Suicides in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs)

The Supreme Court has issued interim directions on student suicides in Higher Educational Institutions. The alarming increase in student suicides over the last decade has raised numerous questions about the education system in India. Read here to learn more.

In a significant intervention addressing the growing mental health crisis among students, the Supreme Court of India issued interim directions concerning student suicides in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) in the case of Amit Kumar v. Union of India. These directions are based on the recommendations of a National Task Force (NTF) constituted by the Court in 2025.

The judgment acknowledges that student suicides are not merely individual tragedies but systemic failures of institutional governance, social equity, and policy implementation. The Court’s directions aim to enforce accountability, strengthen support systems, and harmonise existing regulatory frameworks.

Suicides in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs)

India has witnessed a worrying rise in student suicides over the last decade, especially in higher education spaces such as universities, medical colleges, IITs, and coaching hubs. These incidents have raised serious questions about:

• Campus environment and discrimination
• Academic pressure and competition
• Institutional apathy and weak grievance redressal
• Inadequate mental health infrastructure

Recognising the gravity of the issue, the Supreme Court constituted a National Task Force (NTF) to study the causes and suggest remedial measures.

Don't miss ClearIAS updates: Add ClearIAS as a preferred source on Google Add →

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

1. Rising incidence of student suicides

• Suicides are among the leading causes of death in the 15-29 age group, according to the Sample Registration System (SRS)
• The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reported around 13,000 student suicide cases in 2022

The Court highlighted that these numbers reflect not isolated incidents but a structural public health and social crisis.

2. Expansion of higher education with embedded inequalities

India’s higher education sector has undergone rapid expansion through:

• Massification (large-scale increase in enrolment)
• Privatisation (rise of private universities and colleges)

This has placed India second globally in student enrolment, but the expansion has occurred amid:

• Caste-based discrimination
• Economic inequalities
• Linguistic and regional disadvantages
• First-generation learners facing systemic exclusion

The Court noted that access without adequate institutional support deepens vulnerability.

Key Reasons for Rising Student Suicides (as identified by NTF)

1. Shortage of faculty and administrative staff

• A large number of vacant faculty positions
• Absence of regular Vice-Chancellors, Registrars, and Deans
• Weak leadership results in:
  • Poor academic mentoring
  • Delayed grievance redressal
  • Lack of accountability in cases of discrimination, harassment, or ragging

This erodes the institutional safety net meant to support students.

2. Poor institutional responsibility

The NTF criticised the tendency of HEIs to:

• Attribute suicides to individual psychological weakness
• Ignore hostile academic and social environments

The Court emphasised that student suicides must be viewed as institutional failures, not personal shortcomings.

3. Financial stress and scholarship delays

• Delays in disbursal of scholarships, especially for:
  • SC/ST students
  • OBCs
  • Minority and economically weaker students
• Financial uncertainty increases:
  • Dropout risks
  • Mental distress
  • Feelings of exclusion and humiliation

The Court recognised financial stress as a major structural trigger.

4. Scattered regulatory frameworks and weak enforcement

India already has multiple policies addressing student welfare, such as:

• UGC Regulations
• National Education Policy (NEP) 2020
• Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
• National Suicide Prevention Strategy

However, the NTF observed that:

• These frameworks are fragmented
• Poorly enforced
• Largely reduced to paper compliance

The lack of coordination has diluted their impact on campuses.

Key Interim Directions Issued by the Supreme Court

1. Centralised data on student suicides

• Sample Registration System (SRS) data on suicides, particularly for the 15-29 age group, must be centrally maintained
• Enables:
  • Evidence-based policymaking
  • Early identification of trends and vulnerable groups

2. Mandatory reporting by HEIs

• All HEIs must:
  • Report every incident of student suicide
  • Submit an annual report on such incidents to regulatory authorities

This seeks to end institutional silence and under-reporting.

3. Addressing faculty and leadership vacancies

• Vacant positions, including:
  • Faculty posts
  • Vice-Chancellors
  • Registrars and key administrators
• Must be filled within four months

The Court linked effective governance directly to student well-being.

4. Compliance with existing statutory mechanisms

The SC directed strict compliance with all mandated bodies, including:

• Anti-Ragging Committees and Squads
• Anti-Discrimination Officers
• Internal Complaints Committees (ICC) under the POSH Act

This reinforces zero tolerance toward harassment, discrimination, and abuse.

5. Other important directions

• Qualified medical and mental health professionals in every residential HEI
• Clearing pending scholarship backlogs within four months
• Strengthening counselling, mentoring, and peer-support systems

Significance of the Judgment

• Shifts the narrative from individual blame to systemic accountability: The ruling recognises student suicides as a collective institutional and societal responsibility.
• Strengthens right to life under Article 21: Mental health, dignity, and safe educational spaces are reaffirmed as part of the right to life.
• Reinforces judicial oversight in social justice: The Court acts as a guardian of vulnerable populations, especially students from marginalised backgrounds.

Challenges in implementation

• Capacity constraints in HEIs
• Shortage of trained mental health professionals
• Risk of symbolic compliance without cultural change
• Need for Centre-State coordination

Sustained monitoring will be crucial to ensure meaningful outcomes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s interim directions in Amit Kumar v Union of India mark a decisive step toward addressing the silent epidemic of student suicides in India.

By foregrounding structural causes, enforcing accountability, and strengthening institutional responsibility, the judgment seeks to transform HEIs into spaces of learning, dignity, and care, rather than pressure and exclusion.

Related articles:

• Suicide Prevention Policy
• Education in India