From Tragedy to Reform: The Supreme Court’s Approach to Mental Health in Institutions

Case Name: AMIT KUMAR & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

 

Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1425 OF 2025

                         (@SLP (CRL) NO. 13324 OF 2024)

Date: March 24, 2025.

Quorum: JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

 

FACTS

This case focuses on very tragic deaths of two students from Scheduled Castes, Ayush Ashna and Anil Kumar. They both took their own lives at Delhi IIT in 2023. Both found dead in their rooms on campus in a very mysterious way. The families alleged caste-based harassment by peers and faculty, including deliberate academic targeting and discriminatory behavior. But despite tens of complaints ranging widely from people in Dakshinpaur and the police alike, police in Delhi have resisted registering FIRs or formal police reports about the deaths. Claiming that deaths weren’t directly connected to political caste and focusing almost completely on academic pressure, they have stuck to that position. 

ISSUES

1. Whether the refusal by the Delhi Police to register FIRs violated the fundamental rights of the victims’ families under the Indian Constitution?
2. Whether the alleged caste-based harassment contributed to the tragic deaths and could be categorized as a cognizable offense under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?
3. Whether educational institutions should be held accountable for the safety and mental well-being of their students?
4. What systemic measures can be introduced to address student suicides in higher educational institutions?

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Section 154 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure): Under Section 154 of the CrPC, it is bound for the police officer to relieve FIR based upon said complaint in cognizable offense.
2. SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: To protect SCs and STs from humiliation, indignities, and discriminatory practice. 
3. Section 174 of the CrPC: Procedure in relation to an inquest into unnatural death, and looking at the causes and surrounding circumstance of the death. 
4. Articles 14 and 21 Rights: Right to equality and the protection of a person’s life and liberty, for dignified justice.

ARGUMENTS

APPELLANT CONTENTION:

1. The appellants argued that the Delhi Police violated Section 154 of the CrPC by refusing to register FIRs despite complaints alleging cognizable offenses, citing Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. 
   The appellants  provided evidence of caste-based discrimination, including written complaints and testimonies from other SC/ST students, highlighting systemic harassment at IIT Delhi.

   3. The appellants argued that it wasn’t just a matter of the high stress from their studies that forced some students to come to this conclusion. Definitely these students felt they were being pushed into doing this by the discrimination from the school and from other students.

   4. The appellant really stressed that schools have an absolute moral responsibility to create a safe and inclusive environment for their students. That just seems neglected.

RESPONDENT CONTENTION:

1. The Delhi Police maintained that their investigation under Section 174 of the CrPC found no credible evidence of caste-based harassment and attributed the deaths to academic stress.

   2. IIT Delhi has denied these allegations and they say that their policies are in place to prevent discrimination. They cite statements from other students of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes who report no harassment.

   3. Respondents argued that a preliminary investigation is in order before registering FIRs to properly gauge the reliability of the complaints.

2. They stress that tackling suicides among students is something that requires working together as a society as much as passing new laws.

   ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court reprimanded the Delhi Police for not carrying out their obligatory duty under Section 154 of the CrPC, observing that FIRs should be registered on receiving information about cognizable offenses without any discretion for a preliminary inquiry. It denounced the police’s attitude, observing that it eroded the canons of justice and transparency.

The Court recognized systemic failures in higher learning institutions, notably the absence of mental health counseling and steps against caste-based discrimination. It actually brought to focus this very horrific trend of suicides among talented individuals at institutions like premier IITs. The article actually pointed out that institutions have to fully own up to and be answerable for these types of things that occur. The ruling emphasized that schools need to adopt holistic anti-discrimination policies, cultural sensitivity programs, and strong mental health support systems.

The Court also referred to the larger societal factors, calling on stakeholders to reflect on issues such as academic pressure, financial constraints, and stigmas against mental health that contribute to student distress.

 

JUDGMENT

1. Registration of FIRs: The Court instructed the DCP (South-West District, New Delhi) to register the FIRs on the basis of the complaints from the families of the deceased students and to attach an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police for heading the inquiry.
2. Accountability of Institutions: The Court clarified that lack of responsibility from educational institutions in such situations might invite stern judicial scrutiny.
3. Establishing National Task Force: The Court has instituted a National Group of Task Force members to tackle mental health complications and suicides in college students. Its mandate consisted of:

– Attempting to figure out why students commit suicides—such issues as discrimination, bullying, over-pressure to pass academically, and stress regarding money and financial issues.

– Reviewing existing laws and institutional policies to determine any loopholes that must be filled.

– Proposing reforms to enhance protection for marginalized students and promote inclusive environments.

– Conducting surprise checks and seeking stakeholders’ views to ensure effective implementation of recommendations.

 

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Amit Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. is a landmark ruling dealing with systemic problems in higher educational institutions. By holding accountable both school directors and police leaders, it aligns with the aim of delivering justice to those who have been wronged while at the same time striving to make lasting changes that will prevent similarly disturbing things from transpiring. Assembling a National Task Force illustrates there is a pressing need to address mental health, to ensure that all is inclusive in its welcoming, and to protect students from discrimination and suffering. 

This decision is an important step towards making India’s schools safer and more equitable.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

WRITTEN BY MARTHALA JOSHIKA REDDY