Hunting for villains, not searching for truth

Why in the News

Public reaction to student suicides looks for one culprit, a professor, a phone or a parent, instead of asking what system produces the deaths. The pattern showed after a student at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay died by suicide. India already has rules for such cases, yet the deaths keep rising.

Why does the hunt for a single villain fail?

1. The case: Sahil Wakode, a second year BTech student, died by suicide hours after an examination. CCTV footage and his last calls spread online and on television before any inquiry concluded.
2. Father’s allegation: His father alleges caste discrimination and has named a faculty member in a First Information Report (FIR), the police record that starts an investigation.
3. Institute’s denial: The institute denies that any of it drove him to his death. Each side wants one story to own the death: academic stress for the institute, caste for activists.
4. The takeaway: A death reduced to one villain needs no deeper thought, so the system that produces such deaths stays untouched.

Do India’s rules already cover this?

1. Reporting guidelines: The Press Council of India’s 2019 guidelines on reporting suicide bar the coverage that followed this death. That coverage crossed every line they draw.
2. Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: The Act decriminalised attempted suicide. “Committed suicide” is therefore the vocabulary of crime, and “died by suicide” is correct.
3. Court guidelines: The Supreme Court has laid down pan India guidelines on student suicide and appointed a national task force on student mental health.
4. Weak compliance: In January the Court still flagged “tokenistic compliance” and “institutional apathy”.

How large is the toll, and where does it concentrate?

1. Record toll: The National Crime Records Bureau’s Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India (ADSI) report logged 14,488 student suicides in 2024, the highest ever and close to double the figure a decade earlier.
2. Decade total: About 1.24 lakh students died between 2014 and 2024. The deaths cluster in coaching towns, entrance exam hubs and institutions where pressure is highest.
3. Structural output: These deaths are an outcome the system produces in larger numbers every year, not private misfortunes.

Is the real question who is to blame, or what system produces the death?

1. One result for a whole life: A single entrance result still stands in for a young person’s whole life. Cheating under that pressure is predictable behaviour, not a defect of character.
2. Shared responsibility: Responsibility also reaches families that stake a child’s worth on a rank, and a media that turns grief into traffic.
3. Fair questions, larger frame: Whether a professor discriminated is fair to ask, and so is whether the institute reached too quickly for “academic pressure”. Both sit inside a larger question, what system produces such deaths, which no FIR can answer.

Challenges

1. Psychiatrist shortage: India has fewer than one psychiatrist per 100,000 people against the World Health Organization (WHO) norm of 3, so few students find professional help.
2. Treatment gap and stigma: Most common mental disorders go untreated, as fear of being labelled “mad” delays help seeking.
3. Uneven implementation: Many States have not fully set up the mental health authorities and review boards the Act requires.
4. Late response: Action begins after a death, so earlier help never reaches the next student.

Way Forward

1. Statutory bodies: States should constitute their mental health authorities and review boards within a fixed deadline.
2. Funding: Raise mental health spending to at least 2 per cent of the health budget, ring fenced under the National Health Mission.
3. Counselling centres: Set up dedicated counselling centres in universities and coaching hubs.
4. Responsible reporting: The Press Council should act promptly on breaches of its suicide reporting guidelines.

Conclusion

Student suicides are a systemic outcome that rules and court orders have not yet reduced, and assigning blame to one actor delays the reform needed. What to watch is whether institutions move from compliance on paper to counselling and reporting practice before the next exam cycle.

Government Initiatives on Mental Health in India

1. National Suicide Prevention Strategy: Launched in 2022, it targets a one tenth fall in suicide deaths by 2030.
2. District Mental Health Programme: Offers counselling, outpatient care and suicide prevention at the primary care level in 716 districts.
3. Manodarpan: Gives students, teachers and families advisory guidelines, a counsellor directory and a toll free helpline.
4. Kiran: A 24/7 toll free helpline for people facing mental health problems.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2024, GS2, 15 marks] In a crucial domain like the public healthcare system, the Indian State should play a vital role to contain the adverse impact of marketisation of the system. Suggest some measures through which the State can enhance the reach of public healthcare at the grassroots level.”