IIT Bombay Sets Up a Probe Panel After a Student's Death: What an Institution Owes Students When It Disciplines Them

Discipline and Care Must Both Be Built Into the Process

Imagine you are the official who must act when a student is suspected of breaking exam rules. In the exam hall are 60 other students who followed the rules. They are owed a fair exam and ignoring malpractice would be unfair to them.

In front of you is one young person who may be frightened, ashamed and alone. They are owed dignity and care. You cannot choose only one of these obligations. What you can decide is how you act on both. The easy answer would be that compassion means going easy on the student. But that would fail everyone who followed the rules and would weaken academic integrity.

The other easy answer would be that rules are rules and the procedure is complete once the violation is recorded. But a procedure that treats a student only as a rule-breaker and not as a person at a vulnerable moment, fails the institution's duty of care.

What Duty of Care Requires in Practice

The resolution is to design a procedure that protects integrity and the student together:

• Privacy: Deal with suspected malpractice discreetly, not in front of other students.
• Due process: Record the facts, give the student a clear chance to respond and explain the next steps and timeline.
• A welfare step built in: When a disciplinary process begins, a counsellor or mentor should check on the student the same day. This should be a required step, not something left to discretion.
• Clear rules for new technology: Rules on AI use in exams need to be clear and communicated in advance, so students know the boundaries and the consequences. This is the idea of procedural justice: a fair and humane process matters alongside the final decision.

Evaluating the Institution's Response

The circumstances of this death are still under investigation and deaths by suicide are complex and rarely have a single cause. The institution's response can still be assessed on its own terms:

• The 10-member Board committee: A serious step. Its credibility will depend on its independence and on whether its findings are published.
• The faculty member sent on leave and removed as dean: This supports an unbiased probe. But the removal as dean came after protests and the professor is also entitled to due process. Accountability should not become a search for someone to blame.
• The transfer to the Crime Branch: It signals that the case is being treated seriously and gives more distance from local pressures. These steps respond to what has happened. The more important work is preventive: changing how every campus handles the moment of discipline.

The Resolution

I would recommend that institutions keep academic integrity firm but require every disciplinary step to include dignity, due process and a welfare check. This has a cost. Procedures become slower, some violations take longer to resolve and faculty need training. That cost is worth paying, because an institution that follows its rules but neglects the student's welfare has not met its responsibilities.

For the exam: Present duty of care and academic integrity as values to be reconciled through fair procedure, not as opposites. If you or someone you know is struggling, support is available: Tele-MANAS 14416 | Sneha 044-24640050.