Latest news with #UMMEEDDraftGuidelines
India Today
3 days ago
- Health
- India Today
As Supreme Court steps in to stop student suicides, the buck stops where?
The Supreme Court's (SC) July 25 ruling on student mental health marks a watershed moment in the country's educational landscape rocked by a rising spate of student suicides, much of it precipitated by the stress of academic performance and high-pressure environments such as at entrance exam coaching SC has issued binding nationwide guidelines aimed at transforming how educational institutions respond to mental health challenges. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted that India lacked a unified, institutional framework to address student suicides and psychological distress in academic settings. The court underlined that mental health is a crucial aspect of the right to life under Article 21 of the judgment directs all states and Union territories to frame specific rules within two months for the registration and regulation of coaching centres, ensuring the integration of mental health safeguards and grievance-redress mechanisms. These regulations will be monitored by newly constituted district-level committees while the Union government has been directed to file a compliance affidavit within 90 days.A key takeaway from the ruling is its insistence on every educational institution—be it a school, college, university or coaching centre—to adopt a uniform mental health policy. This policy must be inspired by the UMMEED Draft Guidelines, the ministry of education's MANODARPAN initiative and the National Suicide Prevention Strategy, and must be updated annually. Institutions are required to display these policies prominently on their websites and physical notice boards, ensuring transparency and accountability. The ruling places special emphasis on the role of coaching institutions, which have come under increased scrutiny for the intense pressure their students are allegedly under. All coaching centres with more than 100 students must now appoint a full-time, qualified counsellor. Those with fewer students are mandated to establish formal referral systems to link students with external mental health ratios must be maintained within acceptable limits, and academic mentorship should be built into the support framework. Crucially, the judgment forbids practices such as segregating students based on performance, publicly shaming them or setting unrealistic academic expectations that often contribute to mental Supreme Court also called for robust suicide-prevention infrastructure within educational settings. Institutions must clearly display helpline numbers and establish emergency referral protocols. All teaching and non-teaching staff must undergo biannual training in psychological first aid and in identifying signs of emotional too, are drawn into the preventive framework: institutions must organise regular sensitisation programmes—offline or online—to help parents recognise early signs of psychological struggle, avoid applying excessive academic pressure and offer emotional support. The absence of timely or adequate institutional response, particularly in cases where neglect contributes to a student's self-harm or suicide, will now be treated as institutional culpability, exposing administrators to legal and regulatory the court has directed that mental health awareness, emotional resilience training and life skills education be incorporated into orientation programmes and co-curricular activities. Educational institutions are required to maintain anonymous records of wellness initiatives, counselling sessions and awareness programmes, and submit an annual mental health report to their respective regulatory authority, such as the University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).For residential institutions, the court has recommended structural interventions as well, such as tamper-proof ceiling fans and restricted access to rooftops and other high-risk areas, in order to deter impulsive suicide attempts. More significantly, all staff members must be trained to handle with sensitivity and inclusiveness students from vulnerable or marginalised backgrounds, such as SC, ST, OBC, economically weaker sections, LGBTQ+ as well as those with disabilities or dealing with bereavement, trauma or a history of suicide attempts. Institutions are also expected to establish confidential grievance redress mechanisms that allow students to report distress or harassment without fear of stigma or judgment arrives at a time when India's premier coaching hubs, such as Kota, Jaipur, Sikar, Hyderabad, Delhi, Chennai and Mumbai, are witnessing a troubling surge in student suicides. Kota, often referred to as the 'coaching capital of India', has become symbolic of the mounting psychological toll that the country's competitive exam culture is taking on to data from the Kota police, between January 2022 and February 2025, at least 24 deaths by suicide were reported among students enrolled in the city's coaching centres. Of these, 19 students died by hanging, three by jumping from heights, one through poisoning and another by falling before a train. Investigations revealed that 11 of the deaths were linked to educational stress, six to romantic relationships, two each to illness, family issues and online gaming addiction, and one to substance abuse. In nine cases, students had previously expressed suicidal thoughts; three had made earlier attempts while three others had a family history of timing of the suicides was revealing: 17 of the 24 deaths occurred between January and April, a period that precedes most competitive exams. Perhaps most poignantly, 'performance gap' emerged as a major factor. Many of the deceased were unable to replicate their high Class 10 scores—14 of them had scored over 80 per cent—and this perceived failure appeared to push them over the edge. The demographic breakdown further underscored the gendered pressure: 21 of the victims were boys and only three were parallel study conducted