Supreme Court issues guidelines to address student suicides and mental health in educational institutions
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said there remained a "legislative and regulatory vacuum" in the country with respect to a unified, enforceable framework for suicide prevention of students in educational institutions, coaching centres, and student-centric environments.
While issuing 15 guidelines, the bench said the measures should remain in force and binding, until such time as appropriate legislation or regulatory frameworks were enacted by the competent authority.
All educational institutions were directed to adopt and implement a uniform mental health policy, drawing cues from the "Ummeed" draft guidelines, the "Manodarpan" initiative, and the National Suicide Prevention Strategy.
"This policy shall be reviewed and updated annually and made publicly accessible on institutional websites and notice boards of the institutes," the bench said.
The top court highlighted Centre's preventive steps to mitigate the situation, with "Ummeed" (understand, motivate, manage, empathise, empower, and develop) draft guidelines -- meant to prevent school student suicides -- released by the Ministry of Education in 2023.
For a broader reach, the court said, the Ministry of Education launched "Manodarpan", mental health and well-being of students during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.
The verdict came on an appeal against an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, rejecting the plea to transfer the investigation over the unnatural death of a 17-year-old National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test aspirant, preparing in Vishakhapatnam, to the CBI.
Passing a slew of guidelines, the bench said all educational institutions with 100 or more enrolled students should either appoint or engage at least one qualified counsellor, psychologist, or social worker with demonstrable training in child and adolescent mental health.
"Institutions with fewer students shall establish formal referral linkages with external mental health professionals," the verdict said.
The bench continued, "All residential-based institutions shall install tamper-proof ceiling fans or equivalent safety devices, and shall restrict access to rooftops, balconies, and other high-risk areas, in order to deter impulsive acts of self-harm."
All educational institutions, particularly coaching institutes or centres, were asked to refrain from segregating students' batches on the basis of academic performance, public shaming, or assignment of academic targets disproportionate to their capacities.
"All educational institutions shall establish robust, confidential, and accessible mechanisms for the reporting, redressal, and prevention of incidents involving sexual assault, harassment, ragging, and bullying on the basis of caste, class, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or ethnicity," the order said.
The bench stressed on the need for zero tolerance when it came to retaliatory actions against complainants or whistle-blowers.
In all such cases, immediate referral to trained mental health professionals must be ensured, and the student's safety, physical and psychological, should be prioritised, it said.
"Failure to take timely or adequate action in such cases, especially where such neglect contributes to a student's self-harm or suicide, shall be treated as institutional culpability, making the administration liable to regulatory and legal consequences," the bench added.
All coaching hubs, including Jaipur, Kota, Chennai, Hyderabad, Delhi and Mumbai, were directed to implement heightened mental health protection and preventive measures.
The guidelines would apply to all educational institutions, including public and private schools, colleges, universities, training centres, coaching institutes, residential academies and hostels, irrespective of their affiliation.
The top court in a separate case took cognisance of suicides in educational institutions and directed the constitution of a National Task Force on mental health concerns of students and prevention of suicides in higher educational institutions.
"We may clarify that these guidelines are not in supersession but in parallel to the ongoing work of the National Task Force on mental health concerns of students and are being issued to provide an interim protective architecture in the interregnum," the bench clarified.
All states and union territories, as far as practicable, were directed to notify rules within two months mandating registration, student protection norms, and grievance redressal mechanisms for all private coaching centres.
The bench directed the Centre to file a compliance affidavit before it within 90 days detailing the steps taken to implement these guidelines and the monitoring systems put in place.
It posted the matter for October 27 for receiving the compliance report.
Dealing with the unnatural death case, the bench directed that the investigation shall be transferred to the CBI.
