No dedicated framework to prevent student suicides, says Supreme Court-appointed panel

“The most glaring gap is the complete absence of any direct statutory, regulatory or institutional framework to address and prevent suicides. Most interventions are generic and reactive. The only document that provides possible modes of intervention, which is the ‘Suicide Prevention Strategy’ (a 2022 document of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare), is abstract with no clear implementation guidelines,” the panel has noted.

“Given the complex structure of the civil society in India, where caste, class, economics, aptitude, region, and language have enormous diversity, a tailored implementation strategy to suit each demographic is critical,” it said.

The report also noted that in institutions that had seen student suicides recently, “institutional empathy towards students was missing, and harsh, callous backlash followed.”

“They (the institution) denied their culpability, suppressed all protests, increased surveillance on students, and, in the case of a private university, imposed stringent institutional controls on students. In another instance, where students protested for three days after a case of suicide in a nursing college, while the principal was made to leave, the backlash on the students was so severe that they were mute for a long time when the NTF team went to visit them. Their batch was ‘marked’ and would be punished if anyone made a ‘wrong” move,” the report added.

Hearing a matter on the death of two students at IIT Delhi, the Supreme Court constituted the NTF in March last year to look into mental health concerns among students, and make recommendations on improving student mental health and prevention of suicides in higher education institutions.

The 12-member task force, along with six ex officio members, is headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice S Ravindra Bhat, and includes Dr Alok Sarin, Consultant Psychiatrist, Sitaram Bhartia Institute of Science and Research, Dr Seema Mehrotra, Professor of Clinical Psychology, NIMHANS, and Mary E John, former director, Centre for Women’s Development Studies.

The NTF collected inputs from stakeholders, including students, faculty members, parents, and higher education institutions. Around 2.43 lakh students were part of the survey sample, along with 2,119 higher education institutions (3.5 per cent of the total number of higher education institutions in the country) that have responded to the NTF’s survey. The panel also made field visits to 13 institutions.

‘Mandated cells and committees exist on paper’

Of the 2,119 institutions that responded to the survey, 56 reported one or more instances of student deaths by suicide from April 2020 to March 2025. Only 35 per cent of institutions responded affirmatively to a survey question about whether they provide access to mental health service providers.

“The remaining institutes either reported a lack of access (31 per cent) or stated that they planned to offer such services soon (34 per cent). Overall, it appears that 65 per cent of the institutes surveyed currently do not provide access to any mental health service providers,” the report noted, adding the survey showed a lack of any full-time mental health service provider in 73 per cent (1,573) of higher education institutions.

From its field visits to 13 higher education institutions, the panel has noted that “at most of these institutions, the mandated cells and committees existed on paper, but usually were not effective, transparent or student friendly.”

“The cell/committee in-charges were frequently unaware about the mandated functions and available provisions. While antiragging cells and ICCs (Internal Complaints Committee) were robust on paper (even as their functioning was dismal), in most HEIs visited, the grievance redressal mechanisms were non-existent or offered the bare minimum to show compliance,” the report stated.

“Despite having an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and supposedly adhering to guidelines regarding sexual harassment, students at all of these institutions reported, to varying degrees, the prevalence of sexual harassment, suppression of cases and inefficient and biased proceedings,” it added.

Pointing to variations in how caste-based discrimination is understood and articulated at these institutions, the report noted: “In the present time when SC/ST/OBC students are often less ready to speak openly about reservations for fear of being marked (even in meetings where confidentiality was promised by the NTF team), it is telling that negative views were often expressed by students from socially advantaged groups (non-SC/ST/OBC) (who referred to themselves as “general” or “open” category) and who blamed reservations for not having got a seat in the discipline they felt they had a right to.”

‘Deep-rooted complexities, formidable barriers’

It also referred to “rigid and unyielding attendance policies” across the institutions it visited and to a “lack of trust between students, faculty and the administration.”

The report calls for better quality mental health services, subsidised or free, in higher education institutions, along with full-time counsellors.

“Overall, the challenges faced by the Supreme Court–constituted National Task Force so far, in merely obtaining data related to student mental health and suicides in higher education institutions—without even accounting for data quality—serve as a stark reminder of the deep-rooted complexities and formidable barriers that can hinder the implementation of any national-level initiative aimed at strengthening student mental health support systems within India’s higher education system,” the report states, referring to the low number of survey responses the NTF received from higher education institutions.

The report also includes emails the NTF received from students regarding delays in disbursements and scholarship denials.

“Students spoke extensively about delays, inconsistencies, and inequities in scholarship disbursement. Some students described feeling trapped by institutional policies, where colleges deducted scholarship amounts from tuition fees, but when reimbursements from the government were delayed, held students accountable for paying the difference themselves,” the panel’s report observed based on its field visits.