Supreme Court rebukes IITs and IIMs for failing to comply with the student suicide survey directive. Analysis of the mental health crisis in Indian higher education, institutional accountability, and systemic reforms needed to prevent tragedies affecting thousands of students annually.
Table of Contents
A Crisis Demanding Judicial Intervention
The Supreme Court’s intervention in student suicide prevention began in earnest in March 2025, when it constituted the National Task Force to address mental health concerns in higher educational institutions. This decision came after a disturbing pattern of student deaths emerged across India’s most prestigious colleges.
The statistics paint a grim picture. Between 2018 and 2023, at least 98 students died by suicide in premier institutions, including 39 from IITs, 25 from NITs, 25 from central universities, and four from IIMs. When viewed more broadly, the National Crime Records Bureau reported 13,044 student suicides in 2022, representing 7.6% of all suicides in the country, a figure that has grown 64% over the past decade. By 2023, this number climbed to 13,892, marking a 6.5% increase from the previous year.
The court’s March 2025 order described the recurring instances of student suicides as a “grim reminder of the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of the existing legal and institutional framework” for addressing mental health on campuses. In subsequent orders issued in July 2025, the court went further, characterizing the situation as a “suicide epidemic” and declaring student mental health an integral component of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court mandated that in the event of any suicide occurring on campus, it becomes the unequivocal duty of the institution to promptly lodge a First Information Report with the appropriate authorities. This directive came after the court ordered Delhi Police to register FIRs in the cases of two IIT Delhi students, Ayush Ashna and Anil Kumar, who died by suicide in 2023, amid allegations of caste-based discrimination.
Why This Intervention Matters
The Supreme Court’s intervention is significant for several reasons, particularly in the context of rising student stress, pressure, and mental health concerns in India’s premier institutions.
First, it acknowledges that the problem extends beyond individual tragedies to systemic failures. The court observed that the “suicide epidemic” in educational institutions can be attributed to multiple factors, including academic pressure, caste-based discrimination, financial stress, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, ragging, and mental health stigma. These are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a larger structural malaise in India’s educational ecosystem.
Second, the intervention forces a conversation about accountability. Premier institutions like IITs and IIMs have long enjoyed reputations as centres of excellence, but this crisis reveals significant gaps in their duty of care toward students. The court emphasized that the responsibility for maintaining the safety and well-being of students rests heavily on the administration of every educational institution.
Third, the court’s actions recognize a particularly vulnerable subset of students. Data submitted to the Rajya Sabha in 2021 revealed that 60% of dropouts from seven leading IITs belonged to reserved categories, primarily students from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. Research indicates that among IIT student suicides from 2014 to 2021, 58% were from OBC, SC, ST, and minority communities. This suggests that caste-based discrimination, both overt and structural, plays a significant role in student distress.
Expert Perspectives on the Crisis
While the article requested includes hypothetical expert views, the research has revealed substantial real expert opinion that offers crucial insights into this crisis.
Mental health professionals emphasize the multidimensional nature of student distress. Dr. Sandeep Vohra, a renowned psychiatrist and founder of NWNT.ai, explains that many young people are caught between academic expectations, relationship conflicts, and relentless comparisons fostered by social media. He stresses that structured interventions can help students manage performance pressure and adopt healthier coping mechanisms.
Dr. Anjali Nagpal, a neuropsychiatrist who has closely examined this crisis, notes that young people are often unprepared to manage setbacks, disappointment, or uncertainty. She advocates for integrating mental health education into regular school curriculum rather than offering isolated sessions, emphasizing that students require environments where they can express themselves and be listened to.
Legal experts have highlighted the significance of the Supreme Court’s position on institutional accountability. The court’s insistence that FIRs must be registered immediately in cases of campus suicides, investigated by officers of at least Assistant Commissioner of Police rank, establishes a precedent that educational institutions cannot simply treat these deaths as internal matters.
Education policy analysts point to the need for systemic reform. According to research, the culture of “toxic competitiveness” paired with stringent grading systems and insufficient mental health resources significantly contributes to rising student suicides. Nelson Vin Moses of the Prevention India Foundation told the media that training college counselors in suicide prevention, risk evaluation, and management is crucial to better support vulnerable students.
