The tragic death of Sahil Wakode, an Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay undergraduate who died by suicide on September 18, 2026, has taken a critical turn following revelations surrounding the disciplinary actions taken on the day of the incident. Sources have indicated that the student drafted and signed an apology letter after being ordered out of an examination room and presented before senior authorities over alleged academic malpractice.

However, a closer look into IIT Bombay’s official framework reveals that its formal regulations for students caught copying make no provision for demanding or accepting an apology letter.

Under IIT Bombay’s established procedures, any alleged breach of examination protocol must be formally referred to a Disciplinary Action Committee, which is tasked with reviewing the physical and circumstantial evidence. When the gathered proof fails to establish misconduct, the institutional guidelines explicitly state that “the benefit goes to the student.” Nowhere in these operational rules is an apology letter mandated or even recognized as part of the official disciplinary sequence.

According to an informed source tracking the events of that afternoon:

“It has come to light that the student was asked to leave the exam hall by the invigilator, Professor Suryanarayan Doolla, at around 12:38 pm. He was then taken to the superiors, where he signed a written apology letter for copying in the exam, after which he reached his room around 1.25 pm, as per CCTV footage.”

Tragically, after entering his hostel quarters that afternoon, Wakode never stepped back out alive, having taken his own life.

Understanding the Official Directives of IIT Bombay

The formal manual governing incidents of student indiscipline and unfair means at IIT Bombay, formulated in April 2015, outlines a measured process rather than immediate punitive eviction. Under these guidelines, once an invigilator detects an alleged act of malpractice during a test, “the invigilator should confiscate relevant material like chits, phones, answer papers, etc.”

The rules further dictate that students must not simply be dismissed or forced out while the examination continues:

“A fresh answer book should be issued to the student, and the student should be allowed to resume writing the exam,” states the procedure.

Following the conclusion of the test, the invigilator is required to compile a detailed written report and submit it directly to the Head of the Department (HOD) responsible for the course. The HOD then directs the matter to the Departmental Academic Disciplinary Action Committee (D-ADAC).

Outlining the scope and standard of proof required, the procedural document notes:

“The main role of the D-ADAC is in sifting through the evidence and establishing the type of malpractice, if any. The final recommendation should be unambiguous,” states the procedure. Members who disagree with the report may add a dissenting note. “In case the evidence is not clear, the benefit of the doubt goes to the student. The recommendation is forwarded via the Head to the Dean (Academic Programme) for approval and implementation.”

In the aftermath of Wakode’s death, widespread campus demonstrations broke out, with student groups highlighting that these regulatory safeguards were bypassed entirely. Because the central leadership of IIT Bombay does not consistently audit the strict enforcement of these exam rules across all academic units, the actual treatment of suspected malpractice varies widely between departments. This inconsistency has amplified calls for an overarching, uniformly applied Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to handle examination violations. Following the student's death, the administration postponed ongoing tests, announcing that the remaining mid-semester examinations would only resume once comprehensive SOPs are finalized.

At the heart of the ongoing protests is a straightforward question: why was Wakode escorted out of the room rather than handed a replacement answer book to complete his paper, as mandated by the 2015 rules?

An investigator attached to the Special Investigation Team (SIT), constituted by the Mumbai Police to probe the circumstances surrounding the death, confirmed that official notices have been sent to IIT Bombay requesting all relevant institutional records. The officer remarked:

“Our probe focused on establishing if the professor did something that pushed Wakode to commit suicide and if he faced any discrimination due to his caste. While we will look at procedures that were followed in this case, usually procedural lapses are dealt with at the institute level.”

Key Evidence and Timeline Uncovered by Investigators

The Mumbai Police Crime Branch, which took charge of the probe, has assembled key moments from the student's final hours. Digital records show that roughly one hour after returning to his hostel room at approximately 1:25 pm, Wakode had a telephone conversation with a female friend.

Police statements reveal that during this phone call, Wakode expressed deep distress and remorse, admitting to her that he had underperformed on an earlier examination paper and had turned to “copying” during this test to salvage his grades. After that exchange, he stopped answering his phone, prompting the friend to urgently reach out to students residing near his hostel room to check on his well-being.

Detectives have recorded statements from Wakode’s parents, classmates who were present in the hall, and friends who interacted with him. Digital video recordings from the examination room and campus corridors have also been preserved for forensic examination. Concerning the faculty member involved, an investigation insider stated: “We will soon be recording the statement of Doolla after speaking to others.”

The case initially began at the Powai Police Station, where an First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Professor Suryanarayana Doolla under charges of abetment of suicide alongside statutory provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, before being transferred to the Crime Branch.

Competing Narratives Over Video Footage, Apology Documents, and Bias Allegations

As student activists and Ambedkarite groups raised doubts over whether Wakode had engaged in exam malpractice, details regarding his written letter began to circulate publicly. Reports corroborated that Wakode wrote an apology note after he was caught with a mobile phone and taken before department superiors.

An insider reiterated the timeline:

“It has come to light that the student was asked to leave the exam hall by the invigilator, Professor Suryanarayan Doolla, at around 12:38 pm. He was then taken to the superiors, where he signed a written apology letter for copying in the exam, after which he reached his room around 1.25 pm, as per CCTV footage.”

In broader academic practice, students often provide letters admitting misconduct in the hope of securing leniency, as management and disciplinary boards tend to view an immediate admission as a gesture of accountability, even when statutes do not explicitly guarantee penalty exemptions.

Parallel to this, the SIT continues to evaluate whether the interaction crossed the threshold into criminal harassment. As an official reiterated:

“Our probe focused on establishing whether the professor did something that pushed Wakode to commit suicide and whether he faced any discrimination due to his caste. While we will look at procedures that were followed in this case, usually procedural lapses are dealt with at the institute level.”

The Crime Branch corroborated these details against testimony from the friend who spoke to Wakode at around 1:25 pm, noting his apologies and his admission of “copying” out of anxiety over past grades. When his line subsequently went dead, her alarm prompted hostel neighbors to intervene, though it was ultimately too late.

The aftermath has polarized the institute community. While campus rallies erupted over allegations of caste-based prejudice, Professor Suryanarayana Doolla was directed to proceed on leave while facing criminal charges. The second-year BTech student's parents claimed that Professor Doolla had subjected their son to mental harassment and casteist remarks over a three-month period under instructions from IIT Bombay Director Shireesh Kedare.

IIT Bombay authorities have firmly denied these allegations, pointing out that no formal complaints had ever been lodged by Wakode against either Professor Doolla or Director Kedare with the campus administration or the institute’s dedicated SC/ST Cell. Simultaneously, video snippets originating from the examination hall surfaced on social media platforms, showing Wakode in his seat before handing over his mobile handset to the invigilator.