Student Suicides in Higher Educational Institutions | SC Issues Pan-India Directions; Flags Tokenistic Compliance, Institutional Apathy

Supreme Court: In a significant order addressing the alarming rise in student suicides in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs), the bench of J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ invoked Supreme Court’s plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and issued a series of binding directions aimed at strengthening mental health infrastructure, institutional responsibility of HEIs, and preventive mechanisms within the higher education ecosystem.

While considering the interim report submitted by the National Task Force on student suicides (NTF) constituted pursuant to its earlier judgment dated 24-03-2025, the Court observed that student suicides represent only the “visible tip of a much larger ice-berg of student distress and well-being” and that HEIs cannot be permitted to absolve themselves of responsibility by individualising such tragedies.

Also read: SC takes note of disturbing pattern of student suicides; Constitutes National Task Force to prevent commission of suicides in higher educational institutions

Institutional Responsibility Cannot Be Diluted

The Court noted that while many of the ills that beset the student are admittedly larger societal issues, however, there are many factors relating to student mental health in higher education that that remain within the immediate control of the educational authorities. The Court noted that there exists a tendency to “shift the blame” and individualise the incident i.e., to attribute individual-specific reasons and personal short-comings as the closely-related cause and that there is hardly any introspection into the institutionally normalised ‘stressors’ which may have had any contributory effect, the Court said that the HEIs cannot shirk away from their fundamental duty to ensure that their institutions as a whole are safe, equitable, inclusive and conducive spaces of learning.

“Irrespective of upon whom the culpability may lie from a strict penal perspective, HEIs cannot shirk away from their fundamental duty to ensure that their institutions as a whole are safe, equitable, inclusive and conducive spaces of learning.”

Disturbing Data on Student Suicides

Taking note of national data analysed by the NTF, the Court recorded that among youth aged 15—29 years, suicides are either the second highest cause of death in the case of men or, the highest cause of death in the case of women, with medical reasons falling far behind, with over 13,000 student suicides reported in 2022 alone. The Court further noted that the suicide rate in India is way ahead of the global rates pertaining to this age group.

Key Stressors and Contributors Identified

The Court accepted the NTF’s findings identifying multiple contributory factors to student suicides in higher educational institutions, including:

• Expansion of the Higher Education System in India
• Structural and social inequalities
• Persistence of ragging despite regulatory prohibitions
• Increased academic pressure
• Failure to properly redress mental health concerns of student by HEIs

• Financial stress

The Court also noted the tokenistic and ineffective functioning of Equal Opportunity Cells, Internal Complaints Committees and grievance redressal bodies, undermining institutional accountability of HEIs.

The Court expressed disappointment over the apathetic response of HEIs, noting that most institutions failed to even participate meaningfully in the NTF’s nationwide survey.

Scattered Frameworks, Weak Enforcement

While acknowledging the existence of multiple statutory regulations and policy initiatives, including UGC Regulations, NEP 2020, National Suicide Prevention Strategy, and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the Court held that these measures addressing student suicides in higher educational institutions remain “scattered across several individual documents and therefore, its implementation and accountability for non-compliance slips through the cracks.”

The Court noted that even if a roadmap or some procedural nitty-gritties are outlined, they do not find any strict real-world application, in the absence of accountability being fixed on HEIs. Most interventions are generic, abstract and reactive as statutory regulations are not taken seriously because HEIs do not run the risk of any adverse consequences for non-compliance.

However, keeping student well-being in HEIs at the forefront, the Court, deeply disappointed with the apathetic attitude of most HEIs, called for closing these gaps, with the help of the NTF and the Union of India, and putting all HEIs to notice that non-compliance will carry some commensurate and serious consequences.

Directions Issued under Article 142

The Court, hence, issued the following directions:

1. Centralized Data on Student Suicides:

   1. All suicides among students aged 15—29 must be centrally recorded to provide accurate statistics.
   2. The NCRB must differentiate between school students and HEI students in its annual reports to monitor trends specifically in higher education.