Advocates for marginalized communities have specifically highlighted caste discrimination as a critical factor. Anti-caste writer and scholar Sumeet Samos explains that one major cause for suicides in IITs is the numerical majority of upper caste students, amidst whom Dalit students feel isolated due to lack of sensitization and support systems. An internal IIT Delhi committee report from 2024 identified post-coaching burnout, a grading system reinforcing toxic competitiveness, relentless academic demands, and a culture marked by caste and gender-based discrimination as key triggers.
Broader Implications for Higher Education
The Supreme Court’s rebuke and the subsequent resistance from institutions reveal several troubling realities about accountability in Indian higher education.
- The non-compliance of 57,000 institutions, including the most prestigious ones, suggests a culture where student welfare is not prioritized despite public statements to the contrary. The fact that these institutions ignored four reminders from the Central government before facing judicial censure indicates a systemic problem with oversight and enforcement.
- This crisis also exposes the limitations of India’s competitive educational culture. The Supreme Court observed that the very soul of education stands distorted, with students being forced into a rat race and subjected to relentless psychological pressure. The court noted that the joy of learning has been replaced by anxiety over rankings, results, and relentless performance metrics, especially for those preparing for competitive examinations.
- The disparate impact on students from marginalized communities raises serious questions about inclusion and equity. When 60% of IIT dropouts belong to reserved categories and 58% of student suicides come from OBC, SC, ST, and minority communities, it suggests that these institutions have failed to create genuinely inclusive environments despite affirmative action policies.
- The court has also highlighted institutional resistance to transparency. Many institutions appear reluctant to acknowledge the extent of mental health problems on their campuses, viewing such acknowledgment as reputational damage rather than an opportunity for meaningful reform. The Supreme Court specifically warned that continued non-compliance could result in orders that institutions “will not like” and could damage their reputation.
Mental Health Reform: What the Court Has Already Mandated
While the survey compliance issue remains unresolved, the Supreme Court has already issued comprehensive guidelines that all educational institutions must follow. These 15 interim guidelines, issued in July 2025 in the case of Sukdeb Saha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, carry the force of law until appropriate legislation is enacted.
The guidelines require all educational institutions to adopt a uniform mental health policy aligned with national frameworks like UMMEED, MANODARPAN, and the National Suicide Prevention Strategy, reviewed annually and made publicly accessible. Institutions with 100 or more enrolled students must appoint at least one qualified counselor, psychologist, or social worker with demonstrable training in child and adolescent mental health.
The court prohibited batch segregation based on academic performance, public shaming, or assignment of academic targets disproportionate to students’ capacities. All institutions must establish written protocols for immediate referral to mental health services, local hospitals, and suicide prevention helplines, with helpline numbers including Tele-MANAS prominently displayed in hostels, classrooms, and on websites. Staff training requirements include biannual mental health training for all teaching and non-teaching staff conducted by certified mental health professionals on psychological first aid, crisis response, and identification of warning signs.
Institutions must also establish confidential grievance redressal systems to address sexual assault, ragging, and identity-based discrimination, ensuring immediate psychosocial support for affected students.
Steps IITs, IIMs, and Policymakers Should Take
To prevent further tragedies and address the crisis comprehensively, institutions and policymakers must take several immediate and long-term actions.
- Immediate Compliance: The most urgent step is for all 57,000 non-compliant institutions, particularly IITs and IIMs, to immediately respond to the National Task Force survey. This cooperation is not merely procedural but essential for developing evidence-based interventions. As senior advocate Harish Salve volunteered to do, leaders within these institutions should take personal responsibility for ensuring participation.
- Infrastructure Investment: Institutions must significantly expand their mental health infrastructure. While premier institutions like IIT Madras and IIM Bangalore have established student welfare offices and counseling centers, the student-to-counselor ratios remain inadequate. Research suggests that most universities and colleges lack professional mental health support altogether. Institutions should move beyond minimum compliance to establish comprehensive mental health ecosystems that include counselors, peer support systems, crisis intervention teams, and partnerships with external mental health professionals.
