Supreme Court Lays Down 15 Guidelines To Safeguard Students' Mental Health
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta while addressing the issue of students' suicides in India, issued 15 binding directions.
The order of the apex court came while deciding the petition filed by the father of the student, who died under suspicious circumstances after falling from her hostel terrace while undergoing NEET coaching at Aakash Byju's Institute, Vishakhapatnam in July.
The apex court directed all states and Union Territories to notify rules within two months mandating registration, student protection norms, and grievance redressal for private coaching centres.
It also ordered the formation of district-level monitoring committees headed by District Magistrates to oversee implementation, inspections, and complaints.
The top court further asked the Union of India to file a compliance affidavit within 90 days detailing implementation steps, coordination with states, regulatory progress, monitoring mechanisms, and the timeline for the National Task Force's report on student mental health.
The bench said that until such time as appropriate legislation or regulatory frameworks are enacted by the competent authority, it decided to lay down the following guidelines to protect students' mental health.
All educational institutions shall ensure optimal student-to-counsellor ratios, it said.
The apex court said that dedicated mentors or counsellors shall be assigned to smaller batches of students, especially during examination periods and academic transitions, to provide consistent, informal, and confidential support.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
23 minutes ago
- News18
Supreme Court Quashes Age Fraud Case On Lakshya Sen
Last Updated: The Supreme Court dismissed an FIR against badminton star Lakshya Sen, his family, and coach for birth certificate forgery, citing lack of evidence and abuse of process. The Supreme Court quashed an FIR against national badminton star Lakshya Sen, his family members, and coach in a case of birth certificate forgery on Monday (July 28). A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar observed that the allegations against Sen had already been debunked by competent authorities, adding that the complaintant sought to reopen the query without any substantial fresh evidence. The court declared the continuation of criminal proceedings against Sen an abuse of the process. 'The appellants, particularly appellant 1 and 3, are sportspersons of national standing, having represented India in international badminton tournaments and having earned multiple accolades, including medals at the Commonwealth Games and BWF international events," the court said. 'To compel such individuals who have maintained an unblemished record and brought distinction to the country through sustained excellence,to undergo the ordeal of a criminal trial in the absence of prima facie material would not subserve the ends of justice." Sen was said to have undergone bone ossification and dental tests at government-run hospitals including AIIMS, Delhi, in 2016 under an investigation by the Sports Authority of India (SAI). 'The findings of these tests supported the birth years as recorded in official documents. On that basis, the SAI closed the matter. The CVC, an independent oversight body, was also seized of the issue and recommended no disciplinary proceedings against D K Sen. These findings were accepted by the relevant authorities and have not been set aside or reopened," the bench said. The top court was hearing a plea against a Karnataka High Court order dated February 19 rejecting the petitions filed by Sen, his family members, and his coach. Complainant M G Nagaraj had alleged birth certificates of Sen and his brother Chirag Sen were forged and that their parents, Dhirendra and Nirmala Sen, and coach U Vimal Kumar, and an employee of the Karnataka Badminton Association, were involved. The alleged forgery was intended to allow them to participate in age-restricted badminton tournaments and avail government benefits. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NDTV
25 minutes ago
- NDTV
Saying 'I Love You' Not Sex Harassment Without Proven Intent: Chhattisgarh High Court
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted a youth accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, stating that merely saying "I love you" does not amount to sexual harassment unless clear sexual intent is established. A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay S Agarwal upheld the verdict of the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by the state government, observing that the prosecution failed to provide adequate evidence to prove either the accused's intent or the age of the victim. The case originated from the Kurud police station area of Dhamtari district, where a 15-year-old schoolgirl had alleged that while she was returning home, the accused saw her and said "I love you." She also claimed that the youth had harassed her earlier on multiple occasions. Based on her complaint, the police registered a case under sections 354D (stalking) and 509 (outraging the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code, along with section 8 of the POCSO Act and section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. However, the trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence, leading the state government to challenge the acquittal in the High Court. During the hearing, the High Court noted that neither the testimony of the victim nor that of her friends demonstrated any sexual intent behind the accused's actions. The court further highlighted that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused was aware of the victim's caste, rendering the application of the SC/ST Act baseless. Justice Agarwal emphasised that an isolated instance of saying "I love you," without repeated contact or suggestive behaviour, does not fulfil the legal criteria for sexual harassment under the POCSO Act. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Attorney General for India vs Satish (2021), the court underscored that a sexual overture must be supported by clear intent for it to fall under the purview of sexual harassment as defined in Section 7 of the Act. The court also raised concerns over the failure to verify the victim's age and described the investigation as inadequate and careless. Concluding that there was no sufficient evidence to convict the youth, the High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal and dismissed the state's appeal.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
31 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Why wait until now to challenge inquiry in cash row: SC to Justice Varma
The Supreme Court on Monday asked Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma why he had waited until now to challenge the procedure adopted after half-burnt Indian currency notes were discovered in an outhouse of his residential premises. 'Did you take a chance of a favourable finding? You are a constitutional authority. You cannot say, 'I don't know',' the judges told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Varma. Varma, who was a judge of the Delhi High Court when the cash was found, told the court that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation, based on a three-judge enquiry report, cannot form the basis for his removal. He also contended that a sitting judge's conduct cannot be part of public discourse before the legislative process begins—a constitutional mandate that was defied in his case. CJI Khanna had set up the three-member committee following the discovery of the cash at Justice Varma's official residence. The fact-finding committee was constituted under the in-house inquiry procedure to assist the CJI in acting on complaints against High Court or Supreme Court judges. The three-member panel, in its report, said the cash found at Justice Varma's residence was unaccounted for and that he was unable to explain its source—grounds that justified impeachment. This led CJI Khanna to advise Justice Varma to resign, which he refused to do. The CJI then forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister for further action. 'The entire case has become political,' Sibal told the court on Monday, adding that Justice Varma, a sitting judge, had been declared guilty even before the commencement of statutory proceedings—under which only Parliament can remove a sitting judge. During the hearing, the bench also asked Sibal why he believed that former CJI Khanna's decision to forward the report to the President and Prime Minister was not constitutionally valid. Sibal argued that the CJI, under the in-house procedure, was not authorised to recommend a judge's removal. The court reasoned: 'The President is the appointing authority and, therefore, the matter was placed before it (the President's office). Since the President acts as per the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and the Prime Minister is the leader of the Council of Ministers, forwarding to the Prime Minister is also not problematic.' The court also said that the former CJI's approach did not imply he was 'trying to persuade the House (Parliament) to act based on his recommendation.' Sibal, however, clarified that Justice Varma had not moved against the judgment but was aggrieved by how the entire investigation had unfolded. The bench then fixed Wednesday to hear the case again and asked Justice Varma to place the three-member in-house enquiry panel report on record for its perusal.
