Skip to content
Culture & Society · 8 min read

Did caste discrimination contribute to IIT Bombay student Sahil Wakode’s death?

Sahil Wakode’s parents allege that he faced casteist remarks and harassment. Some students have demanded accountability and systemic reform, while others say they saw no caste discrimination and point instead to academic and exam-related stress. What can responsibly be concluded before the investigation is complete?

What happened?

Sahil Wakode, a second-year BTech student at IIT Bombay, died by suicide on 18 September 2026, hours after an incident during a mid-semester examination in which he was accused of using a mobile phone and an AI tool. His parents subsequently alleged that he had been subjected to casteist remarks and harassment and filed a police complaint. An FIR named Professor Suryanarayana Doolla and invoked provisions relating to abetment of suicide and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. IIT Bombay initially issued an account focusing on the examination incident, but later apologised for characterising events before they had been established through investigation. Professor Doolla was removed from his deanship pending investigation, while remaining a faculty member.

There are two questions that should not be collapsed into one. First: did Sahil experience caste discrimination at IIT Bombay? Second: if discrimination occurred, did it contribute to his death? The parents’ allegations, student testimony, examination incident and institutional record all matter, but none by itself establishes the full causal story. The police investigation is ongoing.

Supporting

The family’s allegation cannot be dismissed simply because other pressures existed.

Sahil’s parents say he had spoken to them about casteist remarks and harassment before his death. Students protesting after his death also raised concerns about discrimination, faculty conduct and institutional support. Academic stress or the examination incident does not rule out caste discrimination; several pressures can exist at the same time.

His parents say the problem started before the exam

Sahil’s parents allege that he had faced caste-based remarks and mental harassment before the examination incident. They later expressed regret that they had advised him to ignore the alleged casteist remarks. If accurate, this would mean the exam incident was not the beginning of his distress.

The key question: What did Sahil tell his family before 18 September, and can those accounts be corroborated by messages, witnesses or other evidence?
Parents regret telling Sahil to ‘ignore casteist remarks’

Protesting students submitted a broad charter of demands including an independent investigation, student participation, action against officials found responsible, faculty sensitisation and reforms to student-support systems. Student representatives later clarified that temporarily relieving Professor Doolla of administrative duties was intended as a precaution rather than a declaration of guilt.

The distinction: Demanding an investigation into caste discrimination is not the same as declaring that the allegation has already been proved.
Student representatives demand systemic reformsIIT Bombay students split over professor’s fate

IIT Bombay initially noted that Sahil had not filed a caste-discrimination complaint with the SC/ST Cell or administration. But students may hesitate to formally report discrimination because of fear, uncertainty or power differences. The absence of a complaint is relevant evidence, but it cannot by itself establish that no discrimination occurred.

The practical question: Should 'no formal complaint' be evidence to consider, or proof that the alleged conduct never happened?
IIT Bombay student dies by suicide, parents allege caste bias

After protests, IIT Bombay apologised for its earlier communication about the circumstances preceding Sahil’s death. The institute said it had been inappropriate to characterise those events before they were established through the proper investigative process.

The principle: When causation is disputed, institutions should investigate competing explanations rather than announce one prematurely.
IIT-Bombay apologises, removes professor named in student suicide as dean
Opposing

A serious allegation still needs evidence linking it to what happened.

Some students and a close friend have said they did not observe Sahil experiencing caste discrimination and have pointed to academic pressure and the examination incident as important immediate context. Professor Doolla also had a documented record of circulating anti-caste-discrimination guidelines. An allegation serious enough to affect a person’s reputation and trigger criminal proceedings must be tested against evidence.

Some students reject the caste explanation

Students interviewed after Sahil’s death said there was no consensus on campus that caste discrimination caused it. Some said they had not witnessed casteist treatment toward him. A close friend reportedly said Sahil spoke after the examination incident about having made a mistake and about another paper not going well, without mentioning a caste-related incident in that conversation.

The limitation: These accounts do not disprove what Sahil may have told his family, but they show that people around him did not all understand his distress in the same way.
Students point to academic stress, reject casteism angleWhat Sahil Wakode told his friend hours before death

Hours before his death, Sahil was accused of using his phone during a mid-semester examination. Reports say CCTV footage showed him looking at the phone. That provides investigators with a concrete event immediately preceding his death that must be examined alongside the family’s allegations.

The practical question: How much weight should investigators give to the immediate examination incident compared with allegations of longer-term harassment?
What Sahil Wakode told his friend hours before deathProfessor Doolla’s 2024 email shows he warned students against caste discrimination

In 2024, when he was Dean of Student Affairs, Professor Doolla circulated IIT Bombay’s anti-discrimination guidelines. The email told students, staff and faculty that asking about admission category, JEE or GATE ranks, or other information that could reveal caste was inappropriate because it could create conscious or subconscious bias and set the stage for discrimination.

