Source: The post Supreme Court makes mental health constitutionally protected has been created, based on the article “Court’s nod to mental health as right” published in “The Hindu” on 16 September 2025. Supreme Court makes mental health constitutionally protected.
UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2-Governance-Issues relating to development and management of Social Sector/Services relating to Health.
Context: In July 2025, the Supreme Court’s verdict in Sukdeb Saha vs State of Andhra Pradesh shifted a student-death probe to the CBI and affirmed mental health as part of Article 21. The judgment addresses India’s crisis of student suicides.
What triggered the case and the Court’s response?
- Trigger and litigation path: A father alleged an incomplete probe into his 17-year-old NEET candidate daughter’s death in a Visakhapatnam hostel. After the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected his plea for a CBI inquiry, he approached the Supreme Court.
- Court’s immediate action: The Supreme Court transferred the investigation to the CBI.
- Constitutional framing: The Court affirmed that mental health is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21.
- From incident to public issue: It linked the case to India’s epidemic of student suicides and treated the matter as a public injustice, not only a private bereavement.
What are the Supreme Court’s observations in Sukdeb Saha vs State of Andhra Pradesh?
- Structural victimisation: Systemic neglect of mental health harms students. Coaching-centre exploitation and institutional indifference worsen the risk. When safeguards are absent, the state and institutions share responsibility.
- Victimology lens: Institutions can act as de facto perpetrators. Students are not merely battling internal psychology but are subjected to shabby treatment within status-driven education systems and weak governance of mental health.
- From statute to Constitution: The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 recognises care rights but is poorly implemented. Constitutionalising mental health sets a higher, enforceable benchmark for psychological integrity.
- Structural violence: Drawing on the idea of structural violence (Following Johan Galtung), harm caused by social structures that deny basic needs is blameworthy like direct violence. This reframes student suicides as systemic injustice.
- Restorative approach: Embedding psychological integrity in Article 21 opens space for counselling, institutional reform, and preventive accountability beyond mere retribution..
What are the impacts of this verdict?
- Saha Guidelines: Schools, colleges, hostels, and coaching centres must build mental-health support systems. Until Parliament enacts a full code, these guidelines have legislative force.
- Time-bound compliance: States and Union Territories must act within two months. District-level monitoring committees must be set up.
- Rights empowerment: Students are rights holders with constitutional protection for mental well-being. Citizens can demand safeguards for their mental health.
- Shift in accountability: The ruling moves responsibility from individual “failure” to institutional duty and state obligation, stressing prevention and safe environments.
- Promise and caution: Activists and professionals see revolutionary potential. But real change needs resources, training, and faithful application. Without this, the judgment could become a missed opportunity.
Question for practice:
Examine how the Supreme Court’s July 2025 verdict in Sukdeb Saha vs State of Andhra Pradesh affirms mental health under Article 21.
