Supreme Court Recognizes Mental Health as Constitutional Right

Sukdeb Saha vs State of Andhra Pradesh: Mental health as a Constitutional right

Date: July 2025

Introduction

In July 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in Sukdeb Saha vs State of Andhra Pradesh, recognised mental health as an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The petition arose after a 17-year-old NEET aspirant in Visakhapatnam died by suicide. Her father, dissatisfied with the local police inquiry, sought a CBI probe. The Supreme Court expanded the issue to examine systemic failures that contribute to Student suicides.

Constitutional Dimension

Article 21: The Court held that the right to life and personal liberty includes mental health, making it a fundamental right.

Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: While the Act guarantees access to mental healthcare, its uneven implementation prompted judicial reinforcement.

Victimology perspective: The Court emphasised that suicides should be viewed not as isolated individual acts but often as outcomes of systemic and structural neglect.

Court’s Observations

The Court noted the role of coaching centres, schools, and universities in creating environments that can increase student vulnerability when they fail to provide adequate support.

Institutions were described as capable of producing harm through negligence and excessive pressure — a concept the Court framed as structural violence in education.

The judgment issued the Saha Guidelines, directing educational institutions to set up proactive support systems for student mental health. Until Parliament legislates these directions, they operate as judicially binding orders rather than statute.

Significance

The ruling elevates mental health to a constitutional value deeply tied to human dignity and life under Article 21. It pushes policy and institutional accountability toward preventive and restorative measures and empowers students to claim mental health support as a legal right.

FAQs

What was the case about? It arose from the suicide of a student in Andhra Pradesh; the petitioner father sought a CBI probe and highlighted systemic failures.

What did the Supreme Court rule? That mental health is an inseparable component of the right to life under Article 21, requiring institutional safeguards.

Why is this ruling historic? Because it recognises mental health as a constitutional right and binds the state and institutions to act.

What are the Saha Guidelines? Judicial directives that require schools, colleges, and coaching centres to implement structured support systems for student mental health.

How does this impact students? Students are affirmed as rights-holders for mental health; suicides are reframed as potential outcomes of systemic neglect.