No evidence of professor's role in IIT Bombay student's death: Sources

Initial investigation has found no concrete evidence linking an IIT Bombay professor to the abetment of suicide case involving Sahil Ravindra Wakode, a second-year BTech student found dead in his hostel room, sources said. The Crime Branch has found no eyewitness or material confirming casteist remarks. CCTV footage showed invigilator Suryanarayana Doolla asking the student to leave the exam hall after he was allegedly caught cheating. Doolla has been removed as dean of students welfare. The probe is at an early stage.

Written by AI from NDTV — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 22 Sept 2026, 6:48 pm IST

Source

NDTV — India · read the original report ↗

#iit bombay#student suicide#crime branch#caste discrimination#investigation

Desk check · some claims need care

What the desk checked (5)

Initial probe found no concrete evidence linking an IIT Bombay professor to the abetment of suicide case. — Attributed only to unnamed people with direct knowledge of the matter; no official on-record confirmation in source.
Investigators found no eyewitness or material confirming casteist remarks against Sahil Ravindra Wakode. — Attributed to unnamed sources; source states no conclusion has been reached.
CCTV footage shows invigilator Suryanarayana Doolla asking the student to leave the exam hall after he was allegedly caught cheating. — Appears in source as police-analysed footage; cheating remains an allegation.
Doolla has been removed as dean of students welfare but not suspended. — Stated in source without named official attribution; source says he stepped down for a fair probe.
Family filed a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 alleging discrimination. — Specific statutory detail appears in source; presented as family's allegation.

Written by AI from NDTV — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Legal Analyst

At this stage the case rests on two distinct legal tracks: abetment of suicide, and the separate, more demanding framework of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Sources indicating that initial inquiries have not yielded corroboration for the alleged casteist remarks matter evidentially, but an early absence of material is not a finding of innocence — investigators themselves say no conclusion has been reached and the probe is at an early stage. Equally, the family's statutory right to have an atrocities complaint properly investigated is not diminished by preliminary gaps, and CCTV alone reconstructs movement, not motive or the content of conversations.

Abetment of suicide in Indian law generally requires proof of instigation or a positive act driving the deceased to the step, not merely a disciplinary or exam-related confrontation — a high evidentiary threshold on the facts as reported.
The SC/ST Act complaint is a separate track with its own procedural safeguards and investigative requirements, and it survives independently of how the abetment angle develops.
Alleged casteist remarks are typically oral and unrecorded, so their proof usually turns on witness testimony rather than CCTV — which is why the reported absence of an eyewitness is significant but not conclusive at an early stage.
The questioning of two other professors present during the subsequent interaction suggests investigators are reconstructing the full chain of events, not focusing on a single individual.
The removal from the dean's post without suspension appears to be an administrative step to preserve a fair inquiry and, in law, carries no presumption of culpability.

What to watch — Watch whether the Crime Branch's reconstruction leads to a formal closure report, a chargesheet, or the addition or dropping of specific sections — and whether any independent or institutional inquiry runs parallel to the police probe.

This story does not establish what happened after the student left the exam hall, whether any casteist remark was in fact made, or any final investigative or judicial finding — the reported conclusions are attributed to unnamed sources at a preliminary stage.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 6 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

Sahil Ravindra Wakode, a second-year BTech student at IIT Bombay, was found dead in his hostel room. His family alleged institutional harassment and caste-based discrimination on campus and filed a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and an abetment to suicide case was registered. The Mumbai Crime Branch is investigating the role of professor and exam invigilator Suryanarayana Doolla, who allegedly caught the student with a mobile phone during an exam and asked him to leave the hall. Sources say initial investigation has found no concrete evidence linking the professor to abetment, and no eyewitness or material confirming casteist remarks, though the probe is at an early stage.

Key facts

Initial investigation has found no concrete evidence linking the IIT Bombay professor to the abetment to suicide case, people with direct knowledge of the matter said.
Crime Branch investigators have not found any eyewitness or material that could confirm casteist remarks were allegedly made against Sahil Ravindra Wakode.
Wakode was a second-year BTech student found dead in his hostel room on the IIT Bombay campus.
CCTV footage showed professor and exam invigilator Suryanarayana Doolla telling the student to leave the exam hall after he was allegedly caught cheating.
Other campus CCTV cameras captured Wakode walking out of the exam hall and going to his hostel room.
The family filed a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, alleging discrimination.
Doolla has been removed as dean of students welfare; he has not been suspended but stepped down to ensure a fair investigation.
The Crime Branch has questioned Doolla and two other professors present during the subsequent interaction with the student.

