Read Time: 16 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court, on March 24, 2025, constituted a National Task Force headed by former judge of the top court, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, to address the mental health concerns of students and prevent suicides in higher educational institutions. The court observed that the recurring instances of students ending their lives in such institutions, including private ones, serve as a grim reminder of the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of the existing legal and institutional framework in addressing campus-related issues.

A bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stated that these tragedies underscore the urgent need for a more robust, comprehensive, and responsive mechanism to address the various factors compelling certain students to resort to taking their own lives.

The court opined that the relentless pressure to perform in a purely score-based education system, coupled with extreme competition for limited seats in premier educational institutions, places a terrifying burden on students’ mental health. The excessive academic load, requiring students to work on multiple projects simultaneously, exacerbates academic pressure. Several students, having come from competitive coaching centres, bring pre-existing mental health issues, which get further heightened when they enter higher educational institutions.

Although it is difficult to eradicate this distress, it can still be managed by introducing flexible curricula, continuous assessment methods, structured support for managing backlogs, and on-campus support for psychological issues faced by students, the court said.

The court noted that another cause of student suicides is brutality in the form of ragging, which is often concealed by colleges and universities to safeguard their reputation, violating students’ right to dignity and education.

"We are of the firm view that universities must acknowledge their role not just as centres of learning but as institutions responsible for the well-being and holistic development of their students. The failure to do so would mean failing the very purpose of education – to uplift, empower, and transform lives. Universities assume the role of a parent when a student leaves his home and comes to study on the campus of the university," the bench said.

The court observed that the nation has already suffered the tragic loss of numerous students – young individuals with immense potential who could have gone on to become successful professionals. However, due to the absence of adequate institutional support, they were driven to take the extreme step of ending their own lives.

These distressing incidents not only highlight systemic failures but also expose a severe lack of institutional empathy and accountability on the part of educational institutions. When academic environments fail to address discrimination, harassment, and mental health concerns effectively, they contribute to a culture of neglect that can have devastating consequences, it said.

"As a society, and as stakeholders in shaping the future of our youth, we must take collective responsibility to ensure that no more lives are lost due to apathy or indifference. It is imperative for institutions to have a culture of sensitivity and proactive intervention so that every student feels safe, supported, and empowered to pursue their aspirations without fear or discrimination," the bench said.

The task force would also include Dr. Alok Sarin, psychiatrist, Prof. Mary E. John, Arman Ali, Prof. Rajendar Kachroo, Dr. Aqsa Shaikh, Dr. Seema Mehrotra, Prof. Virginius Xaxa, Dr. Nidhi S. Sabharwal, and senior advocate Aparna Bhat.

Secretaries of the Department of Higher Education, the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Ministry of Women and Child Development, and the Department of Legal Affairs have been made ex-officio members of the task force.

The remit of the task force is to prepare a comprehensive report that includes identifying the predominant causes leading to student suicides, an examination of various factors, including but not limited to ragging, caste-based discrimination, gender-based discrimination, sexual harassment, academic pressure, financial burden, mental health stigma, discrimination based on ethnicity, tribal identity, disability, sexual orientation, political views, religious belief, or any other grounds.

It has also been asked to conduct an analysis of existing regulations, including a thorough assessment of the effectiveness of current laws, policies, and institutional frameworks applicable to higher educational institutions concerning ragging, caste-based and gender-based discrimination, sexual harassment, mental health support, academic support, and financial aid. This analysis will evaluate whether these frameworks adequately address the challenges faced by students.

The task force has also been directed to recommend measures for strengthening protections, including proposing necessary reforms to the existing legal and institutional frameworks to ensure stronger enforcement, accountability, and preventive measures.

The court stated that the task force must also propose recommendations to address existing gaps, create a more inclusive and supportive academic environment, and ensure equal opportunities for marginalized communities.

The bench directed the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to nominate a high-ranking officer, not below the rank of Joint Secretary in the Department of Higher Education, to act as the nodal officer for their respective regions.

The court directed the task force to submit an interim report within four months and a final report preferably within eight months.

The bench instructed the registry to list the matter after four months. The court’s direction came on a plea filed by Amit Kumar and others challenging the Delhi High Court’s judgment of January 30, 2024, which rejected their writ application seeking a direction to the police for registering a First Information Report in connection with the suicides of two students—the sons of appellant no. 2 and appellant no. 3—while they were studying at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi.

Ayush Ashna was found dead on July 8, 2023, in his hostel room (WH-02) situated on the 7th floor of Udaigiri Hostel, IIT Delhi, whereas Anil Kumar was found dead on September 1, 2023, in his hostel room (EA-18) on the ground floor of Vindhyanchal Hostel, IIT Delhi.

"This litigation is an eye-opener not just for the police but also for the parents whose children are studying in different educational institutions, more particularly those students residing in a hostel far from their respective homes, and also the management of the educational institutions across the country," the bench said.

The court noted that the appellants had approached the territorial police station on July 21, 2023, and September 9, 2023, respectively, seeking FIR registration, alleging foul play and offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On September 11, 2023, they submitted a detailed letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South-West, New Delhi, but their request was ignored.

In Anil Kumar’s case, it was alleged that he faced caste-based discrimination, including the use of derogatory caste-based remarks by faculty members.

Even if the police believed there was no truth to these allegations, it could have determined so only after registering an FIR and conducting an investigation, the court held.

"We say so because this is the law. The police could not have taken a shortcut just because something happened in the hostel of an eminent educational institution like IIT Delhi. It seems that the police very quickly jumped to the conclusion that the two boys were in some sort of depression as they were not doing well in their studies. Such conclusion of the police may as well be correct. However, again, at the cost of repetition, we say that such a conclusion could have been arrived at only after following the due process of law, i.e., registration of an FIR and investigation," the bench said.

Nobody would have stopped the police from filing an appropriate closure report if no case was made out. However, closing the matter after an investigation under Section 174 of the CrPC is something the bench disapproved of.

Court directed the DCP (South-West District, New Delhi) to register the FIR based on the two complaints lodged by the families of the deceased students and assign an officer, not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, to undertake the investigation in accordance with the law.

Case Title: Amit Kumar & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors