Around 25 to 30 protesters were detained outside the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay campus in Powai on October 14 during a demonstration demanding accountability and an external inquiry into the death of student Sahil Wakode, who allegedly died by suicide last month. A six-member delegation later met IIT Bombay Director Shireesh Kedare and submitted a letter raising concerns about the institute’s handling of the case and allegations of caste-based discrimination.
Deputy Commissioner of Police (West Zone III) Datta Nalawade said around 25 to 30 people were detained during the demonstration. The protesters had requested a meeting with the director, after which six representatives were taken to meet him. The remaining protesters were released shortly after the representatives left for the meeting, the report said.
The demonstration was held near Gate No. 2 of the Powai campus at around 12.30 p.m. Tejas Anoop, a student representative of Aamchi Padhai, Aamchi Ladai, alleged that police personnel used force while detaining protesters. He said some demonstrators were carried and thrown around and that he sustained bruising to his waist. He also alleged that his request for medical assistance was not addressed.
The delegation comprised Rahul Sonpimple, Deepali Salve, Tejas Anoop, Sambhaji Bhagat, Nitin More and Sunil Nirbhavane. According to Mr. Anoop, the representatives told the director that they lacked confidence in IIT Bombay’s internal inquiry committee and questioned the administration’s response to allegations of caste-based discrimination. He claimed that the director said, “I don’t see caste.”
The delegation also questioned why the institute’s administration had not met Wakode’s parents and raised concerns about the circulation of CCTV footage linked to the examination incident that preceded the student’s death. It questioned the institute’s initial focus on alleged academic malpractice rather than the circumstances surrounding the death, according to the letter submitted to the director.
The protesters alleged that Professor Suryanarayana Doolla had breached institutional procedures by removing Wakode from an examination hall and reportedly threatening him with suspension before a disciplinary committee could examine the matter. They also alleged that IIT Bombay’s initial public statement contributed to the public vilification of Wakode and his family. The letter questioned the impartiality of the internal inquiry committee after two of its members allegedly participated in a faculty march supporting Professor Doolla.
The delegation demanded an external investigation committee, clarification that the available evidence did not conclusively establish that Wakode had cheated, and action against individuals or groups allegedly spreading unverified claims. It also sought an apology from the director for endorsing the faculty march in support of Professor Doolla.
Wakode, a second-year Energy Science and Engineering student, was found dead in his hostel room on September 18, hours after he was allegedly caught using a mobile phone during an examination. His parents subsequently alleged that he had faced caste-based discrimination and harassment at the institute. On the basis of a complaint by his father, Ravindra Wakode, Powai police registered a First Information Report against Professor Doolla. The investigation was later transferred to the Mumbai Crime Branch.
Advocate Nikhil Kamble, who represents Wakode’s parents, questioned why the Union Ministry of Education had not taken action against the IIT Bombay director. He compared the situation with the reported decision to place the director of the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Ranchi, on leave following student protests. Mr. Kamble also made an allegation about the IIT director’s connections with the Central Government but did not provide evidence, according to the report.
Wakode’s parents have been protesting at Azad Maidan, while student organisations and civil society groups have joined demonstrations seeking accountability from IIT Bombay and an independent investigation. The Mumbai Crime Branch investigation and the institute’s response to the delegation’s demands remain the next significant developments in the case.
