Topical: Student Protests (24/08/2026)

---

In an uprising unlike any seen in IITD in years, the student community has erupted into a large-scale protest in recognition of the suicide of Rishikesh Kumar, who was a second-year masters’ student pursuing an M.Sc. in the Physics Department. 

In this topical, we take you through Rishikesh’s story as narrated by his peers, following which we summarise the events that occurred on campus on the 24th of August, 2026.

Rishikesh’s story: as told by his peers in protests

While Rishikesh was a brilliant student throughout his first semester, serving as the Class Representative of his batch, securing a brilliant SGPA and being awarded “Best Fresher” amongst his classmates, his struggles began in the second semester.

Around 12th March after Holi, his mental health issues began and he underwent treatment for the same. After a month, however, Rishikesh had recovered and received medical clearance from an external hospital.

Unfortunately, he faced tremendous administrative issues at the institute, according to his peers. As described by them, his request for semester withdrawal got rejected due to lack of a medical certificate from IIT Hospital, which was allegedly not communicated beforehand. Eventually, he returned home with his mother for the semester.

When he returned to campus for his 3rd semester in late July, he tried to secure a hostel. While his name was initially included in the list of students in Shivalik, he found that he was not allotted a room. He and his mother tried to secure a room in other hostels. They tried to get a place in the New Vindhyachal Apartments, but despite the caretakers’ confirmation that rooms were available, he was not allotted one. His avoidable physical isolation from the institute was said to be the strongest reason for the mental deterioration that followed.

Shockingly, they were often turned down by insensitive comments from staff and administrative members. Comments like “aise baccho ko hum nahi rakh sakte” (we cannot keep kids like him), “aap se ek baccha nahi sambhala ja raha” (you can’t even handle one kid) were explicitly flagged by his peers.

Following this, and after more struggles in finalising his semester redo, Rishikesh committed suicide on 22nd August 2026.

The takeaway of his peers was that the institute’s protocol for dealing with students in distress amplifies their struggles. Moreover, the tediousness of getting through administrative processes, be it securing a semester withdrawal or a hostel room, was a major hurdle, with he and his mother having to spend hours running from office to office, hostel to hostel. 

LHC : Formulating Demands and the response from the Administration

In search of answers and out of enragement over the situation, large numbers of students gathered outside LHC on the following day, i.e. 24th August 2026. Students leading the protest also drew attention by going to each class in session and asking for it to be cancelled in light of the recent tragic events. The Director, Deans, and various other members of the administration were also present at that moment.

The students expressed severe frustration with the current functioning of the administration and mental health support systems. Many classmates of the victim came forward to share additional information and insights on the events leading up to the tragic step taken by the student.

They alleged that the administration was uncooperative, citing the denial of hostel and apartment accommodation, a lack of faculty support in reducing his academic workload, and insensitive remarks from several staff members. They also emphasised how loneliness and being cut off from his peers are major reasons why he took this lamentable step, and if he were not socially isolated, he would still be here. The issue of many other PG students also having to live outside in Jia Sarai, Katwaria Sarai, etc., due to a lack of hostel accommodation was also raised.

Apart from this, many other students also stepped forward and recalled their personal grievances against the system. They recounted some dismissive remarks and attitude by professors regarding mental health and awareness. Furthermore, they mentioned feeling suffocated by the many restrictions and rules and how this strictness can be the final straw for many.

​What the administration had to say

The Director and Dean were asked to explain why Rishikesh was not allotted a hostel and to take accountability for the faculty's remarks.

The Director initially acknowledged the severity of the circumstances, concurring that mental health represents a critical issue requiring urgent attention. He explained that the entire situation followed existing protocols. Under these procedures, if a psychiatrist advises that parental care is required, the institute adheres to the recommendation. It denies hostel accommodation because managing such cases beyond a certain point becomes difficult for the institution. He agreed to make the existing protocol fully transparent and expressed openness to modifying it as necessary. Additionally, he noted that the administration is actively addressing the hostel shortage by constructing two new hostels, with completion scheduled for 2028. Later, he also agreed to sensitise the professors on their remarks and form a committee for the same.

Regarding the apartment accommodation, the ADHM stated that although Rishikesh had requested to live alone, it was deemed too high-risk. Consequently, following consultations with the ADSW and the counsellor, Rishikesh agreed not to apply for the hostel, and they never actually received an accommodation request. However, his peers did not agree that these events actually happened.

They claimed that he repeatedly asked for accomodation, and was denied it.

Complaints against ADSW​

An audio recording of the victim’s mother was played, in which she recalled all the hardships she faced dealing with the administration, how they had been rejected for the hostel, and how all other requests were also ignored. Outrage mounted over the ADSW's early-morning statements and the administration's overall response, prompting students to demand her resignation and full accountability.

Addressing the controversial remarks, the Director stated that the institute does not stand by them. He also stood by the ADSW, asserting that she was making her best effort and asserting that her resignation was not the solution.