2. Mandatory Reporting of Incidents:

   1. HEIs must report every suicide or unnatural death of students, whether it occurs on campus, hostels, private accommodations, or online/distance learning, to local police authorities immediately.
   2. An annual report on such incidents must also be submitted to UGC, relevant professional regulatory bodies (AICTE, NMC, DCI, BCI), or, in the case of Central Universities and Institutes of National Importance (INIs), to the Department of Higher Education.

3. Emergency Medical Support:

   1. Every residential HEI must provide access to qualified medical help 24/7, either on campus or within a one-kilometer radius, to ensure timely response to emergencies.

4. Filling Faculty and Administrative Vacancies:

   1. All vacant teaching and non-teaching positions must be filled within four months, giving priority to reserved posts for marginalized groups, including PwDs. Special recruitment drives may be conducted to meet these targets.
   2. Key administrative positions, such as Vice-Chancellors and Registrars, must be filled within four months of vacancy, ideally within one month, to ensure smooth functioning. HEIs must maintain records of reserved posts, vacancies, and reasons for non-filling for accountability.

5. Scholarship Disbursement:

   1. Any backlog in scholarship payments must be cleared within four months.
   2. Delays must be communicated to both students and HEIs with reasons within two months.
   3. No student should face penalties, including being barred from exams, hostel removal, or withholding of marksheets/degrees, due to delays in scholarship disbursement. Clear timelines for future payments must be ensured.

6. Regulatory Compliance and Grievance Mechanisms:

   1. HEIs must strictly comply with all binding UGC regulations, including anti-ragging, equity promotion, sexual harassment prevention, and student grievance redressal.

   2. Functional mechanisms like Anti-Ragging Committees, Anti-Discrimination Officers, Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs), Equal Opportunity Cells (EOCs), and Student Grievance Redressal Committees must be fully operational and adhere to prescribed procedures.

Unified Student Well-being Framework

Seeking to avoid prescriptive but ineffective reform, the Court directed the NTF to formulate model Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for institutional well-being audits, faculty sensitisation, and mental health services.

The Court expressed its hope that the NTF would suggest a model ‘Universal Design Framework’ or a model ‘Suicide Prevention and Postvention Protocol’ or a model ‘Student well-being Protocol’ which cohesively and comprehensively incorporates the aforementioned model SOPs, the existing guidelines on ragging, promotion of equity, sexual harassment, etc., and any other relevant measures which they may consider necessary, into one single guiding document.

[Amit Kumar v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 81, order dated 15-01-2026]

---

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Amicus Curiae: MS. Aparna Bhat, assisted by Mr. Mayank Sapra, AOR Ms. Karishma Maria, Adv. Ms. Haridas Medha, Adv. Ms. Lalima Das, Adv.

For Appellant(s): Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Adv. Mr. R. H. A. Sikander, AOR Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Sanawar, Adv. Mr. Kshitij Singh, Adv. Ms. Nujhat Naseem, Adv. Mr. Sikander Raza, Adv. Mr. Faisal Mohammad, Adv. 1 Mr. Kumail Abbas, Adv.

For Respondent(s): Mr. K .M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Ms. Silpi S Swain, Adv. Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Amit Sharma Ii, Adv. Mrs. Bani Dikshit, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Krishna Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G. Mr. Abhijeet Pandove, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma B, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Ms. Bani Dikshit, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv. Mr. Karan Chahar, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Bajpai, AOR Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Ishika Gupta, Adv. Mr. Amith Krishnan H, AOR Mr. Parmanand Gaur, AOR Ms. Megha Gaur, Adv. Mr. Vibhav Mishra, Adv. Mr. K.m Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Mr. Rudraditya Khare, D.A.G. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri, Adv. Mr. Akshay Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Manish Sharma, Adv. 3 Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Mayank Sapra, AOR Ms. Karishma Maria, Adv. Ms. Haridas Medha, Adv. Ms. Lalima Das, Adv. Mr. Anil Shrivastav, A.A.G. Ms. Disha Singh, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Panwar, A.A.G. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manav Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Kaushal Gautam, Adv. Ms. Snehpreet Kaur, AOR Mr. Prashant Alai, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.k. Nayak, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K J Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv. Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Ms. Amitoz Kaur, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Malik, Adv. Ms. Shivani Agrahari, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Adv.