CASE COMMENT Sukhdeb Saha V. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Sukhdeb Saha V. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

2025 INSC 893(25 July 2025)

Mental Health as a Fundamental Right Under Article 21

BENCH: Vikram Nath & Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

INTRODUCTION

• Mental Health is an integral component of Right To Life under article 21 of the constitution of India and increasing student suicides in India  makes this case a fundamental one, especially in places like Kota.  Article 21 has also been evolving  and expanding over decades but mental health had never been expressly recognized . Henceforth, India accounts for  highest number of suicides  in the world.  The World Health Organization  states that 1 in 7 Indians suffer mental health disorders.
•  The academic pressure of NEET/JEE exams. Competitions, toxic coaching culture (segregation of students by marks and capabilities), lack of counselors and mental health structure in India has led to this rising situation of suicides in India.  
•  This lack of unified  regulatory  framework for mental health in education , has led to yet another  recent case of  suicide of 17 year old NEET aspirant in a hostel of Visakhapatnam , Andhra Pradesh  however  the apex court  diligently looked into the matter  and evolved the scope of Article 21 of the Indian constitution. .  This  landmark case led the court to issue nationwide binding guidelines for educational institutions with respect to constitutionalization   of  mental health  as part of Article 21 Right To Life. 
•  The  Supreme Court recognized mental health as a fundamental right . Earlier there was Mental Health Act,2017 however there was no enforceable framework for student mental health.  The case also held binding guidelines for schools and coaching centers. 

CASE SUMMARY

               FACTS OF THE CASE

JULY 2024 → PETITION BY FATHER →ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT PROCEEDINGS → SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS 2025 → FINAL JUDGMENT JULY 2025

•  The present case arose in July 2024, as 17 year old NEET aspirant daughter of Sukhdeb Saha who allegedly fell from the rooftop of her hostel and was found dead  inside at Vishakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh on 16^th July 2023. 
•  Initially  classified as a suicide by local authorities, the incident raised serious doubts due  to numerous  procedural and medical  inconsistencies. These included the absence of a suicide note, the failure to record the victims statement despite her being conscious with a Glasgow Coma  score 10/15, discrepancies in CCTV footage  and questionable medical  handling such as  administering ventilator support without  parental consent, a hurried post-mortem report by a conflicted medical examiner  and premature destruction of viscera samples. The parents alleged the hostel and coaching centre failed to provide safe environment.
•  Despite multiple petitions to the high court of Andhra Pradesh, including requests for CBI Investigation, the High Court refused to intervene, citing jurisdictional constraints due to  a parallel FIR in West Bengal.  Disturbed by the lack of transparent and impartial investigation the father appealed to the Supreme Court seeking justice for his daughter and systematic accountability in cases involving student welfare and custodial care.  The father also argued that student deaths are not isolated incidents, but part of wider mental health crisis in India’s education system.
•  Lastly, the Supreme court quashed the high court’s order and expanded the scope by connecting the case to student mental health crisis in India, moreover declared mental health as a part of Right To Life Article 21. It issued binding guidelines to educational institutions like coaching centers, hostels and colleges. 

ISSUES RAISED

1. TRANSFER OF INVESTIGATION 

  Whether the supreme court can transfer investigation from state police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in cases involving alleged bias , negligence or loss of faith in state machinery. Raises question of Federalism vs. fair investigation.. Whether the court warranted  to transfer to CBI due to sever procedural lapses, medical irregularities and  potential conflict of interest?

2.  RIGHT TO MENTAL HEALTH UNDER ARTICLE 21

 Whether the mental health is an integral part of the “Right To Life” under article 21 of the constitution. Extends jurisprudence of life with dignity to include psychological well being not just physical existence.

3.  SUICIDE INVESTIGATION

Whether the investigation into the suspicious death of 17-year old NEET aspirant initially declared a suicide by the Andhra Pradesh police was fair and  Impartial ?

4. BALANCING RIGHTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Whether the court should lay down  binding  guidelines to address the mental health and safety of students in educational  and residential institutions, especially in the context of raising student suicides in coaching hubs across India. How should court manage or balance individual justice and systematic reform for nationwide suicides

5. DUTY OF EDUCTATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

What are the legal duties of educational institutions like schools, colleges, hostels and coaching centers to safeguard students mental health. Do they have obligation under article 21 to create a safe and supportive environment?

