The Supreme Court has directed all higher education institutions across the country to immediately notify law enforcement authorities of any student suicide or unnatural death, emphasising that colleges and universities cannot evade their statutory and constitutional obligations.
Exercising its plenary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan on Thursday laid down a comprehensive and enforceable framework to strengthen mental-health safeguards, institutional accountability, and preventive mechanisms across the higher education ecosystem.
Perusing the interim report of the National Task Force on Student Suicides, constituted pursuant to the Court’s judgment dated March 24, 2025, the Bench noted that reported suicides represent only the most visible manifestation of a deeper and systemic crisis of student distress. The Apex Court rejected the prevailing institutional tendency to individualise such deaths by attributing them to personal failings or isolated circumstances, holding that this approach masks the role of structurally embedded stressors operating within educational institutions.
Reaffirming the constitutional and statutory duties of educational authorities, the Court held that while certain determinants of student distress may be societal in nature, a substantial range of factors affecting mental health fall squarely within the administrative and regulatory control of higher educational institutions.
Drawing from the guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, and jurisprudence recognising mental health as an integral facet of the right to life and dignity, the Bench ruled that institutions cannot dilute or outsource their duty of care. Higher educational institutions, the Court emphasised, bear a non-delegable obligation to ensure that campuses function as safe, equitable, inclusive and psychologically supportive spaces for learning. It was clarified that the absence of direct penal culpability does not absolve institutions of their constitutional responsibility, a principle consistent with earlier decisions imposing heightened duties in custodial and quasi-custodial settings.
Taking note of national data analysed by the Task Force, the Bench recorded that suicides constitute one of the leading causes of death among individuals aged 15 to 29 years, ranking as the second highest cause among men and the highest among women. With more than 13,000 student suicides reported in 2022 alone, the Bench observed that India’s suicide rate for this age cohort significantly exceeds global averages, underscoring the gravity of the crisis within the higher-education sector.
The Court accepted the Task Force’s findings identifying multiple contributory factors, including the rapid and uneven expansion of the higher-education system, entrenched structural and social inequalities, the persistence of ragging despite statutory prohibitions, escalating academic and performance pressures, chronic financial stress and the systemic failure of institutions to meaningfully address mental-health concerns.
Particular concern was expressed over the largely tokenistic functioning of Equal Opportunity Cells, Internal Complaints Committees and student grievance redressal mechanisms, which the Court found to be undermining institutional accountability. The Bench also recorded its dissatisfaction with the apathetic response of many institutions, noting that a significant number failed to participate meaningfully in the Task Force’s nationwide survey.
While acknowledging the existence of multiple statutory regulations and policy initiatives, including the University Grants Commission Regulations, the National Education Policy 2020, the National Suicide Prevention Strategy and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the Court held that the regulatory framework governing student well-being remains fragmented and weakly enforced. The dispersion of obligations across multiple instruments, coupled with the absence of clearly fixed accountability and consequences for non-compliance, has rendered most interventions generic, abstract and reactive. The Court observed that regulations are often treated as advisory rather than binding, as institutions face little risk of adverse action for breach.
Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, the Court issued binding directions applicable to all higher educational institutions. It mandated the centralised recording of all suicides involving students aged 15 to 29 years and directed the National Crime Records Bureau to distinctly classify data relating to school students and higher-education students in its annual publications.
All institutions were directed to immediately report every suicide or unnatural death of a student, irrespective of whether it occurs on campus, in hostels, private accommodations or in the context of online or distance learning, to the local police authorities upon gaining knowledge of the incident. Institutions were further required to submit annual consolidated reports of such incidents to the University Grants Commission and relevant professional regulatory bodies, or, in the case of Central Universities and Institutes of National Importance, to the Department of Higher Education under the Ministry of Education.
The Court directed that every residential higher educational institution must ensure round-the-clock access to qualified medical professionals, either on campus or within a one-kilometre radius, to enable timely emergency response. Recognising acute faculty and staff shortages, the Bench ordered that all vacant teaching and non-teaching posts be filled within four months, with priority accorded to posts reserved for marginalised and underrepresented communities, including persons with disabilities.
Vacancies in key administrative positions such as Vice-Chancellors and Registrars were directed to be filled expeditiously, ideally within one month and in any event within four months, to prevent institutional paralysis. Institutions were also required to maintain transparent records detailing sanctioned posts, vacancies, reasons for non-filling and timelines for appointments, so as to facilitate effective oversight.
On the issue of scholarships, the Court issued stringent directions requiring the clearance of all pending disbursement backlogs within four months. It mandated that future scholarship payments adhere to clearly defined timelines and that students be informed in advance of disbursement schedules. Importantly, the Court prohibited institutions from imposing any punitive or coercive measures on students due to delays in scholarship payments, including debarring them from examinations, evicting them from hostels, restricting class attendance or withholding marksheets and degrees.
The Bench further directed strict compliance with all binding regulatory frameworks, including the UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, regulations governing prevention of sexual harassment, promotion of equity and student grievance redressal. It emphasised that statutory bodies such as Anti-Ragging Committees, Internal Complaints Committees, Equal Opportunity Cells and Student Grievance Redressal Committees must be fully functional and operate strictly in accordance with prescribed procedures, rather than existing as formalities.
In order to move beyond fragmented and ineffective reforms, the top court of the country tasked the National Task Force with formulating model standard operating procedures for institutional well-being audits, faculty sensitisation programmes and the delivery of mental-health services. The Task Force was encouraged to propose a consolidated and cohesive framework, such as a universal student well-being protocol or a comprehensive suicide prevention and postvention framework, integrating existing guidelines on ragging, discrimination, sexual harassment and student welfare into a single guiding and enforceable document.
The post Supreme Court directs higher educational institutions to report student suicides immediately appeared first on India Legal.