Court’s nod to mental health as right

In July 2025, the Supreme Court of India pronounced a verdict which has been called a constitutional landmark. The case, Sukdeb Saha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, was anchored in the anguish of a father who had lost his 17-year-old daughter, a NEET candidate, in a Visakhapatnam hostel. Dissatisfied with what he believed was the failure of the local police to make a full investigation of the cause, he demanded a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry. His petitions were rejected by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which then saw him approach the Supreme Court. The result was not only an order shifting the investigation to the CBI but also a much-needed acknowledgment of mental health being an integral part of the right to life, under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The top court’s argument transcended the specific case and revolved around a crucial social issue: India’s runaway epidemic of student suicides. From a criminological perspective, the case highlights what can be termed structural victimisation. Student suicides are rarely framed in these terms. Yet, systemic neglect of mental health combined with the exploitative culture of coaching centres and the indifference of schools and universities, produce an environment where young people become vulnerable to harm. By failing to provide safeguards, the state and institutions become complicit. When institutions create or ignore conditions that drive individuals to the brink, the line between personal tragedy and institutional culpability becomes blurred.

The gaze of victimology, which has long examined the dynamics between victims and perpetrators, can be extended to state institutions as de facto perpetrators. Students are not just “victims” of internal psychological battles. They are the victims of an education system that treats them shabbily. It is also about social values that link self-esteem to hierarchy and of a governance collapse that subordinates mental health as a secondary concern. By recognising mental health as an inherent right, the Court was recognising the structural aspect of victimisation. It recast the problem not as a personal bereavement but as a public injustice.

Legally, the verdict fills a vital gap. The Mental Healthcare Act 2017 already enshrines the right to receive mental health care. But it has not been implemented consistently, and enforcement mechanisms are still poor. By entrenching mental health in the Constitution, the Court has established an elevated normative benchmark. Citizens can insist on safeguarding their psychic health as a fundamental right, not just a statutory right. To ensure that this did not become mere rhetoric, the Court ordered a package of binding interim orders — now referred to as the “Saha Guidelines”. Here, schools, colleges, hostels and coaching institutes are required to proactively develop support systems to address the issue of mental health. They instruct States and Union Territories to bring the rules into force in two months and obligate the setting up of district-level monitoring committees. Until Parliament passes a full code, these guidelines will have legislative force.

The ruling also poses significant criminological questions regarding state responsibility. If suicides among students are partially an outcome of institutional neglect, can this form of neglect be regarded as structural violence? Johan Galtung’s theory of structural violence posits that societal structures causing systematic harm to individuals by depriving them of basic needs are equally blameworthy as direct violence. By not creating a safe environment, the state and educational institutions indirectly perpetuate harmful circumstances. This perspective changes student suicides from being viewed as “individual failures” to a result of systemic injustice. As a victimology case, it is a point where hidden victims become visible. Students, frequently silenced by stigma or system competitiveness, are seldom heard as rights holders when it comes to mental health. Placing psychological integrity in Article 21 means that the Court has opened up room for these victims to be heard and safeguarded. It leaves the door ajar for restorative measures — counselling, reform in institutions, mechanisms of accountability that go beyond retribution to prevention.

The way the judgment has been received by mental health activists and professionals highlights its revolutionary potential. But along with optimism there must be caution. Powerful judicial pronouncements cannot, by themselves, uproot established cultural and institutional norms. The challenge is whether schools, universities, and State governments will meaningfully apply the guidelines, invest in resources, and train personnel to deliver real mental health care.

Ultimately, Sukdeb Saha represents a convergence of law, criminology and victimology. It recognises that harm can be produced not just by individuals but also by institutions and systems. It acknowledges that students, often treated as passive subjects of education, are rights holders whose mental well-being deserves constitutional protection. And, it challenges society to confront an uncomfortable truth — that neglect, indifference and structural pressures can be as deadly as acts of direct violence. In affirming that the right to life must include a healthy mind, the Court has given voice to a generation of students who have too often been silenced by despair. Whether this voice translates into meaningful change will determine whether the judgment remains a beacon of hope or a missed opportunity.

Shabin O.S. is Assistant Professor, Rashtriya Raksha University, Puducherry campus. Nabeela Siddiqui is Assistant Professor, Vinayaka Mission’s Law School, Vinayaka Missions Research Foundation – Deemed to be University, Chennai