Mentor’s Comment

The recent Supreme Court judgment in Sukdeb Saha vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) has elevated mental health to the level of a constitutional right under Article 21. More than a verdict on an individual tragedy, it has emerged as a landmark with systemic implications, redefining how student suicides, institutional neglect, and structural victimisation are understood in India. This article dissects the judgment, its social, legal, and criminological dimensions, and its significance for UPSC aspirants.

Introduction

In July 2025, the Supreme Court of India declared mental health to be an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. Triggered by the tragic suicide of a 17-year-old NEET aspirant in Visakhapatnam, the case (Sukdeb Saha vs State of Andhra Pradesh) transcended individual loss to expose the systemic failures of India’s education ecosystem. For the first time, the Court explicitly linked student suicides with institutional neglect and structural violence, framing mental health as a public injustice rather than a private bereavement. This landmark ruling has far-reaching implications for governance, education, victimology, and social justice.

Why is the Judgment in the News?

The verdict is a constitutional milestone because it:

1. Recognises mental health as a fundamental right under Article 21, not just a statutory right under the Mental Healthcare Act 2017.
2. Issues binding Saha Guidelines mandating schools, colleges, hostels, and coaching institutes to proactively create mental health support systems.
3. Shifts accountability from individual students to institutions, framing neglect as a form of structural violence.
4. Addresses India’s alarming student suicide epidemic, exposing deep systemic and cultural failures.
5. This is the first time the Court has extended the doctrine of state responsibility to mental well-being, making it a case of historic significance.

How does the case highlight structural victimisation?

1. Structural neglect: Education systems, coaching centres, and hostels create conditions of high pressure with little support, making students vulnerable.
2. State complicity: By failing to provide safeguards, institutions and the state become indirect perpetrators of harm.
3. Victimology lens: Students are not merely individuals battling internal struggles; they are victims of systemic injustice and exploitative cultures.

Why does the verdict matter legally?

1. Constitutional elevation: Mental health is no longer a mere statutory right but a fundamental right under Article 21.
2. Gap filling: The Mental Healthcare Act 2017 remains poorly enforced; the judgment provides a stronger normative benchmark.
3. Legislative force: The Saha Guidelines have the same weight as law until Parliament enacts a mental health code.

What are the “Saha Guidelines”?

1. Institutional responsibility: Schools, colleges, hostels, and coaching institutes must establish mental health support systems.
2. Time-bound compliance: States and UTs must frame rules within two months.
3. Monitoring mechanisms: Creation of district-level monitoring committees for accountability.
4. Binding nature: These interim orders have legislative effect until codified.

Can student suicides be seen as structural violence?

1. Galtung’s theory: Structural violence occurs when societal structures systematically deprive individuals of basic needs.
2. Application: Educational institutions that ignore psychological well-being indirectly inflict harm.
3. Reframing suicides: Shifts the discourse from “personal failures” to systemic injustice requiring state intervention.

What are the challenges in implementation?

1. Institutional inertia: Schools and coaching centres often resist reform.
2. Resource constraints: Lack of trained mental health professionals in India.
3. Cultural barriers: Persistent stigma around psychological counselling.
4. State responsibility: The verdict’s success depends on political will, monitoring, and investment in mental health infrastructure.

Conclusion

The Sukdeb Saha judgment is a watershed moment in constitutional jurisprudence. By recognising mental health as a core aspect of the right to life, it challenges society to confront uncomfortable truths about neglect, exploitation, and indifference in the education system. Yet, the ruling’s legacy will depend on whether the Saha Guidelines are translated into action or remain judicial rhetoric. For students, too often silenced by despair, this judgment is a promise of dignity, recognition, and justice.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now