Why in News: SC (July 2025) recognised mental health as part of Article 21 right to life and issued Saha Guidelines for institutions.
Introduction
- In Sukdeb Saha vs State of Andhra Pradesh (July 2025), the Supreme Court recognised mental health as part of the right to life under Article 21, marking a constitutional landmark.
- The judgment arose from a student suicide case, highlighting India’s student mental health crisis.
Key Features of the Verdict
1. CBI Probe Ordered – Shifted investigation from State police to CBI.
2. Mental Health Elevated – Declared as a fundamental right, not merely a statutory right under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
3. Saha Guidelines – Binding interim measures:
- Institutions (schools, colleges, hostels, coaching centres) must create support systems.
- States/UTs to enforce rules within 2 months.
- District-level monitoring committees mandated.
4. Legislative Force – Guidelines to hold until Parliament enacts a full code.
Criminological & Victimology Dimensions
1. Structural Victimisation – Student suicides seen as systemic failure, not just individual tragedy.
2. State Responsibility – Failure of institutions = structural violence (Johan Galtung’s theory).
3. Hidden Victims Made Visible – Students recognised as rights holders, not passive recipients.
4. Institutional Neglect as Violence – Coaching culture, competitiveness, and lack of safeguards constitute indirect harm.
5. Restorative Approach – Emphasis on counselling, institutional reforms, and prevention over retribution.
Significance
1. Fills Legal Gap – Strengthens enforcement of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
2. Constitutional Benchmark – Citizens can demand mental health protections as a fundamental right.
3. Public Policy Impact – Pushes education sector and state machinery to integrate mental health frameworks.
4. Social Recognition – Shifts discourse from stigma to rights-based approach.
5. Accountability Mandate – Creates space for systemic reforms and monitoring mechanisms.
Challenges Ahead
1. Implementation Deficit – Risk of guidelines remaining symbolic.
2. Resource Constraints – Need for trained counsellors, infrastructure, funds.
3. Cultural Stigma – Deep-rooted social attitudes undermine recognition of mental health issues.
4. Institutional Resistance – Coaching centres and universities may prioritise rankings over well-being.
5. Monitoring & Enforcement – Ensuring state compliance across districts.
Way Forward
1. Legislative Codification – Parliament must enact a comprehensive Mental Health in Education Act.
2. Capacity Building – Train teachers, counsellors, administrators in mental health.
3. Curriculum Integration – Introduce awareness and resilience programmes in schools.
4. Strengthen Gender- and Region-specific Interventions – Address rural, urban, and marginalised student challenges.
5. Collaborative Governance – Involve civil society, parents, and mental health professionals in monitoring.
Conclusion
The judgment redefines right to life = right to a healthy mind, reframing suicides as a public injustice caused by systemic neglect.It is both a beacon of hope and a challenge: meaningful impact depends on institutional reforms and societal acceptance.
UPSC Relevance
GS Paper 2 (Polity & Governance): Expansion of Article 21, role of judiciary, fundamental rights.
Mains Practice Question
Q. “By recognising mental health as part of the right to life under Article 21, the Supreme Court has reframed student suicides as systemic injustice rather than personal tragedy.” Discuss the significance of the Saha judgment and its implications for governance and social policy.