Dalit Student's Suicide: Faculty Defends Prof Doolla, Students Demand Action; Why IIT Bombay Is Divided

Mumbai: The controversy surrounding the death of IIT Bombay student Sahil Ravindra Wakode has intensified, with sharply divergent voices emerging over the role of Prof. Suryanarayan Doolla and the larger question of caste discrimination on the campus. While Sahil’s parents have alleged that their son faced caste-based harassment for months and named Doolla and others in their complaint, the IIT Bombay Faculty Forum has publicly defended the professor, saying he was performing his duty under the institute’s approved academic procedures. At the same time, students protesting on campus have demanded an independent investigation into Sahil’s death and structural changes in the institute.

The Faculty Forum, in a statement dated September 20, said it mourned Sahil’s death and expressed solidarity with Doolla. According to the forum, Doolla was invigilating the mid-semester examination on September 18 when he observed Sahil allegedly possessing and using a smartphone without authorisation. The professor subsequently reported the matter to the institute authorities, which the forum described as the procedure approved by the IIT Bombay Senate. The forum said it was “absolutely distressed” by what it described as the tarnishing of Doolla’s reputation.

The faculty body’s intervention has added another dimension to an already polarised debate. The Forum's statement is institutionally significant because it goes beyond individual social-media commentary: it explicitly says Doolla followed Senate-approved academic policies and that reporting the alleged malpractice was part of the prescribed procedure.

The central question now being raised is whether the examination incident should be viewed separately from the allegations of caste-based harassment that Sahil’s family says had been continuing for several months.

What the family has alleged

According to the FIR based on the complaint of Sahil’s father Ravindra Wakode, Prof. Doolla and other persons have been booked in connection with allegations of abetment to suicide and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The father has alleged that Sahil was subjected to caste-based remarks, harassment and threats over a period of about three months. He has also alleged that the discrimination was linked to instructions from IIT Bombay Director Prof. Shireesh B. Kedare.

Ravindra and his wife, Sonali Wakode, residents of Yavatmal district of Maharashtra, claimed that the issue came up during their visit to the campus earlier this month, and they tried to boost Sahil’s morale by telling him to focus on his studies.

“Now, I feel like I made a mistake by not taking him home with me,” said Ravindra, outside the Rajawadi Hospital mortuary. “He had told me that he was disturbed, but I did not realise the problem was so serious. My son was tortured. He was threatened and told that because of his caste… The truth will come out. I have lost my only son,” he said.

Ravindra works at a local cooperative bank, while Sonali is a teacher. They said Sahil had not complained of academic pressure, and was planning to prepare for the civil services exam after completing his engineering degree.

Meanwhile, Director Kedare has denied the allegation of caste discrimination and said caste-related information of students is not available to faculty or administrators in a manner that would permit such discrimination. The institute’s SC/ST Students and Staff Cell has also said that Sahil had not lodged a caste-discrimination complaint with the cell.

The institute has maintained that Sahil was found using his phone during the examination and had uploaded the question paper to ChatGPT to seek answers. It has also said that no disciplinary action had been initiated against him and that the instructor and Head of Department counselled him and assured him that the incident would not adversely affect his academic career. Students, however, have disputed aspects of the institute's account, including allegations that Sahil was threatened with suspension. Those claims also remain to be independently established.

Students' 18 demands and the Director's response

The controversy has meanwhile led to three days of student protests at IIT Bombay. Students held a sit-in at the main gate on Sunday night. They questioned how the institute handled the case and demanded justice and campus reforms. Following protests, the IIT Bombay Director has signed an 18-point charter of demands aimed at ensuring institutional accountability and systemic reform. The administration agreed to launch an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Sahil’s death, committing to deliver an interim report by September 30 and a final report by October 15.

Additionally, the institute consented to holding an open house with the Director and senior officials, issuing a formal apology for what students described as the defamation of Sahil, and addressing the demand for the immediate suspension of Prof. Suryanarayana Doolla through established disciplinary processes. To overhaul campus culture, the charter mandates the creation of a strict code of conduct for professors, mandatory mental-health sensitization for all faculty and staff, and reforms to the Disciplinary Action Committee to guarantee greater administrative accountability and increased student representation.

Finally, the agreement requires sweeping improvements to student welfare resources, including better in-person counseling, upgraded medical care, and the establishment of a 24/7 psychiatrist-on-call facility to support student mental health.

Ambedkarite and student groups question the institutional response

The issue has also generated strong reactions from Ambedkarite student organisations and social-media groups. The Ambedkar Students' Association at the University of Hyderabad described Sahil's death as an “institutional murder” and called for action against caste discrimination and implementation of the Rohith Vemula Act. Bahujan scholars allege that unscrupulous elements are attempting to frame the entire incident, which is rooted in casteism, merely as a case of exam cheating in order to cover up the truth.

