The death of IIT Bombay student Sahil Wakode after he was caught with a phone during an examination has placed the institute’s disciplinary procedures, student-support systems and institutional accountability under scrutiny. Police are examining a written statement in which Wakode apologised, said he would not repeat the mistake and asked for a “chance”, while an internal inquiry and an abetment-to-suicide investigation continue.
Wakode, a 22-year-old second-year BTech student, was found dead in his hostel room hours after the thermodynamics theory paper on September 18. According to police sources cited by The Times of India, he had told a female friend that the examination had gone badly, that he had been caught cheating and that he was worried because he had wanted to score well.
The sequence has become central to the investigation because it connects an academic-misconduct proceeding with a fatality that occurred on the same day. Police have recorded the statements of more than 20 people, including 12 students, and have questioned IIT Bombay director Shireesh Kedare about the institute’s standard operating procedure for students caught with unauthorised material during examinations. Professor Suryanarayan Dolla, who has been named an accused in the abetment-to-suicide case, has denied the harassment allegations made by Wakode’s parents.
The facts do not, by themselves, establish the cause of Wakode’s death or determine responsibility. Those questions remain with the police investigation and the institute’s internal inquiry. What the case does establish is that a routine disciplinary process can become a matter of public accountability when the institution is unable to demonstrate clearly how rules were applied, what support was offered and whether concerns raised by a student were recognised in time.
IIT Bombay’s existing guidelines describe a defined process for examination misconduct. When an act of indiscipline is discovered, the invigilator is expected to confiscate relevant material such as chits, phones or answer papers, provide a fresh answerbook and allow the student to resume writing the examination. The institute’s policy also provides two working days for a student to submit a written response after receiving a copy of the report and after the evidence has been submitted by the instructor.
That process is important because it separates the immediate management of an examination from the later decision on punishment. A student may be stopped from using unauthorised material, but the final disciplinary consequence is expected to follow a documented procedure rather than an instant penalty. In Wakode’s case, police are examining the written response in which he reportedly acknowledged the mistake and requested another opportunity.
The institute’s penalty framework changed after the incident. A disciplinary action document passed by the senate in August, calling for a fail grade and a semester’s suspension for copying with chits, smartphones or other gadgets, was withdrawn. At a senate meeting held the following week, IIT Bombay reverted to its 2015 punishment guidelines, under which suspension is reserved for serious cases such as impersonation or repeat offences.
This reversal has made the penalty framework part of the public debate. The change does not establish that the earlier document caused Wakode’s death, nor does it settle whether the revised approach is adequate. It does, however, show that the institute itself reconsidered how academic misconduct should be classified and punished after the incident. That institutional response is significant because rules are not only instruments of discipline; they also communicate the level of proportionality and due process that students can expect.
The revised standard operating procedure also includes a provision for an invigilator to alert the wellness response team when a student is caught in an examination-related incident. This addition places student support within the disciplinary workflow rather than treating it as a separate service that a student must independently seek out.
The distinction matters operationally. An invigilator may observe the misconduct, but may not know whether the student is distressed, isolated or at immediate risk. A formal alert mechanism creates a documented point at which the academic process can be connected to the institute’s support system. The available report does not establish how the provision will be implemented, who will be responsible for responding, how quickly the response must occur or whether it was available when Wakode was caught with his phone.
Those unanswered operational details are now part of the institutional question. A policy can specify that a wellness team should be alerted, but its effectiveness depends on how the alert is triggered, whether the student is contacted promptly, what information is shared and whether the response is recorded. The police investigation and the institute’s committee will be better placed to establish what happened in this case.
The campus response has also moved beyond the immediate examination incident. Protests began after news of Wakode’s death, although many students discontinued them after an open house held by the institute four days later. Between 10 and 12 students were continuing a protest near the main gate and had begun a relay hunger strike, according to the report. Wakode’s parents, Ravindra and Sonali, were also on hunger strike, with their protest entering its 12th day on Monday. They have demanded the arrest of institute officials and justice for their son, while protesting students have sought an external investigation.
These demands point to a second institutional issue: the difference between an internal review and an inquiry that is seen as independent by students and the family. IIT Bombay has constituted a 10-member internal committee, while the city crime branch is conducting the police investigation. The two processes have different purposes. The police probe addresses possible criminal liability, while the committee is examining the institute’s own procedures and conduct. The report does not indicate that either process has reached a conclusion.
The case therefore places three systems alongside one another: examination discipline, student welfare and accountability after a death. Each has a different institutional owner and a different standard of decision-making. Examination officials manage the immediate incident. The institute’s welfare structures are expected to respond to distress. The police investigate allegations and potential criminal responsibility. When these systems do not communicate clearly, families and students may be left to reconstruct events through protests, statements and competing accounts.
The available evidence also shows why the details of administrative procedure matter. The institute had written rules for confiscating material, allowing the examination to continue, obtaining a student response and determining punishment. It also had a separate framework for student support. The central question is not simply whether rules existed, but how they operated in the hours after Wakode was caught, what decisions were taken and whether those decisions were documented.
The police have already recorded the director’s statement because the standard operating procedure is considered relevant to understanding the case. That focus shifts attention from a single interaction to the chain of institutional actions surrounding it. The evidence may ultimately show whether the prescribed process was followed, whether any departure occurred and whether the support mechanism was activated. At this stage, those findings have not been reported.
The institute’s withdrawal of the August disciplinary document and return to the 2015 guidelines also creates a record of policy uncertainty. Students, faculty members and invigilators need to know which rules apply at the moment an incident occurs. A penalty document that is introduced and then withdrawn can make the disciplinary environment difficult to interpret, particularly when the institution is handling high-pressure examinations and serious allegations of misconduct.
The larger urban question is how large residential educational institutions govern everyday life in enclosed campuses. IIT Bombay is not only a place where examinations are conducted. It is also a residential environment with hostels, academic departments, administrative offices, welfare systems and security structures. A student’s experience of a disciplinary action can therefore involve several parts of the institution within a short period. The built campus and its administrative systems function together, and failures in one can affect the effectiveness of the others.
The evidence currently confirms that Wakode was caught with a phone during an examination, submitted a written response, was found dead hours later, and that multiple investigations and protests followed. It also confirms that IIT Bombay has revised its misconduct procedures and added a wellness-response provision. It does not yet establish the cause of death, the role of any individual in it or whether the revised system would have changed the outcome. Those questions remain subject to the police probe, the internal committee’s findings and the demands for an external inquiry.
