![[Not So] Little Women](https://voxiitk.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/WhatsApp-Image-2026-09-28-at-19.21.06-240x300.jpeg)
Introduction
How does an institution decide what happens to a student who breaks its rules? At IIT Kanpur, the answer lies with the SSAC, the institute’s disciplinary body. Most students only hear about it when a friend gets an SSAC, and by then the process is a mystery: who sits on the committee, how a case is decided, and what separates a warning from a semester drop or a terminated degree.
This article explains how the SSAC works. We look at who is on it, how cases reach it, how decisions are made, and what punishments are on the table, along with the role of the SAC, the body students can appeal to. We then go through real cases from the past year, covering academic offences, harassment, substance abuse and repeat violations, to show how these rules play out in practice.
Constitution of SSAC and SAC
The constitution of the SSAC is as follows:
- One student senate nominee
- Dean of Student Affairs
- Three faculty members (from three departments) nominated by the Senate Nomination Committee
- Four student nominees-
- At least one UG student
- At least one PG student
- At least one female student and at least one male student
- One Warden of the Students’ Hall of Residence nominated by the Chairperson of Council of Wardens
- Head of the Centre for Mental Health and Well-being
- Two permanent invitees (one nominee of SPGC, one nominee of SUGC)
The Chairperson of the Committee shall be elected by the Senate Elections Committee from among its members for a term of one year. The DoSA will be the convenor of the committee.
The constitution of the SAC is as follows:
- Dean of Students’ Affairs
- Ex-Officio Chairperson of the Senate
- One Warden of students’ Hall of Residence, nominated by the Chairperson of the Council of Wardens
- One member of the Academic Performance Evaluation Committee, nominated by its Chairperson
- Head of the Centre for Mental Health and Well-being
- Three other members of the faculty of whom at least one should be a member of the Senate
- Four students: nominated for the purpose by the Students’ Senate
Core Philosophy & Purpose
Corrective Measure: SSAC views its actions primarily as corrective measures intended to guide students rather than purely punitive punishments.
The current Chairperson of the Students’ Senate, Aarnav Gupta mentioned,”The aim of student representatives is to ensure that the punishments are fair to the wrong doing of the student, no extreme punishment is given. The students need to be presented with all the choices they have and make sure they make an informed decision. There should be no lack of information and the student should get a fair chance to represent his/her case strongly.” He also put forth the point that the SSAC acts as a deterrent while also acting to provide the rightful justice.
Case Intake & Screening Process
Reporting Sources: Cases can be reported via email by students, faculty, or security personnel.
Initial Evaluation (Merit Check): Before admitting a case, the committee deliberates on whether it holds sufficient merit.
Confidentiality: Admitted case records are stored securely in the DOSA (Dean of Student Affairs) office in a separate subsection reserved for SSAC files. Access is restricted to the DOSA and designated committee members. Names of involved parties are redacted to maintain anonymity during broader discussions.
General Case Procedure and Deliberations
When a complaint is filed to the SSAC, the committee convenes. The student who is reported is called and his/her testimony is taken. Next, all other corresponding parties are called as and when needed and their testimonies are taken. The statements provided by all involved parties are thoroughly verified and if a statement proves to be false, high penalties can be imposed on the complicit party. The investigation of facts and evidence is taken up by the committee or by an internally formed sub-committee. After this, the SSAC finally reaches a conclusion by consensus or by voting. All the SSAC members have equal votes while the Chairperson has the final say if no consensus is reached by voting.
Committee Composition: Consists of around 13 to 14 members, including both faculty and student representatives.
Hearing Procedure: Ideally, all parties/stakeholders have to be summoned to present their accounts, produce evidence, and answer questions.
Consensus-Based Outcomes: Decisions on corrective measures or disciplinary actions are almost majorly reached through collective discussion and consensus.
The meetings held for the SSAC committee vary each month, with increasing frequency during examinations and festival times depending on the case volume.
Disciplinary Actions & Consequences
Disciplinary measures scale based on the severity of the offence, strictly in accordance with the SSAC manual and whether the student is a repeat offender:
- Warnings / Fines: Issued for minor or first-time infractions. For substance abuse cases, heavy fines (up to ₹50,000) are used as a deterrent.
- Academic Drops (Semester/Course Drops):
- Carrying electronic devices carries a clear provision for an immediate sem drop
- Multiple drops (e.g., 2-3 drops) may be handed down depending on severity of the offence (e.g. repeated cheating/offense).
- Termination of Degree (Extreme Penalty):
- Reserved for extremely severe offences going against the fundamental integrity of the institute or repeat offenders.
- Examples include drug peddling/dealing on campus or severe, repeated academic dishonesty.
