Judgment calls for systemic reform and collective responsibility to address rising student suicides and mental health challenges in educational institutions
On July 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment of extreme social and moral importance. The judgment was delivered by a division bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta while hearing an appeal in the case titled Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The court addressed one of the most unnoticed and fastest-growing menaces in our society. The issue involves a 17-year-old student preparing for the NEET examination in Andhra Pradesh, who lost her life in a hostel on July 14, 2023.
The Supreme Court issued 15 binding guidelines for all schools, colleges, hostels, and other educational institutions across the country, aimed at protecting the mental well-being of students and their communities. The apex court took this issue with high gravity and directed all states and union territories to adopt the respective guidelines within a timeframe of two months, with a compliance affidavit to be filed by the Union Government.
In the guidelines, the Supreme Court has directed all educational institutions to adopt and implement a uniform mental health policy, drawing cues from the UMMEED Draft Guidelines, the MANODARPAN initiative, and the National Suicide Prevention Strategy. The court has made it mandatory for schools and coaching institutes with more than 100 students to appoint a counsellor or psychologist for the mental well-being of students.
The order has also directed all educational institutions to refrain from harmful practices such as batch segregation based on academic performance, public shaming, or assigning academic targets that are disproportionate to students’ capabilities. Additionally, the Court further directed the formulation of written protocols and a mandatory training program for both teaching and non-teaching faculty members, conducted by a mental health counsellor, to ensure that students from marginalised backgrounds are included in a non-discriminatory manner.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of India has consistently affirmed that the Right to Life under Article 21 is not merely about existence but about a life of dignity, autonomy, and well-being. Mental health is fundamental to this vision. In Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, the apex court recognised mental integrity, psychological autonomy, and freedom from degrading treatment as essential facets of human dignity under Article 21.
Similarly, this judgment responded to data released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in its 2022 report, Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India. The figures are alarming: out of 1,70,924 suicides recorded in 2022, 13,044 were students, which translates to nearly 36 student suicides per day. Notably, 2,248 of these deaths were directly attributed to failure in examinations. As per the data released by the NCRB, there has been a devastating surge in student suicides, from 5,425 in 2001 to 13,044 in 2022.
Despite mental health policy programmes in the country, we still lose a large number of students every day. The court has criticised the violent system of learning followed by our institutions, which imposes extreme pressure on students and neglects mental health.
This judgment did not emerge in some vacuum. The apex court has multiple times invoked its jurisdiction to lay robust guidelines on issues of high social importance. However, laying down guidelines is not sufficient; the real challenge lies in their implementation. Implementation is not only a policy issue but also a moral obligation, because exerting pressure on students to compete in the present education system has become a systemic issue. It is not just the government but society as a whole that is responsible for making the implementation successful, as the well-being of the next generation is a collective societal responsibility.
The writer is a law student at the University of Kashmir
Syed Adnan Hashmi
ha*************@***il.com