IIT Bombay Student Death Case: What We Know About Professor Doolla, the SC/ST Act and the Ongoing Investigation
The death of IIT Bombay student Sahil Wakode has developed into a complex dispute involving allegations of caste discrimination, an examination incident, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, student protests and questions about institutional accountability.
At the centre of the controversy is Professor Suryanarayana Doolla, who was the invigilator during the examination involving Sahil shortly before his death. His family has alleged caste-based harassment and mental pressure, while IIT Bombay faculty members have defended Doolla and argued that he was performing his institutional duties.
The Mumbai Crime Branch is investigating the circumstances surrounding the death. IIT Bombay has also constituted an internal committee.
Here is what is known so far, separating established facts, allegations and competing claims.
Q1. What happened at IIT Bombay?
Sahil Wakode, a second-year BTech student at IIT Bombay, died by suicide on September 18, 2026. Hours before his death, he had been appearing for a mid-semester examination.
Professor Suryanarayana Doolla was the invigilator. According to reports, Doolla noticed Sahil using or possessing a mobile phone during the examination and intervened. The incident subsequently became central to the controversy.
CCTV footage from the examination period is now being examined by investigators. Reporting based on the footage says it shows Doolla approaching Sahil and asking him to leave the examination hall. (The Indian Express)
Sahil’s parents subsequently alleged that their son had also experienced caste-based harassment and mental pressure. Their complaint resulted in an FIR naming Doolla and others, including provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. (India Today)
It is important to distinguish the examination incident, which has supporting CCTV evidence, from the allegations of caste-based harassment, which remain under investigation.
Q2. What is the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is a specific criminal law designed to prevent atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The government’s stated purpose is to prevent such offences, provide special courts for their trial, and provide relief and rehabilitation to victims. (Social Justice)
The law covers numerous forms of conduct. Among the offences specified in Section 3 are intentionally insulting or intimidating an SC/ST person with the intention of humiliating them in a place within public view, and abusing an SC/ST person by caste name in public view. The Act also covers many other forms of discrimination, violence, dispossession, intimidation and obstruction. (Indian Kanoon)
Therefore, the fact that an accused person and an SC/ST student had a dispute does not by itself establish an offence under the Act. The particular statutory ingredients alleged in a complaint have to be established through investigation and, ultimately where contested, judicial proceedings.
The Act is an important protection against caste-based atrocities. At the same time, an allegation made under the Act should not automatically be treated as a final finding of guilt.
Q3. Does the SC/ST Act mean that a professor cannot discipline an SC/ST student?
No.
The Act does not create a general exemption from academic rules for SC/ST students. An institution can enforce examination rules and academic standards regardless of a student’s caste.
The legal question in a particular case is different: Was disciplinary action taken because of an academic violation, or was caste identity used as a basis for humiliation, discrimination or prohibited conduct?
That distinction is particularly important in the IIT Bombay case.
The faculty position is that Doolla was performing his responsibility as an invigilator when he intervened during the examination. The Faculty Forum says he reported alleged examination malpractice according to institutional procedures. (India Today)
Whether anything beyond that examination-related intervention occurred is one of the questions investigators must establish.
Q4. What is IIT Bombay’s position?
IIT Bombay initially issued communication about the circumstances surrounding Sahil’s death. Following criticism, the institute apologised and acknowledged that making definitive statements before an investigation had established the facts was inappropriate. (The Indian Express)
The institute subsequently removed Doolla from his position as Dean of Administrative Affairs amid the campus protests.
That distinction is important: being removed from the deanship was not initially the same thing as dismissal from IIT Bombay or a finding that he was guilty of the allegations.
The Board of Governors has now asked Doolla to go on leave and has constituted a 10-member panel to examine the circumstances surrounding Sahil’s death. The internal panel is expected to examine the matter independently of the criminal investigation. (India Today)
Meanwhile, the Mumbai Crime Branch is conducting the criminal investigation.
Q5. What are IIT Bombay faculty members saying?
The IIT Bombay Faculty Forum has publicly supported Doolla.
The forum said that it stood behind its colleague and expressed concern about what it described as the damage to his reputation through reports it considered false or misleading. It also said Doolla remained a faculty member in good standing. (The Indian Express)
Faculty Forum president Professor Rajkumar S. Pant has said that Sahil had not approached the IIT Bombay SC/ST cell with a complaint. He also defended Doolla’s actions during the examination and said teachers have a responsibility to act when academic misconduct is detected. (Devdiscourse)
Faculty bodies at other IITs, including IIT Delhi and IIT Madras, have also expressed support for due process in the matter. (The Times of India)
This does not establish that Doolla is innocent. Rather, it demonstrates that a significant section of the academic community believes the allegations should be tested through evidence rather than public pressure.
