Judicial Activism by expanding the scope of Article 21 and recognizing mental health as Fundamental right

The Right to Life and Personal Liberty

The right to life and personal liberty is universally accepted and is the most fundamental human right. In India, this right is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution which states: “Protection of life and personal liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Table of Contents

Over time, the Indian judiciary has explained and expanded the meaning of Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity, encompassing the right to health. In landmark judgments such as Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 2218) and Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996 SCC (4) 37), the Supreme Court extended the scope of Article 21 to include the right to health and medicare. However, mental health was not specifically emphasised in these rulings.

Legal Recognition of Mental Health

In recent years, mental health has gained more attention and legal recognition through the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, which came into force on 28th May 2018. This legislation marked a significant milestone by explicitly recognising the right to access mental health as a legal right. The Act was enacted in alignment with international human rights standards, particularly the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), to which India is a signatory.

In Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, (2023) 2 SCC 209, while addressing mental illness in the Indian legal framework, the Supreme Court noted:

“The 2017 Act provided a rights-based framework of mental healthcare and had a truly transformative potential. The 2017 Act was enacted by Parliament in pursuance of India’s obligations under United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘CRPD’), repealing the Mental Health Act, 1987 (‘1987 Act’). In stark difference from the provisions of the 1987 Act, the provisions of the 2017 Act recognised the legal capacity of persons suffering from mental illness to make decisions and choices on treatment, admission, and personal assistance.”

Though the Act does not directly define mental health, it implies well-being as a legal right. Chapter 5 of the Act provides specific rights to persons with mental illness, including:

Right to access mental healthcare and treatment
Right to community living
Right to protection from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment
Right to equality and non-discrimination
Right to information
Right to confidentiality
Right to legal aid

The Act defines mental illness under Section 2(s) as:

“A substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, mental conditions associated with the abuse of alcohol and drugs, but does not include mental retardation which is a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind of a person, specially characterised by subnormality of intelligence.”

Definition of Mental Health

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines mental health as:

“A state of mental well-being that enables people to cope with the stresses of life, realize their abilities, learn well and work well, and contribute to their community.”

The key difference between mental health and mental illness lies in their nature:

Mental Health: A state of well-being where a person can function productively; it is positive, holistic, and focused on emotional resilience, coping abilities, and productivity.
Mental Illness: A diagnosable disorder affecting thoughts, emotions, or behaviour; pathological in nature, focusing on symptoms, impairment, diagnosis, and treatment.

Landmark Judgment on Mental Health and Education

Date: July 25th, 2025

In the landmark judgment of Sukdeb Saha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, the bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ruled that mental health is an integral component of the right to life under Article 21, which embraces dignity, autonomy, and well-being of an individual, not just survival.

The decision arose from an appeal against the Andhra High Court’s refusal to transfer the investigation of the appellant’s 17-year-old daughter’s tragic death to the CBI. Considering the increasing crisis of student suicides linked to the current education system, the bench issued guidelines for preventive, remedial, and supportive mental health frameworks.

15 Enforceable Directions for Educational Institutions

Adopt and implement a uniform mental health policy, referencing UMMEED Draft Guidelines, MANODARPAN initiative, and the National Suicide Prevention Strategy.
Institutions with 100+ students must appoint a trained counsellor or psychologist.
Referral systems must be in place for smaller institutions.
Maintain optimal student-to-counsellor ratios; provide support during exams and transitions.
Ban public shaming or segregation based on academic performance.
Display suicide-prevention protocols and helpline numbers (e.g., Tele‑MANAS) prominently on campus.
Biannual training for all staff (teaching and non-teaching) in psychological first aid, identifying warning signs, and referral protocols.
Sensitize staff to engage inclusively with marginalized and vulnerable groups.
Establish confidential harassment reporting systems with mandatory mental health referrals.
Conduct annual reviews of public mental health policies and wellness data.
Install safety infrastructure to prevent self-harm (e.g., tamper‑proof fans, rooftop access control).
Implement proactive measures in high-risk examination hubs like Kota, Delhi, and Chennai.
Ensure harassment and ragging-free environments in all residential institutions through care-takers or wardens.
Offer structured career counselling for students and their parents or guardians in all institutions, including coaching centres.
Prioritize extracurricular activities like sports, arts, and personality development.

These guidelines apply to all educational institutions—public or private schools, colleges, universities, coaching/training centres, and hostels—irrespective of affiliation.

Further Court Directions

The Court also directed that the NHRC be made a party to ongoing PILs enforcing the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, especially Section 18 (Right to access care) and Section 115 (Decriminalization of suicide attempts).

The bench clarified that these guidelines do not interfere with the National Task Force’s efforts, stating:

“We believe that these guidelines shall be read as complementary to the ongoing work of the National Task Force and would inform and assist the National Task Force on mental health concerns of students in the development of a more comprehensive and inclusive framework.”

Conclusion

Mental health is not a luxury, but a legal and moral right. Extending Article 21 to include mental health is a progressive step towards a compassionate society.

However, implementation challenges remain, especially in rural and under-resourced institutions. Most lack trained professionals on campus. A 2024 report by NIMHANS revealed that India has less than 0.75 mental health professionals per 100,000 people, making full implementation structurally difficult.

End Notes:

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/07/25/supreme-court-guidelines-protecting-mental-health-of-coaching-and-college-students-legal-news/
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2249
https://www.thehindu.com/data/despite-rising-demand-and-changing-attitudes-indians-have-limited-access-to-mental-healthcare-data/article68600838.ece
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-strengthening-our-response

What's Hot