QUESTIONS RELATED TO IIT BOMBAY STUDENT SUICIDE:LALIT GARG

QUESTIONS RELATED TO IIT BOMBAY STUDENT SUICIDE:LALIT GARG

23-SEP-ENG 16

RAJIV NAYAN AGRAWAL

ARA----------------------------The death of Sahil Wakode, a second year B.Tech student of IIT Bombay, on 18 September 2026 has raised many serious questions like the functioning of higher educational institutions of the country, increasing academic pressure on students, increasing immorality in examinations, accountability of teachers, mental health and political interference on campuses. The incident is currently being reported as a suicide, pending investigation into the circumstances and criminal responsibility of any individual. The matter is currently under investigation. The Mumbai Police have registered an FIR, and the probe is underway; therefore, it would be inappropriate to hold anyone guilty before the investigation concludes. Prior to the incident, a situation had arisen regarding institutional action taken against Sahil for allegedly using a mobile phone and AI (ChatGPT) during an examination. Subsequently, students felt that the matter was handled without adequate sensitivity. The institute later apologized for its earlier public statement, acknowledging that it was improper to release details regarding the incident before the investigation was complete. The professor concerned has been removed from the administrative post of Dean, while the final outcome of the case registered against him remains subject to the ongoing investigation and judicial process.

Following the incident, students staged protests for three days and presented an 18-point charter of demands. These demands include an independent inquiry, a clear grievance redressal mechanism against faculty, student representation, improved counseling services, round-the-clock psychiatric support, mental health training for faculty and staff, and a more humane process for handling cases of examination irregularities. The Director of IIT Bombay signed this charter after engaging with the students, although the institute clarified that further actions would follow established procedures. This brings us to the most crucial aspect of the entire episode: are discipline and human empathy mutually exclusive in educational institutions? Certainly not. Cheating in exams, the unauthorized use of mobile phones, or seeking unfair assistance through AI pose serious challenges to the credibility of education. If higher education institutions fail to curb such unethical practices, the integrity of degrees, research, and talent is compromised. However, disciplinary action must entail a fair investigation of the allegations, an opportunity for the student to present their side, an appeals process, and the sensitivity to understand the student's mental state. It is wrong to overlook offenses or academic misconduct, just as it is wrong to socially brand a student as guilty without due process. Today, AI has presented a completely new challenge to the education sector. While tools like ChatGPT can be useful for acquiring knowledge, conducting research, and learning, their improper use during examinations raises questions about academic integrity. Therefore, mere bans will not suffice. Universities must clearly define where the use of AI is acceptable and where it is prohibited, and outline the transparent procedures to be followed in the event of a violation. Teachers, too, must move beyond the role of mere disciplinarians and embrace the role of mentors. The Sahil incident has also brought allegations of caste-based discrimination to the forefront. The police have registered a case under relevant sections based on the family's complaint, whereas the institution maintains that the student had not previously lodged such a complaint with the SC/ST cell or the administration. The truth of the matter can only be determined after an investigation. However, this highlights a broader reality: no student should feel isolated or unsafe due to their caste, economic status, language, region, or social background.

The regulatory framework for higher education in India is also steadily moving towards greater accountability and a student-centric system. Alongside the UGC's 2023 regulations on student grievance redressal, the 'Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions Regulations' (scheduled for 2026) are also on the agenda. The fundamental objective must be to safeguard students' rights, ensure independent and time-bound grievance redressal, and prevent institutions from evading their responsibilities. Yet, a note of caution is also necessary. The law cannot imply that a teacher or official should be declared guilty following an unfortunate incident without a proper investigation. Teachers are certainly not above the law, but neither are they beneath the due process of law. If a teacher has engaged in discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or other unlawful conduct, strict action must be taken against them; however, if they have acted against academic misconduct in accordance with institutional rules, it is equally essential to examine the legality and proportionality of that action. This forms the foundation of a just system.

The most concerning aspect arises when a university campus transforms into a battleground for political conflict following a tragic incident. While political parties and external organizations have the democratic right to champion students' causes, the fundamental character of an educational campus must be preserved. If administrative decisions begin to be dictated by political slogans, sit-ins, and pressure tactics, academic autonomy within the university could be compromised. Conversely, if the administration dismisses students' voices merely as agitation or politics, institutional trust will be further eroded. The path forward lies in a balance—dialogue, transparency, and independent inquiry. The nation expects institutions like IITs to produce not only engineers, scientists, and technical experts but also responsible citizens. Therefore, the yardstick for success cannot be limited to placements, rankings, patents, and global prestige; one must also consider how freely students can raise questions, how safe it is to disagree with a teacher, and how swiftly grievances are resolved. How an institution stands by a student during a crisis matters.

Reducing Sahil’s death to the actions of a single professor, a specific administrative decision, or a particular political organization would diminish the broader message of this tragedy. The real question is: how can our education system strike a balance between talent and empathy, discipline and dialogue, and authority and accountability? Students must learn to be honest, teachers must be sensitive, institutions must be transparent, and the government and regulatory bodies must create a system where the law serves as a means of protection rather than a source of fear. If India aims to make its higher education globally prestigious, merely climbing up world rankings will not suffice. Our universities must foster an environment where academic integrity is never compromised, yet the path to reform remains open for students who make mistakes; where the dignity of the teacher is safeguarded, but their power is not unchecked; and where student voices are heard, yet decisions are not driven solely by street-level pressure.

Educational institutions like IITs are centers of knowledge, dialogue, and character building; while it is crucial to prevent them from becoming political battlegrounds, it is equally important not to exempt them from accountability. The question is not why students are protesting or why politics is entering the fray; the bigger question is why such situations arise repeatedly. Unless an institutional answer to this question is found, the cycle of protests, inquiries, accusations, and punitive actions will continue after every new incident. The Indian education system must now move beyond this cycle and cultivate a culture that embodies discipline and justice, as well as excellence and humanity. Only then can we truly realize our resolve to build world-class educational institutions.