The Supreme Court of India has issued a set of far-reaching interim directions aimed at addressing the alarming rise in student suicides across Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) in the country. Expressing deep anguish over the increasing number of such incidents, the Court emphasized that student welfare, mental health support, and institutional accountability can no longer remain peripheral concerns.
In a significant ruling, the Court categorically held that no student can be barred from attending classes, appearing in examinations, or be denied documents due to delays in scholarship disbursal, and mandated immediate reporting of all student suicide cases, irrespective of where they occur.
Background of the Case
The directions were passed in Amit Kumar v. Union of India and Others, a petition filed by the parents of two IIT Delhi students who allegedly died by suicide due to caste-based discrimination and academic pressure. The case compelled the Supreme Court to confront the structural and institutional failures within India’s higher education system.
Earlier, on 24 March 2025, the Court had constituted a National Task Force (NTF) to investigate the causes behind student suicides and recommend preventive measures. The NTF is chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and has been actively monitoring suicide cases in educational institutions nationwide.
Supreme Court’s Concerns: A Systemic Crisis
The Court acknowledged that student suicides are not isolated incidents but a manifestation of deeper systemic issues. The NTF’s interim report highlighted several disturbing trends:
- Over 65% of HEIs lack mental health service providers
- Structural social inequalities and caste-based discrimination persist
- Mass privatisation of education has increased financial stress
- Incidents of ragging, sexual harassment, and institutional apathy remain underreported
- Students are often penalised for delayed government scholarship reimbursements
The Court observed that such institutional practices aggravate mental distress and contribute to an unsafe academic environment.
Mandatory Reporting of Student Suicides
One of the most significant directions issued by the Supreme Court is the mandatory reporting of all student suicides or unnatural deaths. The Court directed that:
- All HEIs must immediately report any suicide or unnatural death of a student to the police
- Reporting is mandatory irrespective of location—whether the incident occurs on campus, in hostels, paying guest accommodations, or outside institutional premises
- The rule applies to all students, including those enrolled in online and distance learning programmes
- Institutions must also register an FIR promptly in such cases
This move aims to ensure transparency, accountability, and accurate national data collection.
Centralised Data on Student Suicides
To improve policy formulation and preventive strategies, the Court issued directions for better data management:
- Sample Registration System (SRS) data on suicides, particularly among the 15–29 age group, must be centrally maintained
- Experts in public health and demography should be involved in developing robust mechanisms
- The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) must clearly distinguish between:
- School student suicides
- Higher education student suicides
This differentiation will allow focused research and targeted interventions in HEIs.
Scholarship Delays Cannot Punish Students
In a strongly worded directive, the Supreme Court held that students cannot be made to suffer for administrative delays in scholarship disbursal. The Court ordered that:
- All pending scholarship disbursements must be cleared within four months
- If disbursal is delayed, authorities must issue a reasoned notice within two months to both the HEI and the student
- Clear timelines and disbursal schedules must be communicated to students
- No student may be:
- Barred from examinations
- Removed from hostels
- Prevented from attending classes
- Denied marksheets or degrees
Any institutional policy penalising students for scholarship delays will be viewed strictly and punitively.
Round-the-Clock Medical and Mental Health Support
Recognising the urgent need for emergency care, the Court directed that:
- Every residential HEI must have 24×7 access to qualified medical help
- If not available on campus, such facilities must be within a 1-kilometre radius
This requirement is aimed at ensuring immediate medical intervention in crisis situations.
Filling Faculty and Administrative Vacancies
The Court also addressed chronic faculty shortages, which adversely affect academic quality and student support systems:
- All teaching and non-teaching vacancies must be filled within four months
- Priority must be given to reserved posts, including those for:
- Marginalised communities
- Persons with Disabilities (PwDs)
- Special recruitment drives may be conducted to clear reservation backlogs
Additionally, vacancies in key administrative positions such as Vice Chancellors, Registrars, and senior officers must be filled promptly—ideally within one month of vacancy arising.
Mandatory Compliance with UGC Regulations
The Supreme Court placed HEIs on strict notice to comply with all binding regulations, including:
- UGC Anti-Ragging Regulations, 2009
- UGC Equity Promotion Regulations, 2012
- UGC Sexual Harassment Regulations, 2016
- UGC Student Grievance Redressal Regulations, 2023
Institutions must mandatorily establish and operationalise:
- Anti-Ragging Committees and Squads
- Anti-Discrimination Officers
- Internal Complaints Committees (ICC)
- Student Grievance Redressal Committees
Non-compliance, the Court warned, would invite serious legal consequences.
Suicide Prevention and Postvention Protocol
Finally, the Court directed the National Task Force to recommend a Model Suicide Prevention and Postvention Protocol addressing:
- Ragging
- Sexual harassment
- Discrimination
- Mental health interventions
- Institutional response mechanisms
This protocol is intended to serve as a uniform national framework for HEIs.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s directions mark a watershed moment in student welfare jurisprudence in India. By placing enforceable obligations on educational institutions and government authorities, the Court has reaffirmed that mental health, dignity, and equal access to education are non-negotiable constitutional values.
If implemented effectively, these directions have the potential to transform higher education spaces into safer, more inclusive, and more humane environments—where no student is forced to choose between survival and education.
Also Read
5th NUJS International Client Counselling Competition 2026 at NUJS Kolkata, Register by 25 Jan!