Significant discrepancies have emerged between the statements made by the institute and the family and efforts are being made to reduce the scope of the entire matter by linking this hardworking student, who had secured an All India Rank of 614 in the JEE and an 8.5 CGPA in his first year, to an incident involving the use of a phone during an exam.

Bahujan community stress that individuals with a casteist mindset frequently attribute the success of Dalit students to reservation policies and dismiss any difficulties they face as personal failings. Raising a hue and cry about cheating following the death of a student with an excellent academic record appears to stem from the same mentality that seeks to suppress the real issues at hand. Focusing solely on one incident while ignoring long-standing allegations of caste-based pressure and discrimination on campus raises serious questions.

According to UPSC mentor Anil Sir, dismissing the tragic incident at IIT Bombay as a "normal suicide" induced by academic stress is a hypocritical cover-up of institutional murder. He argues that systemic casteism in premier institutions often operates not through overt violence, but via implicit biases and micro-aggressions like grading prejudices, lab isolation, and "quota" taunts. Furthermore, a professor's foreign education does not erase these deeply entrenched biases as evidenced by the necessary enactment of anti-caste laws in US cities since elite spaces often harbor the strongest prejudices.

Highlighting the 2007 Thorat Committee Report and the ineffectiveness of nominal SC/ST cells, he emphasizes that these campuses remain profoundly unsafe for marginalized students. Until this structural discrimination masquerading as "merit" is dismantled and robust anti-discrimination laws like those demanded after the Rohit Vemula case, are strictly enforced, this silent violence will continue to violate the fundamental dignity guaranteed to every citizen under Articles 15 and 21 of the Constitution, proving that no institution's prestige can ever justify the denial of basic human rights.

"A Dalit student committed suicide after facing three months of continuous caste-based abuse, threats and harassment at the hands of IIT Bombay faculty. How many more lives will be lost before caste-discrimination in educational institutions is taken seriously?", Vanchit Bahujan Aaghadi (VBA) founder Prakash Ambedkar asked in a post.

MP Chandrashekhar Azad stated that the incident exposes a severe lack of student safety, dignity, and institutional accountability in premier educational institutions. He raised serious doubts over the administration's claim that Sahil was caught with a mobile phone during an exam, pointing out that no fellow students corroborated this and that the institute violated its own protocol, which dictates confiscating the device and allowing the student to finish the exam on a new answer sheet. Instead, family and peers allege that a professor pulled Sahil out of the exam hall, threatened him with a one-year suspension, and had previously subjected him to caste-based discrimination and institutional harassment. Fully backing the protesting students’ demands, which include the resignation of the Director and Dean, compensation for the family, an FIR against Professor Doolla, immunity for protesters, and an open house, Azad urged the Ministry of Education to immediately secure all CCTV footage and exam records. Extending his deepest condolences to the grieving family, he demanded a fair, time-bound investigation with strict punishment for the guilty, emphasizing that elite institutions must be held accountable and that casteist harassment has no place in India's education system.

Voices supporting Prof. Doolla

There has also been a visible counter-narrative online. Some commentators have argued that a professor should not be held responsible merely for reporting alleged examination malpractice and have questioned the invocation of the SC/ST Act on the basis of allegations that remain under investigation.

Commentator Tehseen Poonawalla publicly backed Doolla, arguing that the professor should not be punished for detecting a student using ChatGPT during an examination. BJP leader Ananthan Ayyasamy, who has identified himself as belonging to the SC community, has also called for withdrawal of the case against Doolla and opposed what he described as misuse of the SC/ST Act. His comments represent his own position and do not establish whether the allegations against Doolla are true or false.

The question at the heart of the controversy

The emerging dispute is therefore not simply about whether Sahil had a phone during an examination. IIT Bombay itself has acknowledged the examination incident. The unresolved questions concern what happened before, during and after that examination, whether Sahil had previously experienced caste-based harassment, whether any threats or humiliating remarks were made, what exactly was communicated to him after the examination, and whether any institutional response contributed to the circumstances preceding his death.

The fact that the caste allegations were formally raised by the family after Sahil's death has itself become part of the public debate. Critics of the caste-discrimination allegation argue that the institute's SC/ST cell had received no prior complaint and that the immediate trigger was an examination-related incident. The family, however, says Sahil had been facing harassment for months and that he had spoken to them about the problems he was experiencing. These competing accounts make an independent investigation particularly important for establishing the sequence of events rather than allowing either side's interpretation to become a substitute for evidence.

The Mumbai Police has transferred the investigation to the Crime Branch. The family had initially refused to take Sahil's body, seeking action against those named in the complaint, before accepting it after police assurances regarding the investigation.

The investigation will therefore have to examine both strands of the case: the immediate examination incident and the family's allegations of prolonged caste-based harassment. Evidence from students, faculty members, hostel records, communications, CCTV footage where available and the institute's academic and disciplinary records could become relevant to reconstructing the sequence.

The Mooknayak will update this report as the Crime Branch investigation, IIT Bombay's internal processes and the students' 18-point charter progress.