Q6. What are the students and Sahil’s family saying?
Sahil’s family has alleged that he experienced caste-based harassment and mental pressure before his death. His father has sought action against those named in the complaint.
Student protesters have demanded accountability and an independent investigation. Their demands have also extended beyond the individual professor to broader issues concerning student welfare, grievance mechanisms and mental-health support.
Student representatives have subsequently clarified that their protest should not be interpreted as an attempt to justify examination misconduct. They say their concerns concern institutional accountability and reforms. (The Times of India)
Thus, there are actually two different questions in the protest:
- What happened between Sahil and Doolla?
- What institutional changes are required to prevent similar tragedies?
The second question does not depend upon prematurely deciding the first.
Q7. What has the investigation established so far?
The Mumbai Crime Branch is examining CCTV footage, digital evidence and witness statements to reconstruct Sahil’s final hours.
Investigators are particularly interested in establishing a reliable chronology: what happened during the examination, what happened afterward, whom Sahil interacted with, and what circumstances preceded his death. (The Economic Times)
CCTV footage reportedly establishes that Doolla interacted with Sahil during the examination and asked him to leave the examination hall. That is materially different from proving that Doolla subsequently subjected him to caste-based harassment.
As of September 23, the allegations of caste discrimination and the precise causal connection between the examination incident and Sahil’s death have not been conclusively established. (India Today)
There are also reports of preliminary police findings that have not established concrete evidence connecting Doolla to Sahil’s death. Those reports should nevertheless be treated as preliminary until the Crime Branch completes its investigation. (Organiser)
Q8. Was Professor Doolla victimised?
This is ultimately a matter of interpretation until the investigation establishes the underlying facts.
There is, however, a factual basis for asking the question.
Doolla was named in an FIR following allegations by Sahil’s family. He was removed from his administrative position amid protests, while the allegations themselves remained under investigation. Faculty members subsequently rallied behind him and argued that he was being publicly condemned before the evidence had been established. (The Indian Express)
On the other hand, Sahil’s family has made serious allegations that deserve investigation, and the filing of an FIR does not itself establish either guilt or falsity.
The fairest approach is therefore to distinguish accusation, investigation and proof.
Q9. What should the investigation establish?
A credible investigation needs to answer several specific questions:
- What exactly happened inside the examination hall?
- Was Sahil using a phone or another device during the examination?
- What action did the invigilator take?
- Did Doolla make any caste-related remarks?
- Did any other official or student interact with Sahil afterward?
- Was there a prior complaint or record concerning caste discrimination?
- Did Sahil approach any institutional grievance or SC/ST mechanism?
- What do CCTV footage, digital records and witness accounts show?
- What happened during Sahil’s final hours?
- Is there evidence establishing that any particular person’s conduct contributed criminally to his death?
These questions should be answered through evidence rather than through either campus politics or social-media narratives.
Q10. What is the central issue in the IIT Bombay case?
The central issue is not whether caste discrimination is serious—it unquestionably is, and Indian law specifically provides protections against it.
Nor is the issue whether academic misconduct should be ignored. Educational institutions have legitimate examination rules that apply to students.
The difficult question is where the line lies between legitimate academic discipline and unlawful caste-based harassment.
At present, there are competing accounts. Sahil’s family alleges caste-based harassment. Doolla’s supporters say he was carrying out his responsibilities as an invigilator. IIT Bombay has initiated an internal inquiry, while the Mumbai Crime Branch is conducting the criminal investigation. (India Today)
The evidence gathered by those investigations—not the intensity of the protests or the political interpretation placed on the case—should ultimately determine what happened.
Conclusion
The IIT Bombay case illustrates why allegations involving caste, student deaths and institutional authority require particular care. The SC/ST Act exists to protect vulnerable communities from genuine atrocities, but invoking a law is not equivalent to proving every allegation made under it.
At the same time, defending a professor’s right to due process should not mean dismissing the family’s allegations without examination.
The most important development now is the evidence: CCTV footage, digital records, witness statements, institutional records and the complete chronology of Sahil Wakode’s final hours. Until those investigations are completed, both the allegation of caste-based harassment and the claim that Professor Doolla was entirely responsible for the events should remain matters to be established rather than assumed.
You May Also Like :
Comments are closed.