Crime Branch examines exam hall CCTV in IIT Bombay student's death

The Mumbai Police Crime Branch is examining CCTV footage in the death of IIT Bombay student Sahil Ravindra Wakode. Police said cameras captured Sahil in the examination hall between 12:30 pm and 12:45 pm on September 18, after which a professor questioned him and took him aside. An official said he reached his hostel room around 1:25 pm and did not step out again. The second-year BTech student was found dead there that day. His family alleges caste-based harassment and has sought a CBI probe.

Written by AI from News18 — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 22 Sept 2026, 11:48 am IST

Source

News18 — India · read the original report ↗

#iit bombay#student death#crime branch#cctv#investigation

Desk check · some claims need care

What the desk checked (5)

CCTV footage shows Sahil in the exam hall between 12:30 pm and 12:45 pm and a professor questioning and taking him aside on September 18. — Attributed to Mumbai Police Crime Branch in source; footage stated as not released, so unverifiable independently.
Sahil reached his hostel room around 1:25 pm and did not leave thereafter. — Direct quote attributed to an unnamed Crime Branch official.
Professor Suryanarayana Doolla, invigilating the 11 am-1 pm mid-semester exam, reported unauthorised smartphone use as academic malpractice. — Attributed to the IIT Bombay Faculty Forum in the source.
IIT Bombay's September 19 statement said Sahil used a phone to upload the question paper to ChatGPT, and the institute later retracted and apologised. — Attributed to institute statements; source notes the retraction, so the earlier claim must not be presented as established.
The family alleges caste-based harassment, has filed a case under the SC/ST Act and sought a CBI probe. — Allegation attributed to the family; no adjudication reported in source.

Written by AI from News18 — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Legal Analyst

This has become a two-track legal matter: a police investigation into the circumstances of a student's death, and a separate complaint by the family under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act alleging caste discrimination. The transfer to the Crime Branch and the sequencing of CCTV footage is standard evidence-gathering to reconstruct a timeline; it establishes movement, not motive or culpability. Legally, the critical and still-open question is whether the evidence supports any offence of abetment, or whether the exam-hall reporting was a good-faith exercise of an institution's disciplinary procedure — and that determination belongs to the investigators and, if charges follow, the courts.

An SC/ST Act complaint triggers a specific statutory framework with its own investigative and procedural requirements, and such cases typically turn on whether the alleged conduct was shown to be on the ground of caste identity.
CCTV footage placing a student in the hall, being questioned, and later returning to his hostel is circumstantial timeline evidence; on its own it does not establish what was said, intended, or its effect.
The Crime Branch's refusal to release or show the footage is consistent with protecting the integrity of an ongoing probe, while the family's demand for access reflects a genuine tension between investigative confidentiality and a complainant's interest in evidence.
A CBI transfer is not automatic on request — it ordinarily requires a state government referral or a constitutional court's direction, and courts have generally reserved such transfers for cases where the existing probe is shown to be inadequate or compromised.
The institute's retraction of its earlier statement, and the students' own framing that the professor is not presumed guilty, both point to the same legal principle at stake here: presumption of innocence and no prejudgment for anyone named, including the professor whose suspension is reported to be only from an administrative deanship, not his faculty post.

What to watch — Watch whether the Crime Branch's findings are placed before a court, how any SC/ST Act complaint is processed at the investigation stage, and whether the CBI demand is pursued through the state government or by petition before a constitutional court.

The story does not establish any causal link between the exam-hall incident and the death, does not establish that caste discrimination occurred, and reports no findings, charges or conclusions — the allegations remain untested allegations.

Deep dive

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

The brief

Context

Sahil Ravindra Wakode, a second-year BTech student in IIT Bombay's Department of Energy Science and Engineering, died by suicide in his hostel room on September 18 after being questioned by a professor invigilating a mid-semester examination. The Mumbai Police has transferred the case to the Crime Branch, which is now examining CCTV footage from the examination hall, campus and hostel to reconstruct his final hours. His family alleges caste-based harassment, has filed a case under the SC/ST Act and is seeking a CBI probe. The campus has seen protests by students and counter-marches by the Faculty Forum in support of the professor, Suryanarayana Doolla.

Key facts

CCTV cameras captured Sahil inside the examination hall between 12:30 pm and 12:45 pm on September 18, with about 15 minutes left for the exam.
The footage allegedly shows Sahil bending down to look at something in his pocket, after which a professor questioned him and took him aside.
A Crime Branch official said Sahil reached his hostel room at approximately 1:25 pm and did not step out thereafter; he was found dead there later that day.
The Crime Branch said the footage has not been released or shown to anyone and is being examined by the investigating team.
Per the IIT Bombay Faculty Forum, Prof Suryanarayana Doolla was invigilating the mid-semester exam from 11 am to 1 pm and reported unauthorised smartphone use as 'academic malpractice'.
IIT Bombay's September 19 statement said Sahil had used a phone to upload the question paper to ChatGPT for answers; the institute later apologised and retracted it.
The IIT Bombay PRO clarified Doolla was suspended only from the Dean of Administrative Affairs post, not from his professorship.
Sahil's parents have filed a case under the SC/ST Act alleging discrimination and have sought a CBI probe and access to CCTV recordings.