by the Kota Medical College, covering 27 student deaths by suicide between October 2022 and September 2023, painted a similarly grim picture. Twenty-five of the deceased were preparing for NEET (national medical entrance) and two for JEE (national engineering entrance). Stress and depression were cited as the main causes in 20 of these cases. Alarmingly, many of the students were minors—two were 15 years old, four were 16, 11 were 17, and six were 18—highlighting the vulnerability of teenagers thrust into hyper-competitive SC's intervention could not have come at a more urgent time. The court's recognition of mental health as a basic right and its emphasis on institutional accountability signals a much-needed paradigm shift. However, the real test will be in how rigorously these directives are implemented. Without adequate funding, trained psychological professionals and a sustained shift in academic culture—from punitive to empathetic—the guidelines risk remaining only on enforced earnestly, the judgment has the potential not only to stem the tide of student suicides but also promote overall emotional resilience among India's youth. Over time, stronger mental health awareness could also deter substance abuse, gaming addiction and other risky behaviours prevalent among vulnerable adolescents. The SC has done its part; it is now up to educational institutions, parents, governments and society at large to heed this legal and moral to India Today Magazine- EndsMust Watch
Indian Express
7 days ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court verdict on student suicides should move the needle on mental health of youngsters
On July 25, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment of profound constitutional and societal significance. A Division Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta addressed one of the most tragic, yet inadequately acknowledged issues, confronting Indian society today: The alarming rise in student suicides. The Court invoked its constitutional authority to acknowledge the scale of the mental health crisis in educational institutions and provided an actionable framework for redress. The SC has issued 15 binding directions applicable to all schools, colleges, hostels, and coaching centres across the country, aimed at institutionalising mental-health support and safeguarding the psychological well-being of students. The gravity of its concern was encapsulated in the apex court's unequivocal recognition that the current education system, given its obsession with competitive examinations, has turned toxic. The pursuit of learning — ideally a joyful and liberating experience — has been reduced to a mechanical, high-pressure ordeal centred on ranks, grades, and performance metrics. The soul of education, the Court observed, has been 'distorted'. The verdict asks all educational institutions to adopt a uniform mental-health policy, taking cues from existing frameworks such as the UMMEED Draft Guidelines, the Ministry of Education's MANODARPAN initiative, and the National Suicide Prevention Strategy. The Court has also made it compulsory for schools and coaching centres with more than 100 students to appoint at least one qualified counsellor or psychologist. The judgment directs educational spaces to avoid harmful practices such as batch segregation based on academic performance, public shaming, or setting unrealistic academic goals. Among other things, the Court also directed institutions to have written protocols for emergency mental health referrals and display suicide prevention helpline numbers prominently in hostels, classrooms, and websites. This verdict has not emerged in a vacuum. It's a direct judicial response to the devastating data published by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in its 2022 report, 'Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India'. The figures are chilling: 1,70,924 suicides were recorded in 2022, of which 13,044 were students, translating to nearly 36 student suicides per day. Alarmingly, 2,248 of these deaths were attributed to examination failure alone. Over the past two decades, student suicides have more than doubled. Between 2011 and 2022, suicides among male students rose by 99 per cent, and among female students by 92 per cent. Despite this spiraling crisis, institutional mechanisms for mental-health support within India's educational architecture have remained fragmented, voluntary, and largely ineffective. The Supreme Court's judgment seeks to bridge this gap, much like it did in Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan (1997), where the absence of legislative measures on workplace sexual harassment compelled the Court to issue interim guidelines. In Vishaka, those judicial directions later became the blueprint for a central statute. The present judgment has similar transformative potential. It fills a policy vacuum, asserts constitutional accountability, and paves the way for legislative reform. In terms of timelines, the judgment is characteristically firm. All states and Union Territories are required to notify appropriate rules and regulations within two months, while the Union government must submit a compliance affidavit within 90 days. The timeline signals the Court's intent to not merely issue guidelines but to ensure they are implemented. The constitutional implications of the verdict are manifold. First, it reinforces the idea that the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to mental well-being and a dignified educational environment. Second, it builds on the Court's jurisprudence in Unnikrishnan JP vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka, where the Right to Education was read as an essential component of the Right to Life. The SC has now brought mental health within the domain of constitutional protection, making it not merely a policy concern but a justiciable right. The verdict also critiques the structural violence that's inherent in India's educational ecosystem. Coaching centres have become