CONTENTIONS

• PETITIONER SUKHDEB SAHA

• Transfer of Investigation- The petitioner asked for the transfer of the case’s investigation to an independent body like CBI which could ensure justice in a sensitive case involving institutional failure. State police probe was biased , ineffective and negligent in  nature.
•   Institutional negligence- Hostels and coaching centers created a toxic environment like undue  academic pressure, lack of counselors and unsafe infrastructure. This contributed directly to student suicides .
•   Right To Life under article 21- Students cannot be treated as exam machines dignity and well being of each student shall be protected.
•  Demand for systematic Reform- Urged court to recognize student mental health crisis as a nationwide constitutional issue not just an individual tragedy

• RESPONDENTS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

• Competence of state policy- Argued that state policy was capable of conducting investigation and no extraordinary circumstances were there for warranting the transfer of case to CBI. Moreover, they argued that CBI should be reserved for exceptional cases of national importance.
•  Not a constitutional matter- The state contended that this matter was a criminal case not a constitutional issue. Mental health guidelines fall within legislative and executive domain not the judicial domain.
•  Existing legal Framework- They pointed to existing Mental Health Care Act,2017 which already recognizes right to access mental health services and claimed further guidelines would claim to judicial overreach. 
•  Autonomy of Educational Institutions- The educational institutions like coaching centers and hostels argued against strict judicial guidelines citing operational difficulties and financial burden in implementing counselor, mentorship programs and infrastructure reforms.

OBSERVATIONS

On  transfer of Investigation: The court noted that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. If the victims family and the public lose faith in the state police, the entire process loses credibility and likewise as the court observed  about procedural lapses and irregularities in the police investigation, including the failure to record victim’s statement despite her being conscious, destruction of viscera samples without proper analysis and inconsistencies in the CCTV footage the case must be transferred to CBI. The court emphasized that in sensitive cases involving death of young students even a perception of negligence is enough to justify the narration of case to an independent body like CBI.

Mental Health As a Constitutional Right: Court noted, medical decisions (like placing the victim on ventilator) and post- mortem were done without the informed consent or presence of father, violating basic procedural and ethical norms. The court affirmed that mental health care and emotional well being are part a students constitutional right to life and dignity, especially for minors under institutional supervision. It is not a luxury rather a necessity.

On Role of Educational Institutions:  The court observed from a student centric view that schools, colleges, hostels and coaching centers are not just businesses. They act as guardian of young minds who are far away from home. Institutions cannot wash their hands off by only teaching syllabus, they have a duty of care to protect students mental health. The court criticized the practices of segregation of students based on marks, public shaming and ignoring distress signals calling them unconstitutional and harmful.

On Need For Guidelines( Judicial Activism): The court herein acknowledged that parliament has already passed mental health care act, however it doesn’t specifically deal with student mental health in educational institutions. In absence of proper law supreme court has the power and duty to step in and protect fundamental rights. The court compared situations to Vishakha Guidelines 199, where it has laid rules on sexual harassment at workplace until parliament passed law.

On larger Social Problem: The court observed that a uniform enforceable framework was needed across India to address student mental health, infrastructure and safety and institutional accountability. The court recognized student suicides are not isolated tragedies but a national crisis the court said it was time to treat these deaths as systematic failure not as personal choices. 

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS MUST BECOME SAFE SPACES NOT FACTORIES OF PRESSURE

DEFECTS OF LAW

• LACK OF CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION OF MENTAL HEALTH: Before this case, mental health was not explicitly recognized as a constitutional right. The mental health care act 2017 gives citizen right to access treatment but it was a statutory right, enforceability was poor due to lack of infrastructure, doctors and counselors. No direct constitutional safeguard existed despite India facing one of the worlds highest burdens of suicide. Unlike workplace safety laws or child protection laws, there was no specific legislation addressing vulnerabilities of students like bullying, ragging, academic pressure and coaching culture.
• NARROW INTERPRETATION OF RIGHT TO LIFE: Schools, hostels and coaching centers often claimed their duty  was limited to teaching and infrastructure not mental health. Courts earlier did not forcefully impose a duty of care for student well being.
•  WEAK ENFORCEMENT OF MENTAL HEALTHCARE ACT 2017: Although the Act talks about rights like right to dignity, protection from inhumane practices and right to access mental health treatment but most states failed to set up mental health authorities, help lines and counselors were almost non existent also no penalties for schools, coaching centers ignoring student distress.
•  JUDICIARY’S DEPENDENCE ON GUIDELINES: Supreme court had to step in with guidelines because of legislative vacuum. But, guidelines are i=only interim and cannot replace a comprehensive law. There was over reliance on judicial creativity and risk of inconsistency and lack of long term enforcement. 

