The recent student suicide at IIT-Bombay has raised difficult questions about academic discipline, student responsibility, teacher accountability and the role of educational institutions. Reports indicate the student was caught using a mobile phone during an exam and faced disciplinary proceedings. Following the tragedy, questions arose regarding the teacher’s conduct, leading to removal from an administrative position pending investigation.
While generating immense sympathy for the family, this incident presents a critical dilemma: when a student takes an extreme step after a disciplinary event, why is the teacher who enforced the rules so rapidly held responsible?
A fundamental distinction must be drawn between sequence and causation. Connecting two events in time does not mean the first caused the second. A decision to take one’s life involves complex personal, academic, emotional and social factors. Unless an investigation demonstrates a direct connection between the teacher’s conduct and the student’s death, concluding that the teacher was responsible is premature. Public reactions are often driven by emotion, but establishing responsibility requires concrete evidence.
There is also the fundamental matter of student responsibility. Educational institutions rely on rules, and examinations require academic integrity. If a student uses unauthorised material or technology during an exam, the institution has a clear duty to act. A teacher who detects misconduct cannot simply ignore it. If educators cease enforcing rules out of fear of extreme consequences, the integrity of the examination system collapses, creating an unfair environment for students who prepare honestly.
This does not give teachers unlimited authority. Rules must be enforced professionally and respectfully, without humiliation, intimidation or discrimination. There is a vital difference between informing a student that an action was wrong and making them feel worthless. A teacher must convey that misconduct has consequences while reassuring the student that a single mistake does not define their entire life or career.
A broader issue arises when society moves from asking if a teacher acted improperly to assuming they caused the tragedy. Teachers are the visible representatives of authority who directly intervene, report misconduct and initiate discipline. Consequently, they become associated with the incident, even if they are merely applying institutional rules. It becomes easy for the public to conflate the person enforcing a rule with the entity responsible for everything that follows.
This places educators in a precarious position. Teachers are expected to enforce discipline, conduct exams, evaluate performance, counsel students, manage administration and spot emotional distress. Yet, most are not trained mental health professionals. While a teacher might notice anxiety, expecting them to understand a student’s full personal life or predict their response to an academic setback is unrealistic. If institutions expect teachers to support student welfare, they must provide qualified counsellors, professional psychological resources and clear referral pathways.
Similarly, suspending a teacher during an inquiry should not be reflexively viewed by society as proof of guilt. Administrative steps and formal findings of responsibility are distinct. An investigation exists to establish facts, verify whether procedures were followed, determine if improper treatment occurred and assess whether a direct link exists between individual actions and the tragedy. These questions must be resolved through evidence, not public pressure.
At the same time, student welfare cannot be overlooked. Students face immense academic and social pressures. Disciplinary systems must, therefore, be firm yet humane. While academic dishonesty must have consequences, proceedings should not destroy a student’s dignity or sense of a future. The objective of discipline should be correction and development, not pure punishment. A student who commits an offence must understand that the behaviour was wrong, not that they are beyond redemption.
The IIT-Bombay incident offers an opportunity to rethink the relationship between discipline and compassion in higher education. Academic standards cannot be sustained if teachers fear enforcing rules. Equally, teachers must communicate disciplinary matters with sensitivity, and institutions must supply robust support systems. Responsibility should be distributed appropriately among the student, teacher and institution rather than automatically placed on the most visible individual.
Accountability must rest entirely on evidence. A student can be responsible for academic misconduct, a teacher for inappropriate conduct if proven, and an institution for failing to provide adequate support mechanisms. These realities can coexist. What must be avoided is the presumption that because a teacher took disciplinary action and a tragedy followed, the teacher is inherently the cause of that tragedy.
Teachers must be able to tell a student, “What you have done is wrong,” without the society assuming they said, “You are a failure.” Students must recognise that being caught making a mistake does not mean their future is over. Institutions, meanwhile, must build environments where academic integrity, human dignity and mental health support function together. The focus should not merely be on finding someone to blame, but on asking how institutions can maintain discipline while offering students who make mistakes a clear pathway to learn, recover and move forward.
Ultimately, a teacher may be responsible for an action without being responsible for every consequence that follows it. That distinction is essential in education. If teachers are expected to enforce rules, they require institutional authority and protection. If students are expected to follow rules, they must be held accountable. And if institutions care about welfare, they must establish professional support systems rather than shifting the burden onto individual teachers. A fair system must protect students without turning teachers into automatic scapegoats, holding educators accountable only when facts are genuinely established.
(Vasant Pednekar is Research Scholar- Goa University and
Assistant Professor at DM’s College, Assagao-Goa.)
