malpractice was detected.
The distinction matters because the Faculty Forum's earlier statements have maintained that Doolla was performing his duty under the institute's Senate-approved academic policies when he reported the alleged examination malpractice. Waghmore's reference to the detailed guidelines raises a separate procedural question: once an invigilator suspects malpractice, what actions are authorised at the examination-hall level, and what matters must subsequently be decided by the D-ADAC or other disciplinary authorities?
The latest institutional action came on Wednesday September 23, when Doolla was sent on leave to facilitate an impartial investigation, according to reports. He had earlier, on Monday, been removed as Dean of Administrative Affairs but remained a faculty member.
The institute has also constituted a 10-member committee to examine the circumstances surrounding Wakode's death and concerns raised by his parents, including allegations of caste-based harassment. The Mumbai Crime Branch is separately investigating the case.
The CCTV footage now circulating on social media has brought the examination-hall sequence into public view, but the footage does not answer every question surrounding the incident. Police are examining what happened between Wakode and Doolla, questioning students who witnessed the interaction, analysing the mobile phone and reviewing other CCTV footage to reconstruct the student's movements.
You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.