Beyond Madness Of Marks And Metrics: Recognition Of Mental Health As A Constitutional Right In India

The Supreme Court judgment in Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh^[3] marks a key point in Indian law on mental health and education. The decision was taken in the case involving the demise of a 17-year-old NEET aspirant in Visakhapatnam. The CBI was ordered by the Court to oversee the investigation due to inconsistency in police investigation and conflicting statements from doctors and the educational institution. Additionally, the Court through this judgement laid down a rights-based approach to tackle mental health issues for students in India. By referring to the much celebrated Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan^[4], it issued binding guidelines under Articles 32 and 141 of the Constitution to address regulatory gaps. This piece will critically examine the guidelines, their feasibility in India, and wider implications for mental health, education, and accountability.

The directions span numerous broad mandates. It directed all educational institutions to adopt and implement a uniform mental health policy, updated annually and aligned with existing initiatives such as UMMEED, MANODARPAN, and the National Suicide Prevention Strategy. Institutions with 100 or more students were ordered to appoint a qualified counsellor, psychologist, or social worker trained in child and adolescent mental health. The Court specifically prohibited academic shaming and discriminatory batch segregation, which is a common practice in coaching centres. The Court also directed written protocols for referrals to mental health services, hospitals, and suicide helplines. Further, helpline numbers such as Tele-MANAS were directed to be prominently displayed in hostels, classrooms, and common areas.

The Court apprehend that teachers and staff members have direct responsibility in dealing with mental health issues. It required them to complete biannual training on psychological first aid, spotting warning signs, and referral steps. Institutions must also train staff to support vulnerable groups, such as marginalized castes, poorer students, LGBTQ+ students, those with disabilities, and those facing trauma, especially where vulnerabilities overlap. The Court called for strong, confidential ways to report harassment, ragging, or discrimination, with schools held responsible for lapses. Parents must be included in regular mental health workshops. Institutions were told to add life skills, emotional regulation, and well-being to student orientation. They must keep anonymised records of interventions and training, reporting these each year to regulators.

The Court recognised mental health to be included within the framework of Article 21, which guarantees life and dignity. This was based on precedents such as Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India^[5] and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India^[6]. It held that the scope of the right to life and personal liberty must extend to psychological integrity and individual autonomy. The ruling is also important for bringing Indian constitutional law in harmony with international human rights standards. This is true specifically for  Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The incorporation and application of these key human rights provisions within Indian constitutional jurisprudence render treaty obligations under international law enforceable by the judiciary. This has considerably aided in reinforcing the fact that mental health is not merely a privilege but also now is a constitutional guarantee. Conclusively, the Court reinforced the understanding of suicide not constituting a personal failure but as a preventable outcome of systemic neglect. This importantly places the responsibility squarely on all educational institutions rather than individual students.

There are three major strengths to such a rights-based framework. First, it is holistic. The guidelines do not merely prescribe a crisis-based intervention approach to mental health, but a substantial and continuous embedded prevention approach. It cardinally stitches awareness and accountability regarding mental health into the structure of the entirety of the education system at all levels. Second, the ruling is inclusive because it distinctly recognises the combination of factors such as caste, class, gender, sexuality, and disability as a part of the students psychological vulnerability. The Court is commiserative to the intersectional dimensions of student distress. Third, the emphasis on institutional culpability and systematic issues with respect to mental health resonates with the approach taken by the Court earlier in the Vishaka case. This lays the groundwork for potential legislation along the lines of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Simultaneously, it is important to recognise that these guidelines also face serious challenges to implementation. First, resource constraints constitute the most obvious problem. The directive to appoint trained counsellors in every institution does not account for the dearth of such professionals in India. As per the recent 2022 NCRB report, India recorded an astonishing and concerning figure, of 13,044 student suicides. More concerns lie with the fact that with fewer than 0.75 psychiatrists per 100,000 people as per WHO estimates, the human resource gap remains stark, particularly in rural areas and underfunded government schools. Second, the regulatory ecosystem in India at multiple levels is split, with regulatory oversight distributed among bodies such as UGC, AICTE, BCI, MCI, CBSE, ICSE, IB and state boards at the school, college, and university levels. The requirement of presenting annual reports to “relevant authorities” runs the risk of unequal enforcement unless a central nodal body is designated and empowered to do so by law. Third, cultural taboo around mental health remains pervasive. The actual stakeholders like parents, teachers, and even students may be hesitant to avail counselling services, deteriorating the effectiveness of institutional interventions. Fourth, the issue of judicial overreach are omnipresent. Much like the guidelines issued in Vishaka's case, the Court has stepped into the legislative terrain. While the timely intervention in addressing the suicide epidemic justifies interim guidelines, long term reform ultimately requires statutory enactment and budgetary commitment. Lastly, enforcement remains the Achilles' heel. Without sanctions for non-compliance, the guidelines risk adding to the long list of paper tigers, that look robust in theory but falter in practice.

