The police investigation into the death of IIT Bombay student Sahil Wakode has moved beyond the immediate circumstances of his death to examine how an academic misconduct case was handled, what happened inside the institute in the hours that followed, and whether complaints of harassment and caste-based discrimination were adequately addressed. The case now involves statements from more than 40 people, an FIR against a professor and an ongoing hunger strike by the student’s parents.
Wakode, a 22-year-old second-year BTech student, was found dead in his hostel room on the evening of September 18, hours after he was caught allegedly using his mobile phone to access ChatGPT during a mid-semester examination. According to the Mumbai crime branch, which is investigating the death, Wakode later submitted a written apology to the institute. Police said he acknowledged that he had not prepared well for the paper, admitted his mistake and sought a second chance.
That document is now part of an investigation that is examining not only the alleged examination violation but also the institutional interactions that followed. The police account establishes that Wakode was caught during the examination and that he subsequently wrote to the institute. It does not, on the evidence available in the report, establish that the academic disciplinary process caused his death. That distinction is central to a case in which allegations, police findings and the family’s demands are developing simultaneously.
The case illustrates the difficulty of dealing with student misconduct inside highly competitive residential institutions. An examination violation is ordinarily handled through institutional procedures, but the consequences can extend beyond a single paper when students live on campus and academic, disciplinary and social pressures overlap. The supplied police account does not detail the institute’s disciplinary rules, the action taken against Wakode after the examination, or whether he was offered counselling or other support. Those gaps remain important to understanding the sequence of events.
The police have recorded statements from more than 40 people, including IIT Bombay director Shireesh Kedare and professor Suryanarayana Doolla. Doolla faces allegations of harassment and caste-based discrimination from Wakode’s parents. He has denied the allegations in his statement to the police, according to the report. The police have not announced a final conclusion on those allegations.
An FIR was registered by Powai police against Doolla following a complaint lodged by Wakode’s father. The registration of an FIR marks the beginning of a criminal investigation; it is not a finding of guilt. The distinction matters because the case now contains several separate questions: whether the alleged harassment occurred, whether discrimination can be established, whether the institute responded appropriately to concerns raised by the student or his family, and whether any institutional action breached procedure.
The parents, Ravindra and Sonali Wakode, have alleged caste discrimination at the institute and have been seeking justice through a hunger strike at Azad Maidan in south Mumbai since September 24. Their protest places the case within a wider public debate about how premier educational institutions handle complaints involving social identity, authority and academic performance. However, the material supplied for this report does not include an independent finding on the discrimination allegation or details of any internal inquiry conducted by IIT Bombay.
## What the police account establishes—and what it does not
The police account provides a limited but significant chronology. Wakode was allegedly caught using a mobile phone to access ChatGPT during a mid-semester examination on September 18. He submitted a written apology and requested a second chance. He was found dead in his hostel room later that evening. The Mumbai crime branch then recorded statements from more than 40 people, including senior institute officials and the professor named in the family’s complaint.
This sequence establishes proximity in time, but proximity alone cannot establish causation. The report does not provide the contents of any communication between Wakode and institute officials after the examination, the formal disciplinary action initiated against him, or the findings of any post-death institutional review. It also does not state whether the student had previously complained about harassment or discrimination, or whether such complaints had been formally registered before his death.
These missing details are not peripheral. In a residential campus, accountability depends on the clarity of procedures and the ability of students to access them without fear. A student facing disciplinary action needs to know what allegation has been made, what process will follow, who will hear the matter and what avenues of appeal are available. A student alleging harassment or discrimination needs a separate, credible channel that can examine the complaint independently of the person accused. The supplied report does not establish how these mechanisms operated in Wakode’s case.
The presence of allegations against a professor and the naming of the institute’s director among those whose statements were recorded also underline the need to distinguish institutional roles. A professor may be a subject of a complaint, while the director may be a witness to administrative decisions or broader campus events. The investigation will have to determine what each person knew, what action was taken and whether any duty was neglected. At this stage, the available evidence supports reporting the allegations and the investigation, not drawing a final conclusion.
## The institutional question behind the case
The case raises a structural question for India’s elite residential campuses: how should institutions balance academic integrity with student welfare when a disciplinary incident becomes connected to allegations of harassment or discrimination? Academic standards require credible action against cheating. At the same time, disciplinary systems operate within a duty of care, particularly when students live away from their families and face intense academic pressure.
The two responsibilities should not be treated as competing choices. A fair process can preserve examination integrity while ensuring that a student is heard, that punishment is proportionate and that support is available. But the available report does not provide enough information to assess whether those safeguards were present or used in this case. Any evaluation of IIT Bombay’s handling must therefore await the police investigation, relevant institutional records and the outcome of any formal inquiry.
The use of ChatGPT in the alleged examination violation adds a contemporary dimension, but it does not alter the basic governance challenge. Digital tools have made academic misconduct cases more complex, yet the institutional response still depends on familiar principles: clear rules, documented proceedings, notice to the student, an opportunity to respond and an accountable appeal process. The report confirms the alleged use of a mobile phone and the student’s written apology, but it does not describe the institute’s applicable policy or the penalty under consideration.
The case also shows why public institutions must communicate carefully after a student death. Families may seek criminal accountability, while the institute may have to protect the integrity of an investigation and the privacy of students and staff. Police statements, institutional communications and public protests can therefore produce different accounts of the same period. A credible resolution will require the authorities to separate confirmed facts from allegations and to explain which questions remain under investigation.
For now, the evidence confirms that the Mumbai crime branch has recorded more than 40 statements, that an FIR has been registered against Professor Doolla following the father’s complaint, that the professor has denied the allegations, and that Wakode had submitted a written apology seeking a second chance after the examination incident. It does not yet establish whether harassment or caste discrimination occurred, whether institutional procedures were violated, or what directly preceded the student’s death.
Those are the questions that the investigation and any independent institutional review must answer. The next meaningful developments will be the completion of the police inquiry, clarification of the institute’s disciplinary and grievance procedures, and a formal response to the parents’ allegations. The facts available so far justify scrutiny of campus accountability, but not a final verdict on responsibility.
This article discusses suicide and mental health. People in distress can contact the Sanjivini Society for Mental Health suicide prevention helpline at 011-40769002.