Disciplinary Probation (DP)
Disciplinary Probation – a student status due to disciplinary action requiring special monitoring. (taken from the academic senate manual). A student found to have been involved in disciplinary misconduct will be placed on DP, the duration of which will be in units of semesters. A student who is prescribed a corrective action will be on DP at least during the semester in which the action is prescribed, if the student has not been asked to drop the ongoing semester. In case the corrective action is of dropping k semesters, then the student will be on DP on k semesters after the student rejoins the Institute, or till his program ends, whichever is earlier. A student, while on DP, is debarred from representing the Institute in any activity, will not be given a character certificate, will be ineligible to receive any scholarship (other than ones due to means), any award, and will be debarred from taking part in any placement related activity. Further, the corrective action that will be prescribed for a disciplinary misconduct committed by a student on DP will be substantially higher than the minimum recommendations.
Appeals Process
If a student is put on disciplinary probation, they can choose to appeal to the SAC to get the punishment reduced. This condition is when it affects timely degree of completion or future opportunities
If the appeal is successful, the student is allowed to sit for placements and internships. But applying to the SAC can be a very messy and tedious process, with many students not knowing how and where to apply.
Students facing extreme penalties(mostly those affecting timely completion of degree) can appeal through the Senate Appeals Committee (SAC), which may sometimes reduce a sentence (e.g., converting a degree termination into multiple semester drops).
Types of Offences
S. No. | Offence | Exemplars | Punishment/ Recommended action |
|---|---|---|---|
1. | Academic misconduct | (a) Unfair practices in examinations/quizzes including copying from neighbours, using cheat sheets/ cell phones, exchanging answer books, assisting neighbours, etc.; (b) Tampering with answer books; (c) Copying assignments/ term paper/ course projects; (d) Manipulating data in teaching laboratory report; (e) Outsourcing the assignments project work | i. The concerned instructor-in-charge is empowered by Ordinance 9.7 to take necessary action and/or refer the case to the Chairperson, SSAC. ii. If a case is referred to SSAC, the minimum action will be DP for a year. In case SSAC decides on deregistration from a course during the course or after it is over, de-registration will be recorded in the transcript. In addition, depending on the nature of the offence, the committee may also recommend dropping of the semester. A Semester Drop will always be followed by a Disciplinary Probation (DP) of at least one year. iii. A repeat offence may lead to termination from the programme. |
2. | Plagiarism As defined by AEC | Thesis: (a) Before submission (e.g. periodic progress reports, thesis drafts etc.); (b) After submission in publications. | Thesis: (a) Semester Drop for a semester but need not to be kept on record. (b) i. Thesis under evaluation: Recall of the thesis and resubmission after a gap of at least six months from the date of recall. ii. Thesis accepted and not yet defended: Recall, resubmission, and re-evaluation after a gap of at least one year from the date of recall. iii. Degree (Provisional/Regular) awarded: Revocation of the degree and resubmission after a gap of at least one year from the date of revocation. In publications: i. Retraction from the archived records, and the information to be transmitted to the current employer, in case of a person in employment, the current supervisor etc. ii. In case the publication is a constituent of a thesis, the procedure outlined for Thesis will be followed. |
3. | (a) Misuse of Academic Resources & (b) Damage to the Institute property | (a) Library: Misplacing, damaging, misusing and/or stealing books, journals, and DVDs; (b) Laboratories: Misuse of resources; Willful damage or removal of Institute property | (a) Replacement of the item, a fine of at least Rs 10,000, and in case of stealing at least a semester drop. (b) Partial recovery of the damaged item and a fine of at least Rs. 10,000. Fine amounting to the cost of the property or Rs. 10,000/-, whichever is lower. |
4. | Cyber offences | Unauthorized sharing of computing resources, resorting to denial of service, spamming, identity theft, etc. | Semester Drop for one to two semesters, depending on the severity of the offence. |
5. | Impersonation | (a) Proxy attendance in courses; (b) Examinations and laboratory sessions; (c) Sports and cultural events; (d) Placement related activities; (e) Library and in other institute facilities; (f) Proxy attendance for financial Assistantship | (a) The instructor to decide on. (b) Semester Drop for one to two semesters for both impersonator and the person impersonated for (b). (c) To be barred from representing IITK or Hostel in any event until graduation. Disciplinary Probation until graduation. (d) To be Barred from all placement activities. Disciplinary Probation until graduation. (e) i. Letter of reprimand. ii. To be barred from the use of the facility for at least six months. (f) The Convenor, DPGC will report the case to the SSAC. Minimum punishment is denial of Financial Assistantship for a period of one month. |
6. | Furnishing false information | Documents such as income certificate, caste/category certificate, placement application and resume etc. | One Semester Drop and recovery of all benefits availed. |
7. | Unauthorised absence from the Institute | – | Guidelines given in the UG and PG manuals to be followed. |
