140 DETAINED AS MUMBAI CRACKS DOWN ON PROTESTS DEMANDING JUSTICE FOR IIT BOMBAY STUDENT SAHIL WAKODE

October 26, 2026

Mumbai Police detained around 140 people on Sunday during two unauthorised gatherings in Dadar, including a candlelight march demanding justice for Sahil Wakode, the IIT Bombay student who died by suicide last month amid allegations of caste-based discrimination and harassment. The police action, which included the detention of stand-up comedian Masoom Rajwani, has brought renewed attention to the continuing protests over Wakode’s death and the demands for accountability from the institute and investigating authorities.

According to a police official, approximately 120 people who assembled at Shivaji Park for an “Adivasi Gen Z” protest were taken to a local police station. Separately, between 20 and 25 people gathered at Chaityabhoomi in Dadar for a candlelight march in memory of Wakode were detained. Police said the gatherings lacked the necessary permissions and that precautionary measures had been taken to maintain law and order.

Chaityabhoomi, the cremation site of Dr B. R. Ambedkar, holds considerable historical and symbolic significance. The decision to organise a candlelight march there placed the protest within a wider public appeal for justice, equality and an end to caste discrimination. The demonstrators sought to keep attention focused on Wakode’s death and the questions surrounding the treatment of students from marginalised communities in higher educational institutions.

The police official said that procedures for completing formalities and releasing those detained were under way. The authorities have not, in the reported account, indicated that the detentions resulted in criminal convictions or established wrongdoing by the participants. The immediate police justification centred on the lack of permission for the gatherings and the need to prevent disturbances.

Wakode, a second-year student at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, was found hanging in his hostel room on September 18. His death occurred hours after he was allegedly caught using a mobile phone during a mid-semester examination. The circumstances surrounding the incident have become the focus of a criminal investigation and sustained protests by students and supporters of his family.

Wakode’s parents and student groups have alleged that he faced caste-based discrimination and mental harassment. His father lodged a complaint naming Professor Suryanarayana Doolla, and the case includes allegations of abetment to suicide and offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. These allegations remain subject to investigation. The professor has denied the accusations, and responsibility for Wakode’s death has not been established by a court.

The Mumbai Crime Branch is investigating the case and has recorded statements from more than 40 people, according to reports. The inquiry is examining the circumstances leading to the student’s death, including interactions with institute personnel and events following the examination incident. The investigation’s findings will be central to determining whether any criminal conduct occurred.

The continuing demonstrations reflect concerns that extend beyond the circumstances of a single student’s death. Protesters have called for an independent and credible investigation, greater transparency from the institute, and institutional measures to address discrimination and student welfare. Some have questioned the independence of the internal inquiry committee, arguing that an investigation involving allegations against institute personnel should be free from any appearance of institutional conflict.

The dispute has placed IIT Bombay under pressure to explain how it is addressing the case and whether existing procedures adequately protect students who experience academic stress, discrimination or other forms of mistreatment. The institute’s internal review and the police investigation serve different purposes, but both face expectations of impartiality, transparency and accountability.

The police action on Sunday also adds to the tensions surrounding the protests. Earlier demonstrations connected with Wakode’s death had resulted in detentions on and around the IIT Bombay campus, with students raising concerns about how the authorities handled peaceful gatherings. Protesters and the family have continued to demand answers, while institutional figures have warned that prolonged disruptions could affect the academic environment and the wider student community.

The latest detentions raise questions about the balance between public-order regulations and the ability of citizens to gather peacefully to express grief, solidarity and demands for justice. Police authorities are responsible for maintaining public safety and enforcing applicable rules governing demonstrations. At the same time, decisions to restrict or disperse gatherings can attract public scrutiny, particularly when the protests concern an unresolved death and allegations of discrimination.

The two gatherings on Sunday were distinct: one was described by police as an “Adivasi Gen Z” protest at Shivaji Park, while the other was a candlelight march at Chaityabhoomi in memory of Wakode. Although both resulted in detentions, the reported information does not establish that every participant was involved in the same activity or shared identical demands.

For Wakode’s family, the central issue remains the need for a clear account of what happened to their son and whether any individual or institutional failure contributed to his death. For student groups, the case has become a focal point for demands concerning caste equality, fair disciplinary procedures and mental well-being on university campuses. Their concerns require examination through evidence, independent scrutiny and meaningful engagement by the relevant authorities.

The case also underlines the importance of ensuring that allegations of caste discrimination are investigated seriously and fairly. Educational institutions must maintain procedures through which students can raise complaints without fear, while disciplinary systems should operate transparently and in accordance with established rules. Where criminal allegations arise, the police must investigate them independently of institutional interests.

Sunday’s developments have therefore brought two issues into sharper focus: the unresolved investigation into Wakode’s death and the state’s handling of demonstrations demanding accountability. The detention of around 140 people has temporarily interrupted the gatherings, but it does not resolve the questions that brought protesters to the streets.

The lasting significance of the case will depend on whether the investigation establishes the facts, whether allegations of misconduct are addressed through due process, and whether the institutions concerned take appropriate steps in response to any failures that are proven. Until then, the demands for justice surrounding Sahil Wakode’s death—and the questions about how such protests should be handled—will remain central to the continuing public debate.