Q. Discuss the significance of the Supreme Court’s recognition of mental health as part of the right to life in the Sukdeb Saha vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) case. (250 words)
Answer:
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sukdeb Saha vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) marks a constitutional milestone by recognising mental health as an integral component of the right to life under Article 21. The case originated from the tragic suicide of a 17-year-old NEET aspirant in a hostel, where her father sought a CBI investigation after local police apathy.
Beyond ordering the probe, the Court elevated the issue to a structural level, linking student suicides to institutional neglect. By framing the problem through the lens of victimology and structural violence (Johan Galtung), the Court acknowledged that students are not merely victims of private distress but of systemic pressures — coaching culture, indifference of schools, and inadequate safeguards.
The Court issued binding interim directions, now termed the “Saha Guidelines”, mandating schools, colleges, hostels, and coaching centres to establish support systems, with monitoring committees at the district level. These directions hold legislative force until Parliament enacts a comprehensive law. This bridges the gap between the Mental Healthcare Act 2017 (statutory right) and a fundamental right, creating an enforceable constitutional obligation.
The ruling is significant for governance and society. It compels states to invest in mental health infrastructure, sensitise institutions, and prioritise counselling. For society, it reframes student suicides as systemic injustice rather than individual failure.
In essence, the judgment strengthens constitutional morality by recognising psychological integrity as vital to dignified life, giving voice to students long silenced by despair. Its true impact, however, will depend on effective implementation by institutions and states.
No comments:
Post a Comment