MUMBAI, September 21 — A second-year student of the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay died by suicide in his hostel room on Friday evening, only hours after he was found using a mobile phone during a mid-semester examination and allegedly uploading the question paper to the artificial-intelligence chatbot ChatGPT. The death of Sahil Ravindra Wakode has thrown the Powai campus into days of intense student protests, prompted a criminal investigation under the abetment and SC/ST Act provisions, and revived uncomfortable questions about academic pressure, mental-health support and institutional accountability at one of India’s premier engineering institutes.
Wakode, a BTech student in the Department of Energy Science and Engineering and a native of Yavatmal district in Maharashtra, was appearing for the examination on the morning of September 18 when invigilators noticed him using a smartphone without authorisation. According to the official statement released by IIT Bombay, he had uploaded the question paper to ChatGPT in an attempt to obtain answers. Faculty members, including the course instructor and the Head of the Department, spoke to him after the exam. The institute said he was counselled and given a clear assurance that the incident would not adversely affect his academic career. “No disciplinary action was initiated against the student,” the statement emphasised. Wakode then returned to his room in Hostel Number 4. Later that evening, when friends and hostel mates received no response to repeated calls and the door was found locked from inside, they forced it open and discovered him dead. Police confirmed that no suicide note was recovered from the room. An accidental death report was registered by Powai police and the body was sent for post-mortem examination.
The tragedy is the third reported student suicide at the IIT Bombay campus in roughly seven months. A second-year student died in a hostel in February, and another second-year BTech student died by suicide in July shortly after the new semester began. The successive deaths have sharpened scrutiny of the institute’s support systems and the high-pressure environment that characterises life at the IITs.
News of Wakode’s death spread rapidly across the campus on Friday night. Within hours, hundreds of students had gathered near the main administrative building and the campus gate. They raised slogans, held candlelight vigils and demanded answers about the precise sequence of events that followed the examination. Some students claimed that Wakode had been informed of possible disciplinary consequences, including the prospect of a one-year suspension that could have forced him to vacate hostel accommodation and delayed the completion of his degree. The institute has firmly rejected these accounts, insisting that only counselling took place and that no formal disciplinary process had been set in motion. Mid-semester examinations scheduled for the following days were postponed as the agitation continued through the weekend.
On Saturday, Wakode’s parents reached Mumbai and approached the police with a formal complaint. They alleged that their son had been subjected to institutional harassment and caste-based discrimination in the months leading up to his death. According to the complaint, he had told them of casteist remarks directed at him over a period of about three months. On the basis of the parents’ statement, Powai police registered a first information report under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with abetment of suicide, along with relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Professor Suryanarayan Doolla of the Energy Science and Engineering department, who was the invigilator during the examination and has previously served as Dean of Student Affairs, was named in the FIR. The complaint also made reference to other senior officials, including the director. The investigation was subsequently transferred to the Mumbai Crime Branch and is now being supervised at the Assistant Commissioner of Police level. No arrests have been reported so far.
IIT Bombay Director Professor Shireesh B. Kedare has publicly denied the allegations of caste discrimination. He stated that caste-related information about individual students is not available to faculty members or administrators in a manner that would permit targeted harassment, and that Wakode had not submitted any formal complaint to the institute’s SC/ST cell or to the administration prior to the incident. The institute has also reiterated that it is cooperating fully with the police investigation and has urged restraint from speculation while the probe is under way.
After three days of continuous sit-ins near the main gate, Director Kedare met the protesting students in a prolonged discussion. He eventually signed an 18-point charter of demands put forward by the students. The document includes a call for an independent investigation into the circumstances of Wakode’s death, with an interim report expected by September 30 and a final report by October 15. It also seeks upgrades to the student wellness centre, formal student representation on academic and disciplinary committees, an open-house meeting with senior administrators, and an official apology for what students described as the public “defamation” of the deceased. Action against the professor named in the FIR remains subject to due process, according to the understanding reached with the administration.
Viral videos circulating on social media appeared to show Kedare telling the assembled students that he would resign, with some clips referring to Monday as a possible date. As of Monday morning, however, there has been no official confirmation of any resignation from the institute, the Ministry of Education or Kedare himself. The IIT Bombay website continues to list him as Director. Students have indicated that their agitation will continue until they see concrete action and justice for Wakode.
The campus crisis has inevitably drawn comparisons with the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan earlier this year. On July 25, Pradhan stepped down amid weeks of nationwide student protests led largely by the Cockroach Janta Party over the NEET-UG paper-leak controversy and related examination irregularities. In a public letter addressed to the country’s youth, Pradhan said his decision was not a matter of personal prestige. He stated that he was stepping down to protect students’ futures, to prevent the situation from being exploited by what he called anti-national forces, to preserve national unity, and to allow young people to return their focus to studies rather than prolonged legal and political uncertainty. His resignation was accepted by the President, and the protests were called off after the government also agreed to compensation for families of students who had died by suicide in connection with the examination controversy.
While both episodes feature determined student mobilisation demanding accountability from education authorities, the scale and outcome differ markedly. Pradhan’s exit was a formal cabinet-level resignation that directly satisfied a core protest demand after sustained national agitation. At IIT Bombay the pressure remains institutional. The director has engaged with students, signed a detailed reform charter and faced public speculation about his position, yet no formal resignation has been announced or accepted. The underlying issues — examination integrity in the age of artificial intelligence, the mental-health burden on students, and the degree of trust between the student body and the administration — resonate across both cases and point to persistent challenges within India’s high-stakes education system.
IIT Bombay has expressed deep sorrow over the loss of the student and said it is extending support to his family, friends, classmates and faculty members affected by the tragedy. The Crime Branch investigation continues, and the independent inquiry demanded by the students is expected to examine both the immediate events of September 18 and the wider patterns of student welfare on the campus. As the Powai community mourns and presses for answers, the death of Sahil Wakode stands as a stark reminder of the human cost that can accompany the intense competitive pressures of India’s most selective academic institutions.