Section of IIT-Bombay faculty questions due process in student’s alleged exam malpractice

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

Indian Institute of Technology - Bombay in Mumbai. | Photo Credit: Emmanual Yogini

Some IIT-Bombay faculty members have begun questioning whether the institute followed due process in handling the alleged examination malpractice of which it initially accused second-year B.Tech. student Sahil Wakode. The death by suicide of Wakode, a Dalit student, last week was followed by the Mumbai Police booking Professor Suryanarayana Doolla for alleged caste abuse and abetment of suicide, and the suspension of Mr. Doolla’s deanship, once again igniting public discourse on caste-based discrimination against SC, ST, and OBC students in India’s premier higher education institutes.

Meanwhile, on Thursday (September 24, 2026), Kishor Makwana, Chairperson of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC), visited IIT-Bombay for a spot inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Wakode’s death. Officials said the Chairperson met with the Director of the institute, concerned faculty members, as well as students and classmates who studied with Wakode, and police officials investigating the case.

The Commission specifically directed the institute and the police to ensure that all evidentiary records pertaining to the case be preserved appropriately and also sought an action-taken report from the concerned authorities. Officials added that Mr. Makwana also met with Wakode’s parents, who submitted a written complaint to the NCSC.

Mr. Makwana further specifically questioned students and faculty members about the alleged exam malpractice and sought information regarding the “circumstances in which the student was questioned and subsequently left the examination venue”.

While IIT-Bombay has now apologised twice for putting out a statement accusing Wakode of using a mobile to allegedly cheat during an examination hours before his death, the Mumbai Police is investigating the case based on a complaint of caste discrimination from the student’s parents. However, even as student protests called for the institute to start introspecting on systemic issues that were contributing to suicides at IITs across the country, the institute’s faculty forum, claiming to represent the institute’s faculty, has come out in “strong solidarity” with Mr. Doolla.

But the faculty forum’s public defence of Mr. Doolla’s actions before investigations are completed has led to a section of the faculty at IIT-Bombay distancing themselves from this forum. IITB Professor Suryakant Waghmore’s on-record condemnation of the faculty forum’s defence of Mr. Doolla has now led to several other faculty members engaging with each other within the institute on whether due process was at all followed once Wakode was interrupted in the examination hall by Mr. Doolla on suspicion of malpractice.

Several of these faculty members have also written to the IIT-Bombay administration, asking that the faculty forum withdraw its “unwarranted statements” defending Mr. Doolla’s conduct and instead “demand and facilitate” an independent and fair probe into not just what happened in the exam hall but the events that followed as well.  

According to communications that Mr. Waghmore has made public in the last few days, and several faculty members who spoke to The Hindu on the condition of anonymity, questions are being raised about why Wakode was not given a fresh answer sheet after being caught for alleged malpractice, as is the rule. Another faculty member has alleged that the Departmental Academic Disciplinary Action Committee (D-ADAC) was not convened as per the rule.

Yet another faculty member told The Hindu that rules for intervening in cases of exam malpractice specifically require the D-ADAC to address it and require that the invigilator in question not be present in these discussions. “The question is then what was this meeting where multiple professors allegedly ‘counselled’ the student,” the faculty member associated with one of the institute’s STEM departments said.

Faculty members are further discussing whether Mr. Doolla and other professors were involved in asking for a written statement from Mr. Wakode at this meeting. According to the procedures for handling incidents of exam malpractice, an accused student is supposed to be given at least two days to submit a written statement for the official disciplinary proceedings. Further, one professor has asked why the student was taken out of the exam hall at all.

One of the communications made public by Mr. Waghmore also showed a faculty member saying that the head of the faculty forum, Professor Rajkumar S. Pant, and Wakode’s HoD both spoke about having secured a written confession from the student but were reluctant to make this public in two different meetings of the faculty forum. This faculty member reckoned this was because faculty members were purportedly afraid that questions of due process would be asked about how this alleged confession was obtained.

These faculty communications have become public even as parts of the CCTV footage from the examination hall were leaked to television media, leading to a large section of people using the footage as purported “proof” that Wakode was in the wrong by allegedly using unfair means in an exam. However, the CCTV footage does not show the whole picture of Mr. Doolla’s conduct in the aftermath of this examination, conduct that the faculty forum has consistently defended and conduct that is currently being investigated.

The CCTV footage being leaked to television media and being cited by large sections of people on social media to accuse Wakode of wrongdoing led to the institute on Thursday (September 24, 2026) reissuing its apology statement first posted on September 21. Currently, a 10-member committee constituted by IIT-Bombay is probing the circumstances surrounding Wakode’s death, and the Mumbai Police’s Crime Branch is expected to question Mr. Doolla.

In public statements on his social media platform, Mr. Waghmore has said, “We are only contesting the role Faculty Forum has played. From the very beginning they have created a narrative against the Student. They have mobilised faculty across IITs. They have made baseless statements repeatedly participating in TV channel debates. Why?” In another statement, he added, “This discourse of student as ‘cheater’ and faculty as ‘meritorious’ was manufactured by the faculty forum. They should not have meddled with the process, mobilised the faculty and gone to the media.”

In its first statement of support for Mr. Doolla, the faculty forum had accused Wakode of using unfair means and asserted that Mr. Doolla’s conduct in the aftermath was fair and as per procedure. Even though IIT-Bombay later apologised for its statement accusing Wakode of cheating, the faculty forum did not withdraw its first statement. In the second statement, the faculty forum once again supported Mr. Doolla but did not mention an incident of examination malpractice.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.