*Case study (GS-IV):* After a student's death, your institute publicly attributes it to misconduct before any investigation, and students protest. As Director, what ethical issues arise and what steps would you take?

In the 2026 Sahil Wakode case, IIT-Bombay publicly linked a Dalit student's suicide to exam cheating and later apologised for doing so before any investigation [1]. A statement like that fails on fairness, compassion and accountability. As Director, I must restore trust while protecting due process for everyone involved.

Stakeholders: the bereaved family, protesting students, accused faculty, investigators, the institute's reputation and SC/ST students more broadly.

Ethical issues involved

• Dignity after death: labelling the student a wrongdoer before any probe denies the family's grief and the student's reputation.
• Prejudging the investigation: a public characterisation can influence the police case [1].
• Empathy vs. image management: the institute put its reputation ahead of compassion.
• Social justice: caste discrimination is alleged. Equal Opportunity Cells and SC/ST grievance committees act only on complaints [2], so "no complaint" does not prove "no discrimination".
• Fairness to the accused: faculty too deserve a presumption of innocence and should not be scapegoated.
• Trust deficit: the protests show that students have no voice in how the institute is governed.

Steps as Director

Immediate

• Withdraw the statement, apologise unconditionally and own the communication lapse personally.
• Meet the family; hold an open house with all stakeholders [1]; provide counselling to affected students.
• Cooperate fully with the police and preserve all records.

Medium-term

• Set up a time-bound inquiry that includes external members and SC/ST representation, and publish its findings.
• Accept the students' reasonable demands, including a faculty code of conduct and student representation in committees [1]. Publish an action-taken report.
• Take proportionate interim measures against the accused faculty without presuming guilt.

Long-term

• Separate discipline from welfare: every malpractice case should involve a counsellor the same day.
• Move from complaint-based cells to proactive equity: anonymous reporting channels, campus-climate surveys and faculty sensitisation.
• Align student-wellbeing measures with the Supreme Court-appointed National Task Force on student mental health [3].
• Adopt a communication protocol: no public statement on the cause of a death while an inquiry is pending.

Taken together, these steps replace defensiveness with truth-seeking, empathy and due process. Guided by Article 21's guarantee of dignity and Article 17's promise of equality, an institute of excellence must also be an institute of empathy where every student belongs.