The CBI director was ordered to ensure immediate registration of case and the investigation being assigned to a team under the supervision of jurisdictional CBI superintendent. PTI
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
31 minutes ago
- News18
Delhi's July Air Quality Beats Even Covid Lockdown Levels, AQI At Historic Low
Last Updated: With 29 days of clean air, Delhi saw its best July AQI on record. Delhi government called it an 'unprecedented environmental breakthrough' With 29 days this month recording air quality in the 'Good' and 'Satisfactory' categories, the Delhi government on Thursday called it the 'cleanest July in decades" and the 'best July in Delhi's recorded history". On Thursday, Delhi's Air Quality Index (AQI) stood at 59, with most of the city's 13 pollution hotspots also registering in the 'Good' or 'Satisfactory' categories — a remarkable improvement from previous years, the government said. Speaking to News18, a ministry official said the government sourced the data from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). AQI between 0 and 50 is considered 'Good", 51–100 is 'Satisfactory", 101–200 is 'Moderate", 201–300 is 'Poor", 301–400 is 'Very Poor", and anything above 400 is categorised as 'Severe". It is also important to note that the CPCB began collecting AQI data in 2015 with the launch of the National AQI on April 6. The average AQI for the month of July was 104 in 2018, 134 in 2019, 84 in 2020, 110 in 2021, 87 in 2022, 84 in 2023, and 96 in 2024. Not just the Delhi government, but the Union government also issued a statement on the matter, crediting the improvement to 'favourable meteorological conditions and efforts by different stakeholders". At 78 ('Satisfactory'), the Union government said July 2025 'witnessed the best average AQI in Delhi since 2018". These numbers surpass even those recorded during the COVID-19 lockdown period, when pollution levels had temporarily dipped, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change said. Highest Number Of 'Satisfactory' Days July also witnessed the highest number of 'Satisfactory' days (AQI 51–100) — 29 — compared to 16 days in 2018, 12 days in 2019, 25 days in 2020, 20 days in 2021, 25 days in 2022, 26 days in 2023, and 17 days in 2024. 'Unprecedented Environmental Breakthrough' Calling it an 'unprecedented environmental breakthrough" in an official statement, the Delhi government said the capital's cleanest July ever is proof that with 'clean intent and strong action, we can change the city's air quality for the better". Delhi Environment Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa attributed the success to the government's multi-tiered strategy. 'We have moved from reactive pollution control to proactive pollution prevention… our 24×7 teams are implementing solutions on the ground — from increasing green cover through Van Mahotsav to stricter dust control, automatic misting, mechanised road sweeping, and bio-mining of garbage mountains. Every action is delivering measurable impact," said Sirsa. The average AQI for July 2025 is among the lowest ever recorded, surpassing previous clean-air milestones. 'This is the best July air quality in decades, setting a new benchmark in Delhi's fight against air pollution," the government added. Low AQI Result Of Government Interventions Sirsa emphasised that the improvement is not merely weather-driven but the result of structured, technology-backed interventions. 'Delhi's clean air this July is not a coincidence; it's a consequence of policy, enforcement, and teamwork. We have created systems that work round the year, ensuring this progress is sustainable," he said. With artificial rain preparations, ongoing landfill bio-mining, and enhanced dust mitigation norms, the government is confident of sustaining and further improving air quality. Between August 30 and September 10, artificial rain will be carried out over Alipur, Bawana, Rohini, Burari, Pavi Sadakpur, and parts of the Eastern Peripheral Expressway. 'This is only the beginning. Delhi can and will breathe cleaner air in the days to come," Sirsa added. About the Author Nivedita Singh Nivedita Singh is a data journalist and covers the Election Commission, Indian Railways and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. She has nearly seven years of experience in the news media. She tweets @ More tags : clean air Delhi AQI delhi pollution 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.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
US top medical body excludes health experts from vaccine advisory process
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told physician groups, public health professionals and infectious disease experts that they will no longer be invited to help review vaccine data and develop recommendations, according to an email viewed by Bloomberg. The panel's recommendations are important for vaccine access as they help determine which shots insurers are required to cover for free for patients. (Reuters file) The move marks an escalation in Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s efforts to assert control over the CDC's vaccine advisory process. Under the change, external experts will be excluded from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' working groups — subcommittees that review data and develop policy recommendations — but they will still be able to participate in open public meetings. The panel's recommendations are important for vaccine access as they help determine which shots insurers are required to cover for free for patients. Kennedy in June fired all its members and replaced them with his own picks, including members who have criticized the safety of the Covid vaccine. 'It is important that the ACIP workgroup activities remain free of influence from any special interest groups, so ACIP workgroups will no longer include liaison organizations,' the email said. It also characterized the groups as biased 'based on their constituency and/or population that they represent.' The CDC referred a request for comment to HHS. A spokesperson for HHS did not immediately respond. Noel Brewer, a professor of public health at the University of North Carolina and former member of ACIP who was ousted by Kennedy, said the working groups have long relied on the input of pediatricians, family physicians, gynecologists, nurses and other health professionals to ensure recommendations met the needs of patients and providers. 'This is a huge loss that will be very damaging to medical care,' Brewer said. Some of the groups that will be excluded from private deliberations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, sued Kennedy this month over his unilateral decision to change federal Covid vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women. The panel has become more high profile amid scrutiny of Kennedy's approach to vaccination policy. After Kennedy's confirmation, Republican Senator Bill Cassidy said that Kennedy had committed to maintaining the CDC's vaccine panel 'without changes.'