8. | (a) Violation of code of conduct related to hostels, (b) Violation of code of conduct related to student body activities, (c) Financial malpractices | (a) unauthorized guests, (b) Unacceptable behaviour in hostel mess, canteen, reading room, and other facilities, (c) Code of conduct violations during hall or student body elections; Irregularities during student festivals and other activities; Financial malpractices | The Warden-in-Charge of the concerned Hall of Residence has the power to reprimand and impose fine (a minimum of Rs. 10,000/-) and take such suitable action as he/she deems appropriate. However, harbouring undesirable/debarred persons in hostel rooms is to be strongly discouraged and the minimum action in such cases is the fine as specified above. Minimum fine of Rs 10,000/- and change of hostel for one semester or as decided. Fine amounting to the estimated financial gains plus a minimum of Rs 10,000/-. No dues and registration for the next semester (if applicable) withheld until fine is paid. |
9. | (a) Civility violations, (b) Substance abuse | Abusive behaviour, scuffle etc.; (a) Tobacco or alcohol consumption; (b) Drug abuse | To be referred to the SSAC for appropriate action depending on the severity of the offence. (a) SSAC to take appropriate action depending on the severity of the offence. (b) In case of (b) the minimum suggested action is Semester Drop for one to two semesters. Re-admission only after rehabilitation and guarantee that the person is now drug free. |
10. | Harassment not amounting to Ragging | Coercive behaviour of any kind such as forced involvement in Hall/Institute events | i. First Offence: Community service of two hours per week for a minimum of 10 weeks over a period of one semester. Recommended: community service in public places. ii. Second offence: Suspension for one semester. |
11. | Ragging (as defined by the Supreme Court) | SSAC in consultation with the Institute’s Anti Ragging Squad (ARS) will establish (a) whether ragging has taken place, and (b) severity of the event. | Minimum one Semester Drop. |
12. | Sexual Harassment (as defined in the Act) | – | All cases to be referred to and disposed of by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). |
13. | Cases reported by an outside agency | – | To be investigated and categorised as per the present document and to be dealt with accordingly. |
14. | Any other offence not covered above | – | To be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. |
SSAC & SAC Case Studies
Academic Offences
This broad classification involved cases regarding cheating during examinations, labs, plagiarism detected in theses and assignments.
The student representatives received multiple complaints from students regarding the increasing volume of academic malpractices majorly involving electronic devices during quizzes and examinations which was discussed with the DoAA (Prof. Ashoke De) and the Director.
Following this, a newly introduced pre-exam conduct followed by LHC staff to detect malpractice after the announcement regarding this in response to the dissatisfaction, during the even semester of the academic tenure of 2025-26.
Long Term goal was to create a culture where cheating is not a practice
This involved namely 3 measures:
- a) The practice of frisking was introduced to detect chits or electronic devices and/or gadgets, during and after washroom breaks during exams.
- b) Access to Student Lounge, which strictly regulated on the basis of whether the student had an ongoing examination
- c) Monitoring of grounds proximate to examination venues to detect external assisting
Which had been introduced on top of the monitoring conducted through the medium of Teaching Assistants and Professors in the venues where the aforementioned assessments occurred.
Different jurisdictions:
- DOAA OFFICE: Offences caught by the LHC staff fall under the jurisdiction of DOAA, which without any exception lead to a direct report to the SSAC committee.
- INSTRUCTORS(refer : ordinance 9.3/9.4 : TA + Instructor) The instructor’s jurisdiction that is held over the examination halls and during plagiarism checks implies that it is up to them to either pardon the act committed or to push forward with the consequences that accompany post an SSAC being registered.
The 2025-26 Odd semester saw over 20 cases solely from the end semester examinations alone.
The final SSAC recommendations included a minimum one semester drop for the students who were caught using electronic devices during examination hours and multiple semester drop for students with a repeated violation or even severe offense such as change of answer sheets or external help. Disciplinary probation that results in prohibition of extracurriculars which can extend to placement season is probably the biggest source of deterrence of cheating on campus.
Cases of Harassment
The types of harassment can be online, verbal, physical or sexual, with different penalties and varying bodies that have authority in these matters.
Matters related to sexual harassment are directly forwarded to ICC, or Gender Cell where appropriate course of action is justly enforced.
Ragging as an offence may or may not face penalties from SSAC as a case is usually dealt by the Anti-Ragging. Offences related to sharing of private information, or public degradation
Antiragging
An issue arose when Seniors from a Hall borrowed a bicycle from a junior, returning it in a sullied and worn out state. The victim requested multiple times for the accused to pay at least partially for the damages incurred but of no avail. Multiple threats, and subsequent ragging was received instead of monetary compensation. This case had been escalated to UGC.
(Another instance is the H2 poster – SSAC – Antiragging, needs more information and elaboration) DOSA filed the H2 poster incident to SSAC – he wanted SSAC to be aware of this, and they have forwarded it to antiragging.