The complication: The email does not prove that Professor Doolla could not later have discriminated against someone, but it is relevant evidence when evaluating the allegation and his prior institutional conduct.
Professor Doolla’s 2024 email shows he warned students against caste discrimination

Faculty groups at IIT Bombay and IIT Madras publicly defended Professor Doolla. Student representatives themselves later said their demand to relieve him of administrative duties was precautionary and that they supported his right to a fair and impartial inquiry.

The principle: Protecting students during an investigation and protecting an accused person’s right to due process are not mutually exclusive.
IIT Bombay students split over professor’s fateIIT Bombay faculty rallies behind Professor DoollaIIT Bombay, IIT Madras faculty defend professor in student suicide row

So what is the real disagreement?

The strongest versions of the two positions do not require choosing between 'caste discrimination definitely caused the death' and 'caste had nothing to do with it.'

The supporting side says the parents’ account and concerns raised by students are serious enough that caste discrimination must be investigated as a central possibility. Academic pressure or an exam incident does not exclude earlier harassment.

The opposing side says the seriousness of an allegation makes careful evidence more important, not less. Testimony from other students, the immediate exam incident, the professor’s prior anti-discrimination email and the absence of a formal complaint must also be considered before assigning responsibility.

The real question is whether investigators can establish what Sahil experienced before his death, who knew about it, and whether any alleged caste-based conduct can be connected to his distress—without either dismissing the family’s allegations or treating them as already proved.

What would each piece of evidence actually tell us?

Different facts answer different questions. Separating them helps avoid turning evidence into conclusions it cannot support.

Messages from Sahil written before the exam describing specific casteist remarks or harassment
Independent witnesses corroborating specific casteist remarks made to Sahil
Sahil telling his parents about caste discrimination before his death
Friends saying they personally never witnessed caste discrimination against him
Evidence that Sahil was distressed about the examination incident
Evidence of caste discrimination elsewhere at IIT Bombay
Professor Doolla’s earlier email warning the campus against questions that could reveal caste
Assuming either guilt or innocence primarily from the caste identities of the people involved

Evidence can establish that discrimination occurred, that a student was distressed, or that an institution had wider problems. Establishing that a specific act caused or contributed to a death requires connecting those pieces rather than treating any single one as the whole explanation.

Where do you stand?

Based on what is publicly known so far, what is the most reasonable position?

Log in to vote. You will see how others split after you do.

Sources

Arguments cite these pieces. Open them when you want the underlying reporting or law.

Context · The Indian Express · 2026

IIT Bombay faculty rallies behind Professor Doolla

Reports IIT Bombay faculty members’ public support for Professor Doolla while the allegations are investigated.

Read source →
Context · The Indian Express · 2026

IIT Bombay student dies by suicide, parents allege caste bias

Reports the family’s allegations and IIT Bombay’s initial statement that Sahil had not submitted a caste-discrimination complaint.

Read source →
Context · The Indian Express · 2026

IIT Bombay students split over professor’s fate

Reports divisions among students and clarification that temporary administrative removal was precautionary, not a presumption of guilt.

Read source →
Context · NDTV · 2026

IIT Bombay, IIT Madras faculty defend professor in student suicide row

Reports faculty support for Professor Doolla, including from the IIT Madras Faculty Association.

Read source →
Context · The Indian Express · 2026

IIT-Bombay apologises, removes professor named in student suicide as dean

Reports IIT Bombay’s apology for prematurely characterising events and Professor Doolla’s removal from the deanship pending investigation.

Read source →
Context · The Indian Express · 2026

Parents regret telling Sahil to ‘ignore casteist remarks’

Reports Sahil’s parents’ allegations that he had spoken about casteist treatment before his death.

Read source →
Context · The Indian Express · 2026

Professor Doolla’s 2024 email shows he warned students against caste discrimination

Reports Doolla’s 2024 email warning students, staff and faculty against questions that could reveal caste and facilitate bias.

Read source →
Context · Mint · 2026

Student representatives demand systemic reforms

Reports student representatives’ demands for an inquiry and institutional reforms.

Read source →
Context · The Times of India · 2026

Students point to academic stress, reject casteism angle

Reports students who said they had not witnessed caste discrimination against Sahil and pointed to academic pressure.

Read source →
Context · The Week · 2026

What Sahil Wakode told his friend hours before death

Reports a friend’s account that Sahil spoke about the exam incident and academic concerns without mentioning a caste-related insult in that conversation.

Read source →