Further, although this construction might be groundbreaking and robust, it still persist constitutional challenges. The first challenge concerns whitling down the principle of separation of powers. By laying down binding guidelines in the absence of legislation, the Court is precariously placed in a quasi-legislative terrain. Even though Articles 32 and 141 endow it to enforce rights, sustained regulation ultimately requires parliamentary action. Legitimacy ultimately depends on legislative action; otherwise, such guidelines risk undermining the constitutional division of powers. The second challenge lies in ensuring federalism. Question lies in the presence of the subject of education in the Concurrent List, with both the Union and the states competent to legislate. Regulation of coaching centres in Rajasthan and school-based mental health initiatives in Tamil Nadu show fragmented state-level responses. Without central legislation to correspond standards, conformity may remain uneven, undermining equality under Article 14.

Except resources move to rural and government institutions, these guidelines may unintentionally enlarge the gap between elite schools and underfunded public ones. The promotion of socio-economic rights, such as mental health and education, to justiciable entitlements is useful only if resulting in by concrete legislative commitment. Ensuring substantive equality and the effectiveness of these rights requires not only recognition but also robust resource allocation to transform judicial pronouncements from aspirations into lived realities.

The way forward must therefore be legislative; Parliament should enact legislation under its Concurrent List powers. Such a statute would give democratic legitimacy to the framework, clarify regulatory authority, and permit budgetary allocation under Article 282. Reform should proceed in phases. As an immediate step, the creation of grievance redressal cells should be made compulsory in all institutions. This may be outlined on Internal Complaints Committees (ICC) under the POSH Act, 2013 to address neglect, harassment, and non-compliance. In the long term, a National Authority for Student Mental Health should be established for it to set standards and monitor compliance. This must simultaneously also be supported by state-level commissions for local enforcement.

Crucially, reform must rest on the promise of fraternity. Mental health is as much a constitutional as a public responsibility. Peer support groups, mentoring schemes, and parental sensitisation are an expression of a constitutional ethos of solidarity. The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case acknowledged individual dignity and autonomy as a constitutional imperative of privacy protection under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Thus, this ruling constitutes a valiant effort to make the Indian education system more humane by acknowledging mental health as a basic human right and acknowledging student suicides as systematic failures. By issuing guidelines based on Vishaka, the Court tried to plug the holes in the regulatory vacuum concerning students mental health and initiated a national conversation. Yet, sans legislative codification, delegation of adequate resources, and emergence of political will, these directives risk simply remaining aspirational. The true legacy of this judgement would be manifested if India would be able beyond marks and metrics in the near future to build an education system valuing dignity, resilience, and well-being equal to academic success.

Mili Gupta is Assistant Professor, School of Legal Studies, REVA University, Bengaluru and Bodhisattwa Som is Assistant Professor, School of Law and Justice, Adamas University, Kolkata

Views Are Personal. 

3. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 740 ↑

4. 1997 (6) SCC 241 ↑

5. AIR 2014 SC 369 ↑

6. AIR 2018 SC 4321 ↑