The manner in which the IIT Bombay administration<\/a> has treated students protesting the death of Sahil Wakode<\/a> raises questions that go far beyond the immediate dispute. It reveals an extraordinary failure of institutional responsibility, an intolerance of dissent, and a willingness to unleash administrative power against its own students. By any standard, it is unbecoming of an educational institution, least of all one of the country\u2019s premier institutions.<\/p>\n Sahil Wakode, a second-year BTech student, died by suicide on September 18, following an incident during a mid-semester examination involving the professor Suryanarayana Doolla, who allegedly caught him copying using his mobile phone. In violation of the institution\u2019s prescribed procedure, Doolla took him out of the examination hall. Whatever transpired thereafter, a few hours later Sahil was found dead in his room. Sahil\u2019s parents have alleged caste-based harassment<\/a> and lodged a complaint against Doolla and others, invoking abetment to suicide and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The precise circumstances leading to Sahil\u2019s death remain under investigation by the Mumbai Police Crime Branch, even after 50 days. Curiously, the institute initially issued an email characterising the incident as a case of copying, only to retract it later and apologise for its premature public characterisation of the events preceding his death. That apology was necessary, but it did not resolve the larger questions about institutional accountability, the handling of the examination incident, and the treatment of students who demanded answers.<\/p>\n Instead of recognising the students\u2019 protest as a legitimate expression of anguish and concern, the administration appears increasingly to have treated it as a challenge to its authority. The events of October 18 marked a disturbing escalation. Students who had been holding a sit-in near the main gate inside the campus since September 18 were forcibly removed by the police. The protest site was demolished, and students were roughed up and detained in two rounds of police action. Their belongings\u2014including laptops, mobile phones, room keys, books, and medicines\u2014were taken away. A medico-legal certificate obtained by The Wire records injuries attributed to police assault.<\/p>\n The administration has claimed that it did not call the police and that their presence was connected with the visit of a Member of Parliament. But these explanations do not answer the essential questions. Who authorised the police to detain students within the institute? Why were there two rounds of detention? Why did institute officials allegedly fail to assist students who sought help at the police station? If the police acted without the institute\u2019s approval, why has the administration not publicly demanded an explanation for their conduct? These are not peripheral questions. They go to the heart of the institute\u2019s responsibility for the safety and dignity of its students. The fact that 21 faculty members felt compelled to write to the Director seeking answers is itself an indication of the gravity of the matter. An institution cannot evade responsibility simply by claiming that the police acted independently, particularly when the action took place on its campus and its senior functionaries were reportedly present.<\/p>\n The handling of the students\u2019 belongings is perhaps the clearest illustration of the administration\u2019s ineptitude and harassment. On October 19, when students emailed the Chief Security Officer (CSO) seeking the return of their belongings, they were told that these were with the police, although tracking systems on some laptops showed their presence within the campus. The CSO insisted that police permission was necessary and subsequently asked for a list of the missing items. On October 20, the students wrote to the Board of Governors demanding the Director\u2019s removal for his responsibility in the events of October 18. They submitted the inventory to the CSO on October 21 and, the following day, sought the intervention of the Registrar and the Dean of Student Affairs. Instead of resolving the matter, the Registrar informed them that their belongings had been classified as lost property and could be reclaimed only through the institute\u2019s lost-and-found procedure. Following another appeal to the Dean on October 23, the students were given a slot to collect their belongings at 10 am on October 24. But the Director had meanwhile constituted a five-member faculty committee to oversee the handover. The collection room was set up with multiple cameras and security guards, with several faculty members present\u2014as though the administration were handling seized contraband. When students merely requested that other affected students be allowed to remain present during the process, the faculty committee walked out. On October 25, the Dean of Faculty Affairs circulated an email to faculty and staff claiming that the students did not wish to collect their belongings.<\/p>\n \n Sahil Wakode\u2019s parents sitting on a hunger strike at Azad Maidan, demanding action in the case of their son\u2019s death at IIT Bombay in Mumbai on September 24, 2026. The farce continued: on October 26, students met the five-member committee and proposed conditions for the return; on October 27, they approached the CSO for an update; and on October 28, they communicated their proposals to the CSO, Dean of Student Affairs, Director, and Deputy Director, while separately appealing to the Director to facilitate the return and asking the CSO about the whereabouts of the Babasaheb Ambedkar statue, which was also taken away from the protest site. The committee responded with a counterproposal, leading to further meetings on October 29. On the same day, the students approached the Dean of Student Affairs for an early resolution, only to be directed back to the committee. On October 30, three separate appeals were sent to the CSO, the Dean, and the Director, while students who went to the Director\u2019s office to seek an appointment were refused one. At a meeting on November 2, the faculty delegation had no substantive update, only further news of administrative delay. Students were again refused an appointment with the Director on November 3. Finally, with examinations approaching and their academic work seriously affected, the students individually wrote to claim their respective belongings on November 5. What should have been a straightforward return of property was turned into an 18-day ordeal of referrals, committees, conditions, counterproposals, and bureaucratic evasion. The sequence speaks for itself: an administration apparently more concerned with managing and intimidating protesting students than with discharging its elementary responsibility towards them.