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Before the Supreme Court, questions over the age cap in surrogacy law
The Supreme Court this week reserved its verdict in a clutch of petitions challenging the age cap for couples seeking to have a child through surrogacy, especially those couples who had started the process before the current law on this matter was enacted by Parliament. The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, prescribe the legal framework for surrogacy. Together, these laws lay down age limits on those intending to have a child through surrogacy. The intending woman, if married, must be between 23 and 50 years of age; fathers must be between 26 and 55, and single women must be between the ages of 35 and 45 years. The case before SC Several writ petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court by couples who find themselves stuck in the process due to a change in the law on surrogacy. Essentially, they had begun their treatment before the enactment of the law, but the new law's age limits make them ineligible for surrogacy. A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan heard three petitions filed by couples requesting eligibility certificates under the Surrogacy Act, arguing that they had initiated the process before the Act was brought in. In one of the petitions, the husband is 62 years old, while the wife is about 56 years old. The couple lost their only child in 2018 and, desirous of having another child, began fertility procedures in 2019. After facing delays due to the disruptions induced by the COVID-19 pandemic, they were able to eventually arrange for an embryo transfer in early 2022. The petition states that their pregnancy was unsuccessful — and by the time they sought to proceed with another transfer, they had crossed the age limit laid down by the surrogacy law. The petitioners argued that the retrospective application of these conditions was unreasonable, especially when medical procedures were already underway at the time the Act came into force. They also submitted that the age limit created an unreasonable classification, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, and also interfered with reproductive autonomy, which is a facet of Article 21, which protects personal liberty. Regulatory laws usually offer transitional safeguards for those navigating compliance during a legislative shift. These provisions are called 'grandfather clauses', which 'grandfather in' certain existing situations. The Surrogacy Act has no such transitional clauses. The petitioner's challenge also raised broader concerns, including the right of single, unmarried women to pursue parenthood through surrogacy, a choice that the current law does not accommodate. Provisions of the law The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, and the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, enacted in January 2022, together ban commercial surrogacy and allow only altruistic surrogacy. According to the government, this change in law was intended to prevent the commodification of reproductive labour and to impose procedural safeguards to ensure that surrogacy is used only in cases of medical necessity. The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act lays down eligibility conditions for couples intending to seek surrogacy. The law states that for intending couples, the woman must be between 23 and 50 years of age, and the man between 26 and 55 years. The process requires the couple to obtain a certificate of essentiality, which includes proof of infertility, a court order establishing parentage and custody, and insurance for the surrogate. Single women are eligible only if they are widows or divorcees between the ages of 35 to 45. This is under challenge before the SC on the grounds that the definition of single women excluding unmarried women is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The SC has not taken up this issue in the current batch of petitions for adjudication. Court's questions The government has defended the age restrictions on grounds of medical safety. It has said that the statutory age caps are based on recommendations from medical experts, and align with practices in reproductive health. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati argued that the age limits align with natural reproductive timelines, which she said is necessary for protecting the welface of the child. When the ASG mentioned the risks associated with geriatric pregnancies, Justice Nagarathna pointed out that some couples 'will take the risk' anyway. Essentially, the Bench asked why surrogacy as an option must be outlawed for an older couple when natural geriatric pregnancies are not outlawed. The ASG responded that advanced parental age influences both an unborn child's health through genetic and epigenetic changes, and also the filial love that a child requires for 20 years of their life. 'Rational nexus to the object of the Act is absent by having this age bar, especially as there is a void regarding not taking care of the couples who have already commenced. Genuine intending couples who had commenced surrogacy, the Act doesn't care for them and puts an embargo. Stop, no children! Look how harsh it is,' Justice Nagarathna said, emphasising that the Surrogacy Act's intent is to prevent commercial surrogacy, not genuine parenthood.