Harassment is one thing, and it is called ragging when performed by a batch above you.
Security Office
Public occurrences of harassment or public nuisance/scuffling identified by the security office results in a report filed against those involved in the offence. Heightened repetitions of these events occur during fests between students of the campus or from external ones.
Warden
Instances of harassment inside a hall if caught by warden or SIS guards inside the hall are only forwarded to DOSA if the warden believes it is in the right course of action to escalate this to the SSAC committee.
Cases Related to Substances
An article by the Hindu in 2017, put IIT Kanpur in the spotlight due to internal probing conducted. The reason for this was complaints regarding suspicious non residential visitors. Frequent probing occurs in all metropolitan cities like Bombay, Delhi and Madras.
The reputation of IIT Kanpur is yet to be cleared of this taint, as IPS officers have flagged IIT Kanpur in their operation white powder. The existence of this operation has put immense pressure on the director and student body to enforce stricter regulations.
Additionally, the occurrence of IICM at IIT Kanpur in December ’25 had not helped the cause.
More rigorous checking at front gate, SIS Guards and Wardens in H2, etc
Situations involving substances depend upon whether the involved deals substances or consumes them. Situations can escalate very quickly due to the contacts present on phones as well as entries to halls are at the disposal of these guards. Fine faced is 50k for consuming, 5 lakh for those found dealing
For those found dealing, Degree Terminations are not uncommon.
The health centre MAY take liberty to file an SSAC related to substance abuse under certain circumstances.
An interesting overlap with Academic offences, and Substance Abuse : A student, inebriated, assaulted a professor part of a key student body during a fest. Immediate action followed.
Other overlaps with Harassment : A situation surrounding an Inebriated student assaulting the HC staff resulted in an SSAC filed.
Repeated Offences
The severity of punishments can increase upon being caught, in the circumstance that a previous offence has taken place with Disciplinary Probation or worse already being enforced.
An individual was identified to have brought in a companion to the final lab exam of a particular course. This friend had not registered for the course, and the two were caught during manual attendance. The consequence faced for this was an immediate F, along with DP for the former student.
This same student was found to be in non-compliance during the period of their disciplinary action. The LHC staff had notified the instructor of them leaving the Lecture Hall in the middle of the examination.
The accused, post this, now faced an effective total of 2 semesters dropped.
Stealing Case
In a case of hostel theft, a student was caught on camera repeatedly stealing items across multiple halls.
SSAC opted for a corrective route rather than an immediate heavy punishment. The committee asked him to return a portion of the stolen money, do community service, and resume next sem.
However, the leniency did not lead to a change in behavior. As soon as he returned to campus the following semester, he went right back to stealing and was reported to SAC once again. Having proven to be a repeat offender who didn’t take the initial chance to reform, he faced a much harsher outcome the second time around.
The amount of scuffling, intoxication, damage to property and theft cases are found to peak during fests.
Conclusion
The SSAC’s own description of its role is corrective rather than punitive, and many of the cases above bear that out. A first-time thief was given a chance to return the money, do community service and rejoin the next semester. The committee screens out complaints that look politically motivated, and it includes student representatives whose stated aim is that no punishment should be out of proportion to the offence.
But the same cases show where the system is strict. Repeat offenders face much harsher outcomes, as the stealing case showed. Using electronic devices in an exam ( if reported by professor) means a semester drop at minimum, and over 20 cases came from the 2025-26 odd semester’s end-semester examinations alone. Dealing drugs can end in termination. Disciplinary probation, which can bar a student from placements and internships, is arguably the strongest deterrent of all.
Two gaps stand out. First, the process is confusing. Cases can enter through the DoAA, an instructor, the security office, a warden or the health centre, and each has its own discretion about escalating. Even the SAC appeal, which can reduce a harsh sentence, is something many students don’t know how to approach. Second, the pressure points are predictable: cases of scuffling, intoxication, property damage and theft peak during fests, and the tightening around substances has made scrutiny harsher for everyone.
The SSAC is not a mystery, but few students understand it until they are sitting in front of it. Knowing how it works, who decides, and what options you have, is the best protection a student can have.
Confidentiality protects the accused, but it also keeps the process opaque. Case files are restricted and names are redacted, for good reason, yet the result is that students rarely see how similar offences have been treated before, what a typical outcome looks like, or what a successful appeal involves. What circulates instead is rumour, passed from one friend to the next. A body that aims to be fair and corrective should be one that students can understand before they ever need it.
Edited By: Suhani Joshi, Pratyush Sandhwar
Written & Researched By: Anushka Bhushan, Dishita Bajaj, Khushi Godara, Pranjal Raj Choudhary
Designed By: Aditi Narain
![[Not So] Little Women](https://voxiitk.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/WhatsApp-Image-2026-09-28-at-19.21.06-768x960.jpeg)
