The resignation of IIT Bombay’s associate dean of student affairs has intensified scrutiny of how the institute manages student welfare, internal complaints and accountability after the death of second-year student Sahil Wakode. Prof Himanshu Bahirat stepped down from the post last week, citing personal reasons, but will continue teaching at the institute, according to a Times of India report published on October 20.
The timing has made the resignation institutionally significant. A 10-member panel appointed by IIT Bombay’s board of governors submitted a report on October 15 examining the events surrounding Wakode’s death on September 18. The report has not been made public and is expected to be placed before the board at its next meeting. That places the institute’s governing board at the centre of the next stage: it must consider an internal account of the episode while an external police investigation and public dispute over the handling of the case continue.
The available account does not establish that Bahirat’s resignation was connected to the death probe. The report says he cited personal reasons. However, people familiar with the matter described dean and head-of-department positions as “immensely stressful” and “high-stakes roles” that could invite “trouble”. Bahirat did not respond to calls from the Times of India. The distinction matters because a leadership change can become a proxy for institutional accountability even when no direct connection has been formally established.
The panel itself reflects the complexity of the issue before IIT Bombay. It was headed by Prof Ramesh Venkateswaran, chairman of the board of governors at IIT Palakkad, and included faculty members, students, an administrator, a psychiatrist and former vigilance officials. The composition suggests an effort to examine the episode through academic, administrative, student-welfare and oversight lenses. But until the report is placed before the board and its findings are disclosed, the public cannot assess what evidence was examined, which institutional processes were reviewed or what corrective steps may be proposed.
### IIT Bombay student welfare and the accountability gap
The case has also exposed a gap between institutional review and public confidence. The panel’s report is described as an interim report and has not been made public. At the same time, the family of the deceased student has raised concerns about the police investigation and the conduct of institute officials. These parallel processes create different expectations: the institute’s panel is expected to examine what happened within the campus system, while the police investigation is responsible for determining whether a criminal offence occurred and identifying accountability under law.
On Monday, Wakode’s father, Ravindra Wakode, wrote to Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis and the joint commissioner of police. He alleged that the family believed Prof Suryanarayana Doolla had left the country. Mumbai Police and IIT Bombay authorities dismissed that allegation as baseless, saying Doolla was in Mumbai. The competing positions underline the importance of timely, documented communication in a case where every institutional statement can affect public trust.
The family’s lawyer, Siddharth Ingle, also sought the replacement of investigating officer ACP Dhammapal Bansode with an officer of deputy commissioner of police rank. The lawyer’s stated demand that the replacement officer not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe has itself become part of the controversy. The report records the lawyer’s explanation that the family feared it would be unable to raise objections if due diligence was not carried out and a case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was not filed against Doolla. That demand is a position advanced by the lawyer, not an established finding.
The reported account also contains claims from students who said they had overheard Doolla shouting at Wakode after the student was taken to meet other faculty members. Some students reportedly claimed that Wakode had refused to sign a confession note stating that he had cheated. These claims remain part of the contested narrative around the episode. The published report does not establish independently whether the alleged exchange occurred, whether a confession note existed or how these claims have been assessed by the police or the institute’s panel.
That evidentiary uncertainty is precisely why the internal and police processes need clear boundaries. An institute inquiry can examine administrative decisions, student support systems, communication, disciplinary procedures and the conduct of staff. It cannot substitute for a criminal investigation. Conversely, a police investigation may not answer every question about whether the campus had functioning safeguards for students facing academic, disciplinary or psychological pressure.
### The institutional cost of high-stakes campus roles
The resignation brings attention to the role of student-affairs offices in large residential academic institutions. Such offices often sit between students, faculty, administrators, parents and external authorities. In this case, the reported concerns around the dean’s role, the faculty interactions and the subsequent investigation show how quickly student welfare can become intertwined with discipline, reputation management and legal risk.
The description of these positions as high-stakes roles is important, but it does not by itself explain what happened at IIT Bombay. It does indicate the pressure under which student-affairs administrators may operate when a campus dispute involves allegations of academic misconduct, a student’s death, police action, political intervention and competing public narratives. A leadership system that relies on individuals without transparent procedures can leave both students and administrators exposed when a crisis occurs.
The question for IIT Bombay’s board is therefore not limited to whether a particular officer should remain in office. It is also whether the institute’s procedures were clear, documented and consistently followed before and after September 18. The supplied report does not provide those answers. It does, however, identify the institutional points at which they are likely to be found: the handling of the meeting involving Wakode and faculty members, the alleged confession note, communication with the family, the decision-making around the inquiry and the response to police and political activity on campus.
### Political pressure and the campus boundary
The episode has also drawn competing responses from groups outside the institute’s formal administration. The All India Independent Scheduled Castes Association condemned what it called “brutality against Dalit students and activists” and sought intervention from the Maharashtra and National Commissions for Scheduled Castes, accountability from senior police officials and action against IIT Bombay authorities. Those are demands made by the organisation and should not be treated as findings established by the available report.
IIT Bombay authorities, meanwhile, said they had not called the police. They said officials were present during the visit of MP Varsha Gaikwad and to inspect the venue. IIT Bombay alumni urged political parties to keep politics off campus, while IIT-B for Bharat alleged that outsiders had attempted to enter the campus by scaling a boundary wall and questioned whether political involvement was diverting attention from the demand for justice. These accounts point to a second governance problem: maintaining the security and academic functioning of a campus while allowing legitimate scrutiny of an institution under investigation.
The reported disagreement over who invited police or how outside groups entered the campus is not a peripheral detail. It affects the chain of accountability. If outside actors are present, the institute must communicate the basis for their access and the purpose of official visits. If police are present, the circumstances should be recorded clearly. If protests or political activity occur, the institute must balance campus safety with the rights of students and families to seek answers. The source material does not establish that this balance was breached, but it shows that the question has become part of the public dispute.
For now, the evidence confirms three developments: Prof Bahirat has stepped down as associate dean of student affairs while remaining a teacher; the board-appointed panel has submitted an interim report that has not been made public; and the family, police, institute authorities and outside organisations continue to present competing accounts of the investigation and campus response. The next decisive institutional step is the board of governors’ consideration of the panel report. Its handling of that report, along with the police investigation and any response to the family’s demands, will determine whether the episode produces greater clarity or deepens the accountability gap around IIT Bombay’s student-welfare system.
