The guidelines stem from a case involving a 17-year-old NEET aspirant from Visakhapatnam who died suspiciously. Her father, unhappy with the local probe, sought a CBI inquiry through the Supreme Court
Published Jul 28, 2025 | 7:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jul 28, 2025 | 7:23 AM
Supreme Court
Synopsis: Responding to rising student suicides, the Supreme Court on 25 July issued 15 binding guidelines to safeguard mental health in schools, colleges, and coaching centres. The move stems from a NEET aspirant’s suspicious death in Visakhapatnam. Citing lapses in the investigation, the court ordered a CBI probe and directed states to regulate coaching centres and establish student-safety mechanisms within two months
The Supreme Court on 25 July issued a set of detailed directions to help protect the mental health of students in schools, colleges, and coaching centres across the country. This comes in response to growing concern over student suicides.
The case that led to these guidelines was about a 17‑year‑old NEET aspirant from Visakhapatnam who died under suspicious circumstances after falling from the terrace of her hostel while preparing for the exam. Her father, dissatisfied with the local investigation, had first approached the High Court for a CBI probe. When that was denied, he moved the Supreme Court.
Taking note of serious lapses by the local police and the institution, the court ordered a CBI inquiry into her death and laid down fifteen binding guidelines for all educational spaces. States and Union Territories have been told to bring in clear rules within two months for registering private coaching centres and setting up student‑safety and grievance systems.
District‑level monitoring committees, led by District Magistrates, will oversee how these rules are put into action. The Union government must also submit a compliance report within 90 days, covering steps taken, coordination with states, and updates from the National Task Force on student mental health.
According to the new guidelines, every institution must frame a clear mental health policy drawing from national models like UMMEED and MANODARPAN, update it every year and display it openly. Institutions with more than 100 students need to appoint at least one qualified counsellor or psychologist, while smaller ones must create referral arrangements with external professionals. The ruling underlined that, “Dedicated mentors or counsellors should handle smaller groups of students, especially during exams and transitions, to provide steady and private support.”
Schools and coaching centres were told not to segregate batches based on academic rankings or push targets beyond a student’s capacity. The order states that “helpline numbers must be prominently displayed in hostels, classrooms and other common areas, and there should be written steps for quick referral to mental health services or hospitals.” It also requires that teachers and non‑teaching staff undergo mental health training twice a year so they can recognise early warning signs and act in time.
All staff must be equipped to deal sensitively with students from marginalised and vulnerable backgrounds, including those from SC, ST, OBC, LGBTQ+ groups, or those with disabilities or past trauma. The judgment mentions that institutions must set up confidential complaint systems to handle harassment, ragging and bullying, and victims should get immediate psychological help. Schools and colleges are also expected to organise regular sessions for parents and guardians to reduce academic stress and guide them on recognising distress signals.
Institutions must keep anonymous records of mental health efforts and send yearly reports to the relevant education authorities. They are encouraged to promote sports, arts and other activities to reduce the academic burden, and review examination patterns to ease pressure. According to the directions, structured career counselling should be provided regularly to students and parents so they understand various career options and avoid unrealistic expectations.
Hostels and residential campuses must remain safe, free from bullying and harmful substances, and take steps to protect students from impulsive self‑harm. The bench highlighted that “tamper‑proof ceiling fans or similar safety devices should be installed, and access to rooftops or high‑risk areas must be restricted.” In large coaching hubs like Kota, Chennai and Hyderabad, authorities and institutions are expected to put in stronger support systems, closer monitoring and better planning to prevent further tragedies.
Speaking to South First, Dr. Anant Bhan, a Public health researcher and Principal Investigator, Sangath, said, it is good that this issue is finally getting recognition and that the Supreme Court has shown urgency on the matter. He pointed out that although there are strong policies, the way they are implemented and turned into action on the ground is often very different. “Many factors beyond education also play a role, including family violence, financial stress, relationship struggles, bullying and online shaming, all of which can increase risk,” he explained.
Dr. Bhan mentioned projects that are already helping. He explained that his organisation, Sangath, ran a project called Outlive, which trained young peer educators to speak openly about suicide and offer support. He also mentioned that many state governments are adding mental health support in schools, with counsellors and gatekeeper training to identify students in distress. He said, “UNICEF, NIMHANS and the National Health Commission have also been working on similar efforts and a national consultation on adolescent mental health was held in Bhopal last week.”
Talking about whether the system is equipped to implement this new direction, Dr. Bhan said there is recognition that this is a problem, but often attention only comes after incidents happen, such as during exam seasons when tragedies spike. He stressed the need for a wider approach that looks at all stressors faced by young people and not just academics. Dr. Bhan said, “If these systems are not adolescent-friendly or young people-friendly and are designed with an older person in mind, they might not work out.”
Dr. Bhan also shared what more can be done beyond the Supreme Court guidelines. He said this progress is good, but strategies must look at individual, family, community, education and financial factors together. He said, “With so many young people spending time on social media and online, we also need to examine how that affects mental health and what can be done to reduce those risks.” He added, “Hopefully, we will continue to respond in a better way so that we can address the challenges we are seeing in terms of suicide, especially among young people.”
Dr. Nilesh Mohite, a community psychiatrist from northeast India who has worked with young people for over a decade, spoke to South First. He said that despite new Supreme Court directions and government rules, most changes remain only on paper. He outlined clear early signs of distress that parents and teachers should not overlook.
These include students withdrawing from interaction, avoiding eye contact, losing interest in activities they once enjoyed, disturbed sleep, poor eating patterns, negative talk about their future, and a sudden drop in academic or sports performance. “Noticing and acting on these signs early can prevent a situation from escalating into crisis,” he added.
Dr. Mohite also highlighted how caste‑based discrimination, especially in the context of reservations, deeply affects the mental health of students and contributes to suicides. He recalled incidents where students were segregated in classrooms based on caste, faced public insults at college events, and even encountered bias from counsellors themselves.
These experiences, he explained, create a sense of inferiority and hopelessness that can push students toward self‑harm if left unaddressed. “This is happening even in places like AIIMS, where we think the most talented students are studying,” he said, underlining how widespread the problem is.
(Edited by Ananya Rao.)
