IIT Bombay Student Sahil Wakode Suicide Case: FIR Against Professor Doolla Under SC/ST Act
EduLaw EditorialLegal UpdatesAn examination incident at IIT Bombay has now become the subject of a police investigation following the death by suicide of second-year student Sahil Ravindra Wakode. What initially centred on an alleged violation of examination rules has since raised allegations of harassment and caste-based discrimination, resulting in an FIR naming Professor Suryanarayana Doolla. The case is significant from a legal perspective because the FIR invokes Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to abetment of suicide, along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, registration of an FIR records allegations and sets the investigative process in motion. It does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. Background of the Case Sahil Ravindra Wakode was a second-year B.Tech student in the Department of Energy Science and Engineering at IIT Bombay. According to reports, on September 18, 2026, he was allegedly found using a mobile phone during a mid-semester examination. Reports further state that the examination paper was allegedly uploaded to an AI platform to obtain answers. Professor Suryanarayana Doolla, who was associated with the examination as an invigilator and faculty member, subsequently became central to the controversy surrounding the incident. IIT Bombay initially stated that the student had been counselled following the examination incident and that no formal disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him. Later that day, Wakode was found dead in his hostel room on the IIT Bombay campus. His death led to protests by students and growing demands for an investigation into the circumstances preceding his death. FIR Against Professor Suryanarayana Doolla Following the student's death, Sahil's family approached the police with allegations of harassment and caste-based discrimination. On the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered naming Professor Suryanarayana Doolla along with other persons. The case includes Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which deals with abetment of suicide, as well as provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Reports have identified Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act among the provisions invoked in the complaint. The family has alleged that Sahil was subjected to caste-based remarks and harassment. These are allegations made in the complaint and have not been established by a court or conclusively proved through investigation. What Does Section 108 of the BNS Mean? Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita concerns abetment of suicide. The provision becomes relevant where the prosecution alleges that a person intentionally abetted another person's suicide. For criminal liability to ultimately arise, the prosecution would have to establish the ingredients of abetment through legally admissible evidence. The mere fact that a person interacted with, disciplined, counselled or was involved in an incident preceding a suicide does not automatically establish the offence of abetment. The investigation therefore becomes particularly important in determining the nature of the interactions between the student and the persons named in the FIR, the circumstances surrounding the examination incident, and whether the allegations satisfy the statutory requirements of the offence. Allegations Under the SC/ST Act The FIR also invokes provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The family's complaint reportedly alleges caste-based abuse and discrimination against Sahil. The SC/ST Act creates specific offences concerning caste-based humiliation, intimidation and other forms of prohibited conduct when the statutory requirements are satisfied. The applicability of a particular provision depends upon the facts alleged and the evidence ultimately collected during investigation. IIT Bombay has denied allegations of caste discrimination and has stated that Sahil had not made a formal complaint to the institute or its SC/ST Cell concerning such discrimination. The competing accounts are now part of the investigation. Investigation and Institutional Response The investigation into the case was subsequently transferred to the Mumbai Crime Branch. This places the factual circumstances surrounding Sahil's death, the examination incident and the allegations made by his family within the scope of the formal investigation. Amid student protests, IIT Bombay also announced administrative action concerning Professor Doolla. The institute suspended him from his administrative position while indicating that further action would depend upon the investigation. At the same time, IIT Bombay issued an apology concerning aspects of its earlier communication about the circumstances preceding Sahil's death, stating that those details remained subject to investigation. Legal Significance of the Case The case highlights the distinction between an allegation contained in an FIR and criminal guilt established through evidence and judicial proceedings. The FIR provides the police with the basis to investigate the allegations. The investigation may involve examination of witnesses, examination records, communications, institutional records and the circumstances surrounding the student's death. Whether the alleged conduct amounts to abetment of suicide or attracts provisions of the SC/ST Act will ultimately depend upon the evidence and the applicable legal standards. The examination incident itself also remains an important factual component of the investigation. While IIT Bombay has maintained that no formal disciplinary proceedings had commenced against Sahil, reports indicate that students and the family have raised questions about how the incident was handled. Conclusion The death of Sahil Ravindra Wakode has raised serious questions concerning examination procedures, student welfare, allegations of caste-based discrimination and the legal threshold for establishing abetment of suicide. Professor Suryanarayana Doolla has been named in an FIR based on the allegations made by Sahil's family, but those allegations have not been established as facts by a court. With the investigation now examining the circumstances surrounding the examination incident and Sahil's death, the eventual legal position will depend upon the evidence collected and the findings of the investigating authorities. Until then, the FIR should be understood as the beginning of the criminal investigation rather than a determination of guilt.