<\/p>\n As I write, I have learnt that while the administration is ready to return the students\u2019 other belongings, the Director wants their laptops sent for external forensic investigation. The examinations have already begun, yet the laptops remain withheld. This is particularly indefensible because a laptop is not a casual personal possession for an IIT student; it is an essential instrument of academic work, used for assignments, research, programming, communication, and examination preparation. By withholding these devices, the administration is directly obstructing the students\u2019 academic work, making them pay an additional price for exercising their right to protest.<\/p>\n The administration\u2019s handling of a simple matter of returning students\u2019 belongings reveals an extraordinary obsession with procedural control and an unmistakable tendency to harass them. The proposal to subject their laptops to forensic examination makes matters worse and demands an immediate explanation. These devices were taken away after the police action; they were not legally confiscated. The institute must know that the seizure and forensic examination of digital devices are governed by established techno-legal procedures, not by administrative discretion. What, then, is the legal basis for subjecting the students\u2019 personal laptops to forensic scrutiny? What specific suspicion is being investigated, what material is sought, and by whose authority? What safeguards will prevent unauthorised access to their private communications, academic work, research material, and personal information? Who will be accountable for any loss or alteration of data, or for the insertion of material that could falsely implicate a student?<\/p>\n Forensic examination is not an innocuous administrative formality. It can expose the entire digital lives of individuals. In the absence of a specific, lawful, and demonstrable reason, such an exercise would be grossly disproportionate and deeply intimidating. It also raises legitimate concerns about privacy, possible tampering, and the misuse of digital evidence. The administration cannot expect students to submit to such an intrusive process without explaining its legal authority, purpose, and safeguards.<\/p>\n There is a fundamental irony in this conduct. IIT Bombay, as a premier institute of the country, should be a role model for scientific temper, rational inquiry, and intellectual excellence. Yet its response to its own students has been marked by coercion, surveillance, and procedural obstruction. An institution of its stature should welcome scrutiny, not seek to discipline those who demand it. Its authority must derive from fairness, transparency, and accountability, not from its capacity to silence dissent.<\/p>\n \n Demonstrators raise slogans during a joint protest by students and different political organisations demanding justice for Sahil Wakode, outside the IIT campus in Mumbai, on October 18, 2026. The Director cannot remain insulated from responsibility. Even if he did not personally order the police action, he is answerable for what happened on the campus, for the conduct of the institute\u2019s security apparatus, and for the prolonged withholding of students\u2019 property. The administration cannot invoke institutional autonomy when challenged and disclaim responsibility when its own students are manhandled. Nor can it expect the faculty and the wider academic community to remain silent while the institute\u2019s credibility is eroded by such conduct.<\/p>\n The students\u2019 original demand was accountability for the circumstances surrounding Sahil Wakode\u2019s death and safeguards against the recurrence of such an incident. Their protest should have prompted institutional introspection: a transparent review of examination procedures, faculty conduct, disciplinary mechanisms, and the treatment of students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. Instead, the administration has compounded the original crisis by creating another through its own conduct.<\/p>\n The issue is no longer confined to the conduct of one professor or the circumstances of one student\u2019s death. It concerns the very idea of a university. Can an institution that receives public resources, enjoys considerable autonomy, and claims a special place in the country\u2019s intellectual life treat its students as subjects to be controlled rather than members of an academic community entitled to rights and dignity? Can it invoke rules selectively to obstruct students while refusing to answer legitimate questions about its own actions?<\/p>\n The administration must immediately return all the students\u2019 belongings, particularly their laptops, without subjecting them to an unexplained forensic process. It must also publicly account for the police action of October 18, identify the officials responsible for facilitating or permitting it, and ensure that students face no academic or administrative retaliation for participating in the protest. An institution that cannot tolerate dissent among its students has forfeited its claim to be a university in the fullest sense of the word. IIT Bombay must decide whether it wishes to defend its academic reputation through transparency and accountability\u2014or further damage it through intimidation and bureaucratic vindictiveness.<\/p>\n Anand Teltumbde is a civil rights activist and the author of over 30 books. He is the former CEO of Petronet India Ltd and a professor at IIT Kharagpur and the Goa Institute of Management.<\/i><\/p>\n Also Read | Why does casteism persist in Indian campuses? | Frontline Insight Box<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Also Read | IIT Bombay suicide and the caste factor<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\nThe farce of administration<\/h3>\n
![\"Sahil](\"https:\/\/fl-i.thgim.com\/public\/incoming\/nm9vvl\/article71682061.ece\/alternates\/FREE_1200\/Sahil%20Wakode%20parents.JPEG\" "\\"Sahil")
<\/p>\n
\n | Photo Credit:
\n EMMANUAL YOGINI\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\nThe Director must answer<\/h3>\n
![\"Demonstrators](\"https:\/\/fl-i.thgim.com\/public\/incoming\/88h1lp\/article71682058.ece\/alternates\/FREE_1200\/IIT%20Bombay%20protest.jpg\" "\\"Demonstrators")
<\/p>\n
\n | Photo Credit:
\n PTI\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n