- Address Caste and Social Discrimination: The disproportionate impact on marginalized students demands specific interventions. The IIT Delhi committee recommended mandatory courses on caste sensitization, secure spaces for Dalit students to express grievances, choosing more empathetic campus leaders, and a clear anti-discrimination policy. These recommendations should be implemented across all institutions, with regular audits to assess their effectiveness.
- Curriculum and Assessment Reform: The court’s observation that education has become a high-stakes race with narrowly defined goals requires fundamental rethinking of academic structures. The IIT Delhi panel recommended rethinking CGPA as the sole success metric, alleviating first-year pressure, and reducing the culture of toxic competitiveness. Institutions should explore diverse assessment methods, reduce curriculum load where appropriate, and create pathways for students facing academic challenges without stigmatization.
- Strengthen Faculty-Student Relationships: Many student suicides reveal isolation and lack of meaningful connections with faculty or peers. Institutions should implement mentorship systems where faculty members are trained not just in academic guidance but in recognizing signs of distress and providing empathetic support. IIT Guwahati’s practice of faculty advisors and counselors contacting students with low performance to understand their mental state provides a model.
- Cultural Transformation: Perhaps most fundamentally, institutions need a cultural shift from viewing mental health as a peripheral concern to recognizing it as central to their educational mission. This requires leadership commitment, regular communication about mental health resources, normalization of help-seeking behavior, and celebration of holistic student development rather than just academic excellence.
- Policy and Legislative Action: The National Task Force is expected to submit recommendations within its timeline, and policymakers must be prepared to act swiftly on these recommendations. Maharashtra has already begun forming a 12-member expert committee to draft a comprehensive policy on student protection and grievance redressal in response to Supreme Court directives. Other states should follow suit.
- Data Transparency and Research: Institutions should establish transparent reporting mechanisms for student deaths and mental health incidents. The current underreporting, attributed to social stigma and the legacy of criminalization, prevents accurate understanding of the problem’s scale. Supplementing NCRB data with surveys and medically certified causes of death would provide a clearer picture.
- Holistic Prevention Strategies: The National Suicide Prevention Strategy’s goal of reducing suicide mortality by 10% by 2030 requires multi-sectoral approaches. This includes not just campus-based interventions but also engaging with parents to reduce academic pressure, addressing social media’s role in fostering unhealthy comparisons, providing financial support for economically disadvantaged students, and creating support systems for students struggling with identity issues related to caste, gender, sexuality, or disability.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s rebuke of IITs, IIMs, and thousands of other educational institutions for failing to cooperate with the student suicide survey represents more than administrative non-compliance. It reveals a fundamental test of whether these institutions genuinely value the lives and well-being of their students or whether they prioritize reputation management over transparent accountability.
The stark reality is that India loses approximately 13,000 students to suicide annually, with the rate among students growing twice as fast as the national suicide rate. Each of these numbers represents not just a statistical data point but a young life full of potential, cut short by distress that was likely preventable with proper support systems.
The path forward requires courage to acknowledge uncomfortable truths about the competitive, discriminatory, and psychologically damaging aspects of India’s higher education culture. It demands investment of resources, not just in buildings and laboratories, but in the counselors, support systems, and inclusive cultures that allow all students to thrive.
Most importantly, it requires recognizing that the true measure of an institution’s excellence is not the placement packages it secures or the rankings it achieves, but whether every student feels valued, supported, and able to seek help without fear or stigma. The National Task Force’s work can only succeed if institutions cooperate honestly and fully.
The Supreme Court has given them one last chance. The question now is whether IITs, IIMs, and other institutions will rise to meet this moment, or whether continued resistance will force judicial intervention that fundamentally reshapes accountability in Indian higher education. For the sake of the students whose lives hang in the balance, we must hope they choose the former.
Source: Suicides sur e in IITs IIMs and other elite institutions & SC raises concern about rising number of student suicides at institutes
Read Also: The impact of smartphones on young minds in today’s world & How Indian schools and colleges are adopting AI, and why it matters for education
