Mental Health Guidelines - Supreme Court’s Response to Rising ...

Mental Health Guidelines - Supreme Court’s Response to Rising Student Suicides

July 26, 2025

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court has issued guidelines to educational institutions across the country.

What’s in Today’s Article?

Suicides on Campuses (Introduction, Statistics, Supreme Court’s Directives, Significance & Implications, etc.)

Introduction

Rising cases of student suicides in India have prompted urgent judicial intervention.
Recently, the Supreme Court issued sweeping guidelines to educational institutions across the country, terming the growing mental health crisis a “systemic failure”.
The judgment, issued by a two-judge bench, comes amidst increasing reports of suicides among students, particularly in high-pressure environments such as coaching centres and premier academic institutions.
The Court directed a uniform, enforceable mental health policy applicable to all schools, colleges, universities, hostels, and coaching centres, irrespective of their affiliation or ownership.

Increasing Suicides on Campuses

According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), 13,044 student suicides were recorded in 2022, comprising 7.6% of all suicides in the country.
The number has increased sharply from 5,425 in 2001, underscoring a disturbing trend. At least 2,248 deaths in 2022 were directly attributed to exam failure.
The Supreme Court observed that students are being driven into a “rat race” where the joy of learning has been eclipsed by anxiety, performance metrics, and parental pressure.
- This competitive grind often isolates students, especially those in residential coaching environments far from their homes.
The Court stated, “Education is meant to liberate, not burden the learner… its true success lies not in grades or rankings, but in the holistic growth of a human being capable of living with dignity, confidence, and purpose.”
The bench also described the institutional silence around mental health as a key factor exacerbating student vulnerability, warning that suicide cases cannot be viewed as isolated tragedies but rather as a collective social failure.

Key Supreme Court Directives

In an unprecedented step, the Court issued 15 binding guidelines to be followed until a central regulatory framework is enacted.
These apply to all educational institutions, public and private schools, colleges, universities, residential academies, hostels, and coaching centres.
Mandatory Counsellors and Support Systems

All institutions with 100 or more students must appoint at least one qualified counsellor, psychologist, or social worker trained in child and adolescent mental health.
Smaller institutions must establish referral linkages with external mental health professionals.
Staff must be trained twice a year by certified mental health experts.

Residential institutions must install tamper-proof ceiling fans and restrict access to rooftops and high-risk areas to deter impulsive acts of self-harm.

Institutions were asked to end batch segregation based on academic performance, avoid public shaming, and refrain from setting unrealistic academic targets.
Such practices were deemed detrimental to the mental health of vulnerable students.

Institutions must create robust, confidential redressal mechanisms for complaints involving harassment, bullying, caste- or gender-based discrimination, and sexual assault.
Retaliation against whistle-blowers or complainants will attract institutional liability.
Failure to act promptly will be treated as administrative culpability with legal consequences.

All institutions must adopt and publish an annual mental health policy, taking reference from government initiatives such as:

Ummeed guidelines (Understand, Motivate, Manage, Empathise, Empower, Develop)
Manodarpan, launched by the Ministry of Education during the COVID-19 pandemic
National Suicide Prevention Strategy (India’s first nationwide strategy, released in 2022)

The Court also called for the formation of a National Task Force to institutionalise student mental health initiatives and suicide prevention mechanisms across the higher education landscape.

Background of the Verdict

The judgment was delivered in a case involving the suicide of a 17-year-old NEET aspirant in Visakhapatnam, whose parents sought a CBI investigation after alleged lapses in the state police inquiry.
While addressing the individual case, the Court widened its scope to frame a national response to student suicides, recognising the broader institutional apathy and lack of psychological safeguards across educational spaces.

Significance and Future Implications

This landmark ruling by the Supreme Court marks a shift in recognising mental health as integral to the right to life and education.
By mandating psychological support systems, regulatory oversight, and institutional accountability, the Court has provided a blueprint for a safer, more empathetic education system.
However, the success of these measures will depend on:

It also underscores the need for collective societal change, moving from a culture of academic pressure to one that prioritises the well-being, dignity, and individuality of each student.