Timeline

Day of the incident (date not stated in the source)Doolla, on examination and supervision duty, allegedly saw Wakode with a mobile phone and asked him to step outside the classroom; the student was taken to the head of department's office where another professor was present.
Same dayCCTV cameras captured Wakode walking out of the exam hall and going to his hostel room; he was later found dead there.
After the deathFamily alleged institutional harassment and caste-based discrimination and filed a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Crime Branch began investigation.
A day before the reportA close friend told NDTV he strongly believes the casteism allegations reported in some media are not true, and said Wakode was 'caught cheating'.
Earlier on the day of the reportCCTV footage analysed by police showed Doolla asking the student to leave the exam hall.
As of the reportDoolla removed as dean of students welfare; IIT Bombay Faculty Forum expressed solidarity with him; Crime Branch says probe is at an early stage.

Who has a stake

Sahil Ravindra Wakode's family — Alleged institutional harassment and caste discrimination caused his death; have filed a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Professor Suryanarayana Doolla — Named as invigilator in the abetment allegation; removed as dean of students welfare though not suspended; reputation and career at stake.
Mumbai Crime Branch — Investigating abetment to suicide and caste discrimination allegations; reconstructing events using CCTV and witness statements.
IIT Bombay administration — Faces scrutiny over campus climate, disciplinary processes and student welfare; the institute said the disciplinary action committee (DAC) was not imposed on the student.
IIT Bombay Faculty Forum — Expressed solidarity with Doolla, reflecting faculty concern over accountability and due process.
Two other professors present at the HoD's office — Questioned by the Crime Branch as part of reconstructing the sequence of events.

Why it matters

The case sits at the intersection of two sensitive questions: whether caste discrimination operates inside elite technical institutions, and whether faculty face due process when such allegations arise. With CCTV and witness statements so far not confirming casteist remarks, the outcome will shape how campuses handle both student distress and allegations against teachers. Since the probe is at an early stage and no conclusion has been reached, premature narratives on either side risk prejudicing the investigation.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was enacted in 1989.
Sahil Ravindra Wakode was a second-year BTech student at IIT Bombay found dead in his hostel room.
Suryanarayana Doolla, exam invigilator, was removed as dean of students welfare but not suspended.
The Mumbai Crime Branch is the investigating agency; it has questioned Doolla and two other professors.
DAC stands for Disciplinary Action Committee; the institute said it was not imposed on the student.
The IIT Bombay Faculty Forum publicly expressed solidarity with Doolla.

Mains framing

The death of an IIT Bombay BTech student, and his family's allegation of institutional harassment and caste-based discrimination under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, raises questions about the internal climate of elite higher-education institutions and the adequacy of grievance and counselling mechanisms. On the available record, investigators have found no concrete evidence linking the invigilating professor to abetment and no eyewitness or material confirming casteist remarks, while CCTV shows the student being asked to leave the exam hall after allegedly being caught with a mobile phone and then walking to his hostel room. The case therefore also illustrates the tension between protective special legislation for SC/ST citizens and the requirement of due process for those accused, visible in the Faculty Forum's solidarity and the professor stepping down from the dean's post rather than being suspended. A way forward lies in transparent, time-bound investigation using documentary and CCTV evidence, institutional mechanisms that separate examination discipline from humiliation, accessible mental-health and anti-discrimination redressal on campus, and restraint in public commentary while the probe remains at an early stage.

Key terms

Abetment to suicide: A criminal charge alleging that a person's acts instigated or drove another to take their own life; the basis of the case here.
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Special law penalising offences and discrimination against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; invoked by Wakode's family.
Crime Branch: Specialised police investigation wing handling the case, questioning professors and analysing campus CCTV footage.
Dean of Students Welfare: Senior faculty post overseeing student affairs at IIT Bombay; Doolla was removed from this role during the probe.
Disciplinary Action Committee (DAC): Institute body that decides penalties in cases such as exam malpractice; the institute said it was not imposed on the student.
IIT Bombay Faculty Forum: Body of institute faculty that publicly expressed solidarity with professor Doolla.

Practice questions

Critically examine the challenges of balancing the protective intent of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with the due-process rights of the accused, using recent campus cases as illustration.
What institutional mechanisms can higher-education institutions adopt to address caste-based discrimination and student mental distress? Discuss with reference to the IIT Bombay case.
Discuss the role of electronic evidence such as CCTV footage in reconstructing events in criminal investigations, and its limitations in establishing abetment to suicide.

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyAttacks on women 'horrible', says Priyanka Gandhi Vadra →

← All stories