Sahil Wakode death: Parents demand arrest of IIT Bombay professors as student groups protest at Azad Maidan

Activist groups and student organisations protested at Mumbai’s Azad Maidan on October 16, 2026. They supported Sahil Wakode’s family, which has demanded action after his death on September 18. The protest matters because it links the case to concerns about alleged student harassment, caste discrimination, and delays in accountability.

The protesters demanded the arrest of Professor Suryanarayana Doolla and IIT Bombay Director Shireesh B. Kedare. They also sought a transparent investigation into Sahil’s death and stronger protections against caste discrimination. His father, Ravindra Wakode, said he would continue protesting until action was taken.

The family planned to gather outside IIT Bombay at noon on October 18, one month after Sahil’s death. Police permission had been requested but was still awaited. Protesters also questioned delays in the police and internal inquiries and warned that agitation would continue until justice was delivered.

The two professors named in the FIR are Suryanarayana Doolla, Professor of Energy Science and Engineering, and Shireesh B. Kedare, Director of IIT Bombay. Their names matter because Sahil Wakode’s family and supporters are demanding that both be arrested and investigated in connection with his death.

The article says the professors were accused of harassing Sahil before he died on September 18. The FIR was registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. The family’s advocate also questioned what happened during the six or seven hours before Sahil returned to his room.

No court finding or completed investigation is reported. Protesters say the delay is unacceptable. They also fear evidence could be tampered with or witnesses influenced, especially because Doolla reportedly remained a professor after losing an administrative position.

These provisions cover two connected issues in the FIR: alleged encouragement or assistance linked to a suicide, and alleged caste-based humiliation. Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita concerns abetment of suicide. The article describes it as non-bailable and carrying punishment of up to 10 years, making it a serious allegation.

Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act address caste-based abuse. Section 3(1)(r) covers intentional insult or intimidation intended to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in public view. Section 3(1)(s) covers abusing such a person by caste name in public view. These are allegations requiring investigation and proof.

The FIR combines these provisions because the family alleges both harassment connected to Sahil’s death and caste discrimination. The article reports that police investigation is continuing. It does not report a final finding, arrest, charge-sheet, or court judgment against either professor.

Sahil Wakode’s family had been protesting for 15 days when the Azad Maidan demonstration was reported on October 16, 2026. His father, Ravindra Wakode, said the protest would continue until the authorities took action. The duration shows that the family’s demand for accountability had become an ongoing public campaign.

Sahil died on September 18, 2026. The report appeared on October 16, so the elapsed period was 28 days, or nearly one month. Ravindra said the family would gather outside IIT Bombay at noon on October 18 to pay tribute to Sahil, marking one month since his death.

The article presents this timing alongside continuing delays in the police and internal inquiries. The family said it had not received a satisfactory explanation for the lack of arrests. Permission for the October 18 gathering had been requested, but approval was still awaited.

A delayed investigation can make it harder to establish what happened and who was responsible. Memories may become less precise, records may be harder to obtain, and disputed events may remain unclear. In an alleged abetment-of-suicide and caste-discrimination case, delay also deepens the family’s uncertainty and can weaken confidence in the process.

The family’s advocate, Siddharth Ingle, alleged that evidence could be tampered with and witnesses influenced. He questioned whether Doolla was still living on campus and why police called him to record a statement nearly 20 days after the incident. Ingle also sought answers about six to seven hours after an alleged video of Sahil surfaced.

The article does not establish that evidence was tampered with or witnesses influenced. It reports these as concerns raised by the family. Police said the investigation was underway, while protesters demanded arrests, explanations for the delay, and a fair investigation.

Activists compared Sahil Wakode’s case with the deaths of Rohith Vemula, Payal Tadvi, and Aniket Ambhore because they see a repeated pattern of students from marginalised communities facing serious institutional concerns. The comparison broadens the issue beyond one family and frames the protest as a demand for accountability and protection.

Ambedkarite activist Sandeep Khambe named all three people while demanding action in Sahil’s case. He said the truth should emerge through investigation, but action must begin first. He asked, “How many more Sahils must we lose? How many more Rohith Vemulas must we lose?”

The article does not provide detailed accounts of those three deaths or establish that their circumstances were identical. It reports that activists drew the comparison to express a wider fear of recurring injustice. Khambe told Sahil’s parents that students and the Ambedkarite movement stood with them.

Institutional discrimination means unfair treatment built into an organisation’s practices, decisions, or culture rather than limited to one person’s conduct. It matters because students may face repeated barriers, humiliation, or unequal treatment while the institution fails to respond. In Sahil’s case, activists connected alleged harassment with broader concerns about caste discrimination at IIT Bombay.

The law provides a route for investigating alleged caste-based insults, intimidation, or abuse, while Section 108 addresses alleged abetment of suicide. A campus inquiry should examine complaints, preserve evidence, hear those involved, and recommend action. Anti-discrimination safeguards should also prevent questions or conduct that expose students to caste-based treatment. The article says IIT Bombay reiterated 2023 guidelines discouraging questions about JEE or GATE scores and admission categories.

Arya Wankhede argued that caste can still be identified through surnames, language, and social backgrounds. The article reports continuing police and internal investigations, alongside demands for transparency and stronger safeguards. It does not report their final conclusions.