INFERENCE

• The supreme court allowed the appeal and ordered an immediate transfer of the investigation from Andhra Pradesh police to the Central Bureau of Investigation, since the petitioner alleged that his daughter’s death was caused by harassment and negligence. Also the court showed the seriousness in treating student suicides as systematic failures warranting accountability. It also held that suicides is about public interest and the future of the country expanding the meaning of “life” and “dignity” to include mental well being. This recognition elevated mental health from being just a statutory right under Mental Health Care Act 2017 to a constitutional guarantee.
• The court directed CBI to register a new case (RC) and conduct a fresh independent and impartial investigation. Complete the probe and file a final charge sheet within four months under section 193(2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023. 
•  The court framed and issued 15 binding guidelines under Article 141 of the Constitution, making them applicable nationwide. This included-:

1. Mental Health as a fundament right under Article 21 and is an inseparable component just like physical health, a  dignified existence is impossible without psychological well-being
2. The court ruled that educational institutions, hostels, coaching centers, schools and colleges have a positive obligation to protect students mental health and failure to do so could attract constitutional liability.
3. Court issued specific guidelines like of mandatory counselors and hiplines in schools, universities and coaching centers.
4. Setting up grievance redressal cells for students facing harassment.
5.  Requirement for institutions to report student suicides promptly and conduct internal inquiries
6. Periodic monitoring by state and central authorities to ensure compliance. Moreover, union government was ordered to coordinate with state governments and file a compliance affidavit within 90 days before the court confirming mental health implementation guidelines

CASES FOR NEGLIGENCE AND DEFECTS IN LAW

.  Sharda University BDS Student Suicide Case

Jyoti Jhangra Suicide Case (Sharda University), Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 238 of 2025 (Supreme Court of India, Aug. 2025).

• A 21-year-old BDS student, Jyoti Jhangra, died by suicide in her hostel at Sharda University. In a suicide note, she accused two faculty members of intense mental harassment and humiliation.
• Two associate professors were arrested on charges including abetment of suicide, criminal intimidation, and evidence tampering. The Supreme Court is monitoring the matter suo motu, highlighting institutional responsibility and accountability.

2 .  NEET Aspirant Suicide in Kota

In re Student Suicide at Kota Coaching Centre, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 198 of 2025 (Supreme Court of India, May 2025).

• The Kota police, under Supreme Court pressure, registered an FIR in the suicide case of an 18-year-old NEET aspirant, Zeeshan Jahan. This was after longstanding public scrutiny over delayed FIRs in student suicides from coaching hubs like Kota.

3.  IIT-Kharagpur & Sharda Student Suicides (Campus Negligence)

In re Suicides at IIT-Kharagpur & Sharda University, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 292 of 2025 (Supreme Court of India, July 2025).

• Two student deaths triggered Supreme Court concern over the growing number of student suicides across higher education institutions. The Court demanded detailed explanations and FIR filings from both universities, warning of contempt action if guidelines were not followed.

4. National Task Force on Student Suicides

Supreme Court of India, Order Constituting National Task Force on Student Suicides, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 187 of 2025 (Mar. 25, 2025).

•  Acknowledging the alarming pattern, the Supreme Court constituted a National Task Force, chaired by Justice (Retd.) S. Ravindra Bhat, to investigate student mental health crises across higher educational institutions. The court emphasized immediate FIR filing and accountability by institutions.

CONCLUSION

•        The Sukhdeb Saha v. State Of Andhra Pradesh judgment is a constitutional milestone that firmly places mental health within the ambit of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court clarified that Right To Life is not limited to physical survival but extends to mental well being by increasing the scope.
•        Invoking Article 141, the Supreme Court ensured that its 15 binding guidelines on institutional safety and mental health would be apply uniformly across India, compelling all educational institutions to adopt mental health safeguards until a specific legislation is enacted.
•         The court also linked the decision with the statutory obligations under the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, especially Section 193(2), which mandates time bound investigation in sensitive offences. By directing CBI probe, the court emphasized the urgency and seriousness of prompt impartial investigations in cases involving student deaths.
•        Doctrinally, the courts reasoning drew strength from Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Of India(1981), where the Supreme Court first expanded Article 21 to include Right To Live With Dignity covering both physical and mental well health. The Sukhdeb Saha case extends that foundation to the contemporary crisis of student suicides.
•        Thus, the decision not only brings mental health under the protective umbrella of fundamental rights but also imposes constitutional duties on institutions and procedural responsibilities on investigation agencies. It marks a decisive shift towards a legal system that treats student well being as essential to both individual liberty and national progress.
• “The Ruling Redefines Education, Making Student Well Being Not An Option, But A Constitutional Mandate Making India More Progressive, Humane and Healthier For Future” 

VRISHTI ARORA

AMITY LAW SCHOOL NOIDA