A recent Supreme Court ruling on Criminal Appeal No. 1425 of 2025, decided on March 24, 2025, has cast a spotlight on the tragic deaths of two students at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, raising critical questions about institutional responsibility, alleged caste-based discrimination, and adherence to legal procedures in investigating such incidents.

The case, Amit Kumar & Others v/s Union Of India & Others, pertains to the suspicious deaths of Ayush Ashna and Anil Kumar, both students at IIT Delhi. Ayush Ashna was found dead on July 8, 2023, in his hostel room, while Anil Kumar was found dead on September 1, 2023, in his own hostel room. Both incidents occurred under circumstances that led their families to believe they were murdered, alleging underlying caste-based discrimination by faculty and staff at IIT Delhi.

Family Allegations and Police Response:

The parents of the deceased students filed complaints detailing their suspicions. Ayush Ashna's father, Ramesh Kumar, alleged that his son faced caste-based discrimination from hostel mates and faculty since 2019-2020. He also expressed strong doubts about the suicide theory, suggesting his son might have been murdered. Similarly, Anil Kumar's elder brother, Amit Kumar, explicitly stated that his brother was murdered due to "racial hatred" and that inappropriate caste-based words were sometimes used by teachers. He described blood on the table and floor of Anil’s room, which he believed contradicted the suicide claim.

Conversely, police inquiries, including post-mortem reports, concluded that the deaths were suicides due to asphyxia by hanging. Statements recorded from family and friends in police inquiries indicated that the students were under depression due to low academic grades, and initially, no foul play was suspected by some family members. However, the families later insisted on the murder angle and alleged that police officials were not investigating the matter properly and were attempting to suppress information, treating the deaths merely as suicides due to study stress. They also claimed that statements attributed to them in police records were "doctored and false."

The Legal Stance: FIR Registration Mandate

A significant point of contention highlighted in the legal proceedings was the police's failure to register a First Information Report (FIR) in either case, despite serious allegations of murder and caste-based atrocities. The court emphasized that under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST (PoA) Act), the registration of an FIR is mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offense, and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such situations. The court reiterated that the "reasonableness" or "credibility" of the information is not a prerequisite for FIR registration.

The Ministry of Home Affairs' advisories further solidify this, stating that police officers are duty-bound to register a case without discrimination, irrespective of territorial jurisdiction (zero FIR). The Supreme Court, in Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P., had previously stressed the obligatory nature of FIR registration for cognizable offenses and warned of action against erring officers who fail to comply.

Institutional Accountability and Path Forward:

The Supreme Court expressed a strong view that educational institutions bear a heavy responsibility for the safety and well-being of their students. In incidents like suicides on campus, it is the unequivocal duty of the administration to promptly lodge an FIR. The court acknowledged that the academic careers of two brilliant students ended tragically and recognized the immense challenges and emotions faced by their parents.

The case underscores the need for thorough and impartial investigations into such incidents, especially when allegations of caste discrimination are involved. The court's emphasis on mandatory FIR registration aims to ensure that justice is not delayed or denied due to procedural misinterpretations or institutional biases. The ultimate outcome of this case and the implications of the National Task Force will likely shape future responses to student well-being and allegations of discrimination within higher educational institutions.

Section 18, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - 1989  

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989  

Section 154., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973