infamous for their conveyor-belt pedagogy and relentless pressure. The commodification of education, where success is narrowly defined by entrance exam results, has eroded the developmental and humanistic objectives of learning. By compelling educational institutions to re-centre their focus on student well-being, the Court is reminding the nation that education is a public good, not a private transaction. However, while the judgment lays a robust foundation, the real challenge lies ahead in its enforcement. Judicial pronouncements, however well-intentioned, require vigilant implementation. The failure of several state governments to fully operationalise the Vishaka Guidelines until the enactment of the 2013 legislation is a cautionary tale. The central and state governments must now rise to the occasion. More importantly, educational institutions must internalise the fact that compliance is not merely a legal compulsion but a moral imperative. Preventing even a single suicide means preserving a future, shielding a family from unbearable loss, and affirming the constitutional promise of a life of dignity. The writer is a Kashmir-based lawyer and national president of J&K Students Association
New Indian Express
25-07-2025
- New Indian Express
SC issues 15 nationwide guidelines to curb student suicides and improve mental health in educational institutions
NEW DELHI: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Friday issued 15 pan-India guidelines to address the rising incidents of suicide, safety concerns, and mental health issues among students in educational institutions. The top court's verdict came in response to an appeal against an Andhra Pradesh High Court order, which had rejected a plea to transfer to the CBI the investigation into the death of a 17-year-old National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) aspirant under suspicious circumstances while preparing in Visakhapatnam. The Supreme Court has now ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the case. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict and issued the 15 guidelines, stating that these measures will remain in force and binding until appropriate legislation or regulatory frameworks are enacted by the competent authorities. Key guidelines issued by the Supreme Court All educational institutions must adopt and implement a uniform mental health policy, drawing from the UMMEED Draft Guidelines, the MANODARPAN initiative, and the National Suicide Prevention Strategy. This policy must be reviewed annually and made publicly accessible on institutional websites and notice boards. Institutions with 100 or more enrolled students must appoint at least one qualified counsellor, psychologist, or social worker with demonstrable training in child and adolescent mental health. Smaller institutions must establish formal referral linkages with professionals. All institutions must ensure optimal student-to-counsellor ratios. Dedicated mentors or counsellors should be assigned to smaller student batches, especially during exam periods or academic transitions, to offer consistent, informal, and confidential support. Coaching and educational institutions are directed to refrain from batch segregation based on academic performance, public shaming, or assigning academic targets that exceed a student's capacity. Institutions must have written protocols for immediate referral to mental health services, hospitals, and suicide prevention helplines. These helpline numbers, including Tele-MANAS and other national services, must be prominently displayed in hostels, classrooms, common areas, and on websites in large, legible print. All residential institutions must install tamper-proof ceiling fans or equivalent safety devices and restrict access to rooftops, balconies, and other high-risk areas to deter impulsive acts of self-harm. Coaching hubs, such as those in Jaipur, Kota, Sikar, Chennai, Hyderabad, Delhi, and Mumbai must implement enhanced mental health protections. These cities, known for high concentrations of competitive exam aspirants, have seen disproportionately high student suicide rates and thus require focused preventive efforts. All teaching and non-teaching staff must undergo mandatory training at least twice a year, conducted by certified mental health professionals. The training should cover psychological first aid, identifying warning signs, response to self-harm, and referral procedures. Institutions must establish robust, confidential, and accessible systems to report and address incidents of sexual assault, harassment, ragging, and other grievances. Internal committees must be formed to act immediately on complaints and provide psychosocial support to victims. Zero tolerance must be maintained toward any retaliatory actions against complainants or whistle-blowers. These guidelines apply to all educational institutions across India, including public and private schools, colleges, universities, training centres, coaching institutes, residential academies, and hostels, regardless of their affiliation. The court clarified that these guidelines are issued in parallel with the ongoing work of the National Task Force on Mental Health Concerns of Students and serve as an interim protective framework. All institutions must maintain anonymised records and prepare an annual report detailing wellness interventions, student referrals, training sessions, and mental health-related activities. This report must be submitted to the relevant regulatory authority, such as the State Education Department, UGC, AICTE, or CBSE. Regular, structured career counselling sessions must be provided to students and their parents or guardians. These sessions, conducted by qualified counsellors should aim to reduce unrealistic academic pressure, promote awareness of diverse academic and professional pathways, and help students make informed, interest-based decisions. The counselling must be inclusive, socio-economically sensitive, and avoid reinforcing narrow definitions of merit or success.
