IIT Bombay’s New Exam Protocol Gives Students a Fair Hearing and Counsellor Support

IIT Bombay’s interim procedure separates the exam from the disciplinary decision. When an invigilator finds a phone or other unauthorised material, the material is confiscated and the incident is recorded on a prescribed form. The student then continues the paper with a fresh answer booklet. This matters because the invigilator no longer decides the penalty in the exam hall.

After the exam, the student may record their own version separately, with additional staff present. This account is optional. The case then goes to the Departmental Disciplinary Action Committee, or DDAC, which considers what the incident means. The student is not required to explain if they prefer not to.

The procedure also adds immediate welfare support. When the student leaves the hall, the Quick Response Team of counsellors should be alerted. The interim approach followed the Senate’s October review and was used for the postponed mid-semester exams held on 10 and 11 October. Final guidelines are still pending.

The Departmental Disciplinary Action Committee, or DDAC, is the body that receives the documented exam incident and decides its disciplinary meaning. The source does not specify its membership, but it makes clear that the committee replaces an immediate invigilator decision. That creates a separate stage for judging the allegation.

For example, an invigilator who finds a phone confiscates it and completes a prescribed incident form. The student continues the exam with a fresh answer booklet. Afterward, the student can submit a separate account in front of additional staff, although completing that form is not compulsory. The DDAC then considers the case rather than the invigilator deciding in the hall.

This arrangement matters because evidence may be unclear and the 2015 framework gave students the benefit of the doubt in such cases. It also reduces pressure during an unfinished exam. IIT Bombay’s final guidelines may change after Senate members review the interim recommendations.

The difference between the July 2026 framework and the April 2015 framework was substantial. Under the July rules, carrying a phone into an examination could attract an FR grade, meaning fail and repeat, plus suspension for a semester. The rules covered phones, tablets, and smartwatches. They were therefore much stricter than the older framework for possession alone.

Under the 2015 rules, carrying a phone attracted a one-grade reduction. Using the phone could result in an FR grade. Suspension was mainly reserved for mass copying, repeat violations, and impersonation. When evidence was unclear, the benefit of the doubt went to the student. These differences show why the penalty framework became central to the review.

For the mid-semester exams held on 10 and 11 October, the Senate temporarily set aside the July rules and returned to the 2015 framework. The October procedure also moved decision-making away from the exam hall. A final disciplinary framework will follow after further Senate consideration.

The interim process begins with the student remaining in the exam. The invigilator confiscates the unauthorised material, records the incident on a prescribed form, and provides a fresh answer booklet. This lets the student complete the unfinished paper while preventing the disputed material from remaining in use.

After the paper, the student can record their own version of events separately, in the presence of additional staff. The form is optional, so the student may explain what happened or decline to do so. The invigilator’s role ends with documentation. The Departmental Disciplinary Action Committee then considers the incident and decides its significance.

The welfare step follows as the student leaves. The institute’s Quick Response Team, made up of counsellors, should be alerted so the student does not walk out alone after the accusation. Faculty who suspect cheating or notice exam-stress signs must also alert the QRT. The procedure is interim, and final guidelines are still to come.

IIT Bombay’s review began after Sahil Ravindra Wakode, a second-year BTech student in Energy Science and Engineering, died by suicide on 18 September. He had allegedly been caught using a mobile phone and Axiom during a mid-semester exam. His parents said he faced caste-based discrimination. The incident brought intense attention to how exam accusations were handled.

Campus protests followed. In response, the institute formed an eight-member committee with four faculty members and four students. The committee examined how misconduct is recorded, who decides the outcome, and what support a student receives after an accusation. It presented an interim report at a special Senate meeting on 7 October.

Protesting students had demanded changes to disciplinary and welfare systems. The Senate then paused the harshest July 2026 penalties and backed an interim procedure. Students could finish exams, give their side later, and receive counsellor support. The recommendations remain provisional, with a final set of guidelines still expected.

Students facing distress after an exam accusation have support options beyond IIT Bombay’s Quick Response Team. The article mentions peer counselling at IIT Madras and informal Listening Circles as gentler ways for students to begin speaking about what they are experiencing. These options place conversation and connection alongside formal disciplinary processes.

The government’s Tele-MANAS helpline is another route. Students can call 14416 at any hour for free support in English and 20 regional languages. Its counsellors can refer callers to a specialist if needed. This creates a support pathway that is available beyond one campus and beyond ordinary office hours.

Tele-MANAS was launched in October 2022 and had received over 10 lakh calls by 29 May 2024, according to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. IIT Bombay’s QRT alert adds immediate campus support when a student leaves the exam hall. The institute’s final guidelines may further define how mentors and wellness advisers help accused students.

Separating documentation from judgment makes the process more careful. An invigilator can record what was found without deciding the student’s penalty while the exam is still underway. The case can then be reviewed by the DDAC, with the student’s account considered separately. This matters especially when evidence is unclear, because the 2015 framework gave the benefit of the doubt to the student.

The IIT Bombay procedure illustrates the mechanism. A phone or other unauthorised material is confiscated and listed on a prescribed form. The student receives a fresh booklet and finishes the paper. Afterward, the student may submit an account in front of additional staff, but is not forced to do so. The invigilator’s role ends at documentation.

Support is part of fairness because an accusation can create immediate stress. The QRT is alerted when the student leaves, so they do not walk out alone. A joint committee is also drafting procedures for mentors and wellness advisers. Final guidelines will determine the lasting system.