CarpeDiem IAS • CarpeDiem IAS • CarpeDiem IAS •

“Saha Guidelines” and Mental health

16 Sep 2025 GS 2 Polity
“Saha Guidelines” and Mental health Click to view full image

Context: The Supreme Court’s judgment in ‘Sukdeb Saha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh’, acknowledges mental health to be an integral part of the right to life

  • Case: Sukdeb Saha vs State of Andhra Pradesh .

  • Death by suicide of a 17-year-old NEET aspirant in Visakhapatnam hostel.

  • Father’s plea for CBI probe was initially rejected by the High Court but accepted by the Supreme Court.

  • Outcome: CBI inquiry ordered + recognition of mental health as an integral part of Article 21 (Right to Life).

Key Constitutional Significance

  • Expands Article 21: Right to life includes psychological integrity and mental health.

  • Converts mental health from statutory right (Mental Healthcare Act, 2017) → fundamental right.

  • Establishes a normative benchmark for citizens to claim safeguards.

Structural Victimisation & Criminological Angle

  • Student suicides = structural victimisation caused by:

    • Neglect of mental health policies.

    • Exploitative coaching culture.

    • Institutional indifference.

  • Extends victimology lens: students as victims of systems and institutions, not just personal failures.

  • Links to Johan Galtung’s theory of structural violence → harm caused by systemic neglect = as blameworthy as direct violence.

The “Saha Guidelines” (Binding Interim Orders)

  • Applicable to schools, colleges, hostels, and coaching centres.

1. Institutional Policy Framework

  • Mandatory Mental Health Policy in all schools, colleges, coaching centres, and hostels.

  • Must align with national programmes: UMMEED, MANODARPAN, National Suicide Prevention Strategy.

2. Counsellor Requirement

  • At least one qualified mental health counsellor per institution with 100+ students.

  • Larger institutions must scale counsellor strength proportionately.

3. Safe Learning Environment

  • Prohibition of harmful practices:

    • Batch segregation based on academic performance.

    • Public shaming of students.

    • Imposition of unrealistic academic targets.

4. Access to Helplines

  • Helpline numbers (e.g., Tele-MANAS, local helplines) to be displayed prominently in campuses and hostels.

5. Staff Training

  • All staff (teachers, wardens, administrators) to undergo biannual mental health training.

  • Training includes crisis response, identification of warning signs, and first-line support.

6. Inclusivity & Non-Discrimination

  • Institutions must adopt inclusive practices.

  • Special protections for SC/ST/OBC/EWS, LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities.

7. Confidential Redressal Mechanisms

  • Confidential reporting systems for sexual assault, ragging, and identity-based discrimination.

  • Institutions must ensure immediate psychosocial support for affected students.

8. Reducing Exam-Centric Stress

  • Shift away from exam-only focus.

  • Promote interest-based career counselling and encourage extracurricular activities.

  • Mandates:

    • Development of support systems for student mental health.

    • States/UTs to notify rules within 2 months.

    • Creation of district-level monitoring committees.

  • Until Parliament enacts a code, these guidelines have legislative force.

Challenges Ahead

  • Implementation bottlenecks: Will schools, universities, and states invest in mental health care?

  • Cultural stigma around mental illness still persists.

  • Risk of judgment being reduced to symbolic without resource commitment.

Implications

  • Legal: Elevates mental health as part of fundamental rights jurisprudence.

  • Criminological: Expands accountability of state and institutions as structural perpetrators.

  • Social: Demands recognition of students’ mental well-being as central to governance and education reforms.

Conclusion

  • The Sukdeb Saha verdict is a landmark blending law, criminology, and victimology.

  • It confronts an uncomfortable truth: neglect and structural pressures can be as deadly as direct violence.

  • Success of this judgment depends on institutional compliance, budgetary support, and cultural change.

  • By affirming that “the right to life includes a healthy mind”, the Court has amplified the voice of a silenced generation.


   Article 21 landmark judgments


Case Name Year Principle / Key Ruling under Article 21
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 1951 Narrow view: Article 21 protection is only against executive action. Legislature could deprive by enacting law.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 Expanded scope of Article 21: Right to life = dignified existence; personal liberty is of widest amplitude; freedom of speech has no geographical barriers.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 1978 Recognised prisoners’ right to dignity; prisoners are not mere chattels of the State.
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar 1979 Free legal aid and speedy trial are fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985 Right to livelihood is integral to right to life; eviction without just and fair procedure violates Article 21.
NALSA v. Union of India (Transgender Rights Case) 2014 Recognised transgender persons’ rights; entitled to all fundamental rights including life and personal liberty.
Puttaswamy v. Union of India 2017 Declared Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Common Cause v. Union of India 2018 Recognised Right to die with dignity (passive euthanasia) as part of Article 21.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India 2018 Decriminalised homosexuality; affirmed privacy, dignity, and sexual orientation as protected under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21.
Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 Court held mental health is a fundamental right under Article 21.

Introduced Saha Guidelines: binding interim measures for schools, colleges, hostels, and coaching institutes to provide support systems, States/UTs to notify rules within two months, and district-level monitoring committees. Elevated psychological well-being to constitutional protection.




← Back to list