Timeline

September 18, 11 am to 1 pmMid-semester examination invigilated by Prof Suryanarayana Doolla, who noticed a student using a smartphone without authorisation.
September 18, 12:30 pm to 12:45 pmCCTV captures Sahil in the exam hall; he is seen bending to look at something in his pocket and is then questioned and taken aside by a professor.
September 18, about 1:25 pmSahil reaches his hostel room and does not step out again; he is found dead there later the same day.
September 19IIT Bombay issues a statement saying Sahil was caught cheating using ChatGPT; it later apologises and retracts the statement.
Monday (as reported)Faculty Forum holds a campus march for Doolla; student representatives submit a list of demands to the Director, who signs and acknowledges it.
Tuesday (as reported)Security stepped up on campus; Crime Branch official says CCTV footage is under examination and not released to anyone.

Who has a stake

Sahil Ravindra Wakode's family — Allege caste-based harassment, have filed an SC/ST Act case, and seek a CBI probe plus access to CCTV footage and other evidence.
Mumbai Police Crime Branch — Holds the transferred case; must reconstruct Sahil's movements from exam hall, campus and hostel footage and establish the sequence of events.
Prof Suryanarayana Doolla — Reported the alleged malpractice; faces an SC/ST case and has been suspended from the Dean of Administrative Affairs post, though not as professor.
IIT Bombay administration — Retracted its own September 19 cheating statement, faces demands for institutional reform and must manage protests and campus security.
IIT Bombay students — Say the protest targets systemic concerns, not a defence of cheating; submitted a demands list to the Director seeking timelines for implementation.
IIT Bombay Faculty Forum and alumni — Faculty marched in support of Doolla citing Senate-approved policy; alumni seek withdrawal of the SC/ST case and an impartial probe.

Why it matters

The case sits at the intersection of campus disciplinary procedure, caste-based discrimination allegations and institutional communication in a premier technical institute. IIT Bombay's retraction of its own cheating statement shows the risk of institutions publicising unverified details before an investigation concludes, while the SC/ST Act case against an invigilating professor raises questions about how academic malpractice complaints and discrimination grievances are simultaneously handled. The outcome of the Crime Branch's CCTV-based reconstruction will shape demands for a CBI inquiry and for reform inside IITs.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Sahil Ravindra Wakode was a second-year BTech student in IIT Bombay's Department of Energy Science and Engineering.
The case has been transferred by Mumbai Police to the Crime Branch, which is examining CCTV from exam hall, campus and hostel.
Prof Suryanarayana Doolla, course instructor and invigilator, was suspended only from the post of Dean of Administrative Affairs.
IIT Bombay's September 19 statement alleging ChatGPT-aided cheating was later retracted with an apology.
The family has filed a case under the SC/ST Act and demanded a CBI probe.
The institute's Faculty Forum cited academic policies approved by the IIT Bombay Senate in defending Doolla's action.

Mains framing

The death of an IIT Bombay student hours after being questioned for alleged exam malpractice exposes several institutional fault lines. First, procedural due process: the Faculty Forum maintains the professor acted under Senate-approved policy, yet the institute itself publicised and then retracted an unverified account of cheating, an act it conceded was inappropriate before facts were established through investigation. Second, the family's allegation of caste-based harassment and its recourse to the SC/ST Act point to the persistent question of whether grievance-redress mechanisms in elite technical institutions are trusted or accessible to students from marginalised backgrounds. Third, the polarisation of the campus, with students demanding systemic reform and the professor's temporary removal from administrative office as a safeguard for probe independence, while faculty and alumni march in his defence and seek withdrawal of the case, shows how disciplinary incidents can escalate in the absence of clear, neutral protocols. The way forward lies in a transparent, time-bound investigation, insulated from institutional advocacy on either side; restraint by institutions in publicising details before an inquiry concludes; separation of academic malpractice proceedings from discrimination grievance channels so neither prejudices the other; and functioning, visible mental health and anti-discrimination support systems on campus.

Key terms

Crime Branch: Specialised investigation wing of the Mumbai Police to which the case was transferred; it is examining campus CCTV footage.
SC/ST Act: Law against atrocities on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; Sahil's parents filed a case under it alleging discrimination.
Academic malpractice: Term used by the IIT Bombay Faculty Forum for the unauthorised smartphone use the invigilating professor reported to authorities.
Dean of Administrative Affairs: Administrative post at IIT Bombay from which Prof Doolla was suspended, while retaining his professorship.
IIT Bombay Senate: Academic body whose approved policies the Faculty Forum says Doolla followed in reporting the incident.
CBI probe: Central Bureau of Investigation inquiry sought by Sahil's family in addition to the ongoing Crime Branch investigation.

Practice questions

Institutional communication during an ongoing investigation can prejudice outcomes. Discuss with reference to IIT Bombay's retraction of its statement on the circumstances preceding a student's death.
Examine whether grievance-redress and anti-discrimination mechanisms in premier higher education institutions in India are adequate for students from marginalised communities.
How should disciplinary procedures for academic malpractice be designed so that they are both enforceable and sensitive to student welfare? Illustrate with the IIT Bombay case.

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

Next storyAkhilesh Yadav sets 27,000-vote target in 27 UP seats →

← All stories