By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
“Mental health… is not a destination, but a process. It’s about how you drive, not where you’re going.”
The Supreme Court’s decision comes against the backdrop of a rising tide of student suicides, many of which are linked to academic stress, institutional neglect, caste discrimination, and the toxic culture of relentless performance. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), 13,044 students died by suicide in 2022 alone—more than 2,200 of them due to exam failures.
The catalyst for the apex court’s intervention was the tragic death of a 17-year-old girl referred to as “Ms X,” a NEET aspirant who took her life in July 2023 while studying at Aakash Byju’s coaching centre in Visakhapatnam. Her father petitioned for a CBI probe after alleging institutional negligence, which had initially been dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The top court overturned that decision, ordering a CBI investigation, and more significantly, used the case to launch a broader legal framework for mental health safeguards in all educational institutions.
The 15-point guidelines laid down by the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta are sweeping in scope. They apply to all educational spaces—including government and private schools, universities, training centres, coaching institutes, residential academies and hostels—irrespective of board affiliation or administrative control.
Institutions with 100 or more students are now required to appoint at least one qualified mental health professional—a counsellor, psychologist, or social worker—trained specifically in child and adolescent mental health. Smaller institutions must establish formal referral mechanisms with external experts.
In a direct rebuke of current coaching culture, the apex court banned the segregation of students based on academic performance. Such sorting, it said, leads to humiliation, isolation, and excessive pressure. Students must not be assigned academic targets beyond their capacity, and public shaming of underperformers is strictly prohibited.
The Court went even further in addressing the physical means of suicide, directing that all residential institutions install tamper-proof ceiling fans or safety alternatives, restrict access to rooftops and balconies, and reduce physical vulnerability to impulsive self-harm.
But the core of the Court’s directive is not just institutional reform—it’s institutional responsibility. The judgment states unequivocally that any failure to take timely or adequate action in cases of distress, harassment, or discrimination will be deemed “institutional culpability,” with the school or college administration liable for legal and regulatory consequences.
Recognising that many suicides are triggered by hostile environments rooted in caste, class, gender, or sexual identity, the Court ordered all institutions to set up confidential, accessible grievance redressal mechanisms. These must address and prevent incidents of ragging, bullying, sexual harassment, caste-based abuse, and discriminatory treatment. Institutions are also barred from taking retaliatory action against whistle-blowers or complainants, and are required to ensure immediate mental health support for affected students.
While these directives are judicially binding, the Court was clear in acknowledging the legislative vacuum in India around student mental health. There is no statutory code specifically aimed at suicide prevention or psychological well-being in educational spaces. Thus, the Court invoked Articles 32 and 141 of the Constitution, giving its guidelines the force of law until Parliament or state assemblies step in.
To institutionalise reform, the Court directed that all educational institutions adopt a uniform mental health policy, taking cues from existing frameworks like the “Manodarpan” initiative (launched during the Covid-19 pandemic), the draft “Ummeed” guidelines, and the National Suicide Prevention Strategy. This policy must be made public and reviewed annually.
Crucially, the Court did not overlook India’s coaching hubs—Kota, Jaipur, Sikar, Chennai, Hyderabad, Delhi, and Mumbai—where student suicides have become tragically routine. These cities must now be prioritised for mental health intervention, regulation, and infrastructure upgrades.
States and Union Territories have been given two months to enact rules regulating coaching centres. The centre has also been ordered to submit a compliance affidavit detailing coordination with state authorities and progress made by the National Task Force on student mental health—constituted earlier by the Supreme Court in response to student deaths at IIT Delhi.
This judgment marks not just a legal milestone, but a moral reckoning. It forces India’s educational machinery to confront a difficult truth: students are not just aspirants—they are individuals with emotional, social, and psychological needs. And if institutions fail to protect those needs, they will now be held accountable—not just administratively, but constitutionally. “Success is not final, failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts.”
In a system that too often mistakes pressure for progress, the Supreme Court has laid the first stone towards healing.
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi
The post Suicide Watch appeared first on India Legal.