Addressing the matter further, the ADSW noted that she was personally deeply impacted by the events, while clarifying that their official role concludes once counselling is

provided and prescription medication is administered. ​

Compensation Demands

Subsequently, students raised concerns regarding the inadequacy of the compensation provided to the victim's family. The ₹6 lakh amount was deemed unacceptable, with students noting that prior medical expenses had already reached ₹4 lakh, leaving the total compensation insufficient, and demanding that ₹1 crore be provided to the victim's mother.

The DOSA noted that compensation had been raised from 3 to 6 lakhs the previous year. The DDSP expressed solidarity and committed to covering all of the victim's medical expenses, agreed to establish a dedicated fund, and agreed to look into improvements to counselling services or elsewhere.

External Inquiry Demands

In addition, the students demanded a transparent external inquiry into the incident. Expressing frustration over past instances in which inquiries were initiated without any subsequent action or updates to the student body, they insisted on including student representatives in the proceedings. Furthermore, they called for the formation of an independent committee to investigate all faculty members involved.

Voices were raised for the resignation and accountability of the Dean and Associate Deans (ADSW and ADHM) in the Student Affairs Office, as well as the Head of the Department of Physics. Anger was also voiced regarding the administration's reliance on a standardised draft email for every suicide, which students viewed as a sign of apathy, as it was brought up on the Red Square the previous day.

The director conceded to this request, agreeing to constitute a committee that includes student representation. Concurrently, the DOSA expressed regret for reusing the standardised draft email and committed to drafting a revised message and a formal apology. However, they insisted that the faculty member's resignation not be raised and that the students have more trust in the system.

Counselling Services

Another student spoke out regarding the concerning condition of counselling services. He recounted a personal experience during a period of mental health struggle when a counsellor simply asked, “How can I help you?” and offered no further assistance other than recommending that he go to sleep. Additionally, students pointed out a double standard in governance, noting that disciplinary action is swiftly enforced against students through mechanisms like DisCo (Campus colloquialism for Disciplinary Committee), whereas professors face no accountability.

In response, the director noted efforts to improve the system while highlighting the difficulty of expanding the counselling staff. He pointed out that an external review of the counselling services had already been conducted. Regarding faculty, he explained that semester-end feedback for professors is reviewed, and those who perform strongly are recognised with awards. He also agreed to share all the actions taken regarding the previous case of suicide that took place.

The students raised that, instead of awarding the good professors, we need to punish the insensitive professors, and were insistent on the resignation of the accused faculty, especially ADSW.

Final Demands at LHC

Due to rain, the protest was moved inside LHC, where the students finalised three main demands:

1. Investigation: An independent probe into administrative lapses causing Rishikesh's suicide, with accountability for indicted staff, structural accountability regarding issues like housing non-allocation, academic project denial, and hospital unhelpfulness, full public disclosure of the institute's mental health protocols and administrative roles, and transparent communication regarding systemic mental health measures (including compliance with the Expert Committee Report following 8 student suicides at IIT Delhi in 30 months.

   
   

2. Resignation: The immediate resignation of the Dean and Associate Deans (specifically ADSW and ADHM) in the Student Affairs Office, as well as the Head of the Department of Physics.

   
   

3. Compensation: Adequate and compassionate financial compensation for Rishikesh's family, explicitly quantified by the students at 1 crore rupees.

The dean signed these demands as the director's acknowledgement, and the students were assured that they would be acted upon very soon.

Senate Room Meeting and Subsequent Deliberations

Students continued protesting at the Lecture Hall Complex (LHC) after the Institute agreed to an independent investigation and compensation but rejected the demand for the resignation of the Deans. The Director acknowledged receipt of the three demands, but did not accept them.

The three demands were clear: Investigation, Resignation and Compensation.

At an evening, a meeting in the Senate Room involving the Director, DOSA, ADHM, ADSW, HOD Physics, General and Deputy-General Secretaries, and other student representatives, the Institute agreed only to the first and third demands.

The Director confirmed the formation of an independent investigation committee to examine the incident in its entirety. He also proposed that the Institute collect student feedback and develop an accountability mechanism for administrators and professors. On compensation, the Institute stated that it could commit to a minimum compensation of ₹6 lakh to the deceased's family in addition to medical bills of the student, against the ₹1 crore demanded by protesters.

Continued Protest

Following the meeting, the protest went to the Director's office to question the rejection of the resignation demands and the compensation offered. The Director addressed the group and attempted to respond to their concerns, but students found the responses unsatisfactory. While he verbally agreed to try to increase the compensation, no confirmation was provided.

With the resignation demand still rejected, students pressed the Director to reconsider the decision and communicate a final position by the end of the day.

The group subsequently marched back to the LHC, where the protest continued.

Later in the night, the protest expanded to an insti-wide march from the LHC to the boy’s hostel side, ending with a return to LHC. 

---

Written by: Kanishk Tomar, Dhruv Vadodaria, Mudit Agarwal

Edited by: Arpit Rajput, Swayam Gupta, Prakhar Singh BSP Topicals

---