To curb the menace of student suicides, the NTF must do more than merely tick boxes

However, recognising the alarming rise of student suicides in higher education, the Court also directed the creation of a National Task Force (NTF) to look into the mental health issues in such institutions. By creating this NTF, to be headed by Justices S Ravindra Bhat, former judge of the Supreme Court, the Court aimed at laying down “comprehensive and effective guidelines to address and mitigate” the problems plaguing students today. The NTF, comprising experts from various fields, was tasked with (1) identifying causes of student suicides; (2) analysing existing regulations, and (3) providing recommendations for reforms. The NTF was directed to provide an interim report in four months and a final report in eight months from the passing of this order.

This response was a welcome acknowledgement of a crisis long simmering under the surface. But while the mandate is urgent and the cause noble, the success of the NTF will depend less on the swiftness of its report and more on the sophistication of its methodology.

Universities are not monolithic, the methodology can’t be either

India’s higher education landscape is a collage, not a canvas. From elite IITs to underfunded state colleges, from sprawling residential universities to commuter campuses, each institution reflects a different ecology of student life. Add to that the contrast between private and public institutions, urban and rural campuses, and the role of cultural contexts across states, and it becomes clear that the NTF cannot adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. The methodology must be rooted in diversity — institutional, regional, and demographic.

To that end, the NTF must design a stratified sampling framework that recognises these faultlines. Consultations must happen not just across types of institutions but also across geographies and social identities. The lived experiences of a Dalit student in a central university in the North are likely different from those of a first-generation tribal student in a private college in the South. Only by listening to these stories in context can we move from isolated anecdotes to systemic insight.

Listen deeply

Often, policymaking works through the top-down route. The NTF must invert this logic. It must listen first and listen deeply — not through tick-box surveys alone, but through guided focus groups, anonymised storytelling platforms, student-led interviews, and regional workshops. These tools must prioritise confidentiality, especially in environments where retaliation is real and pervasive.

Importantly, the burden of participation should not be placed entirely on students. It is the NTF’s duty to reach them, not the other way around.

In doing so, the NTF must recognise the informal student networks — not every institution has an elected student government, but most have some form of student collectives, whether via the NSS, interest-based clubs, or informal peer groups. These should be treated as legitimate stakeholders.

To enable access, we recommend creating an email address as a point of contact for student bodies and other stakeholders to establish a connection with the NTF, in addition to a formal call for inputs from various stakeholders (including students), widely publicised through the appropriate Government channels.

Student distress about discrimination and design

The causes of student suicides cannot be boxed into a few predefined categories like ragging or caste discrimination, though these are certainly important. The NTF must interrogate deeper structural issues — pedagogical rigidity, lack of institutional support, infrastructure gaps, and the invisibilisation of mental health concerns in academic discourse. For instance, there needs to be a clear focus on enhancing infrastructure and staff training to address such emergencies, especially in isolated and remote residential colleges. It must look at how educational experience is designed, not just how it is delivered.

For instance, the semester system’s pace, the pressure to publish, the absence of academic flexibility for those facing personal or systemic challenges — all of these contribute to student distress. The NTF must create a comprehensive template to study these factors and how they interact with caste, class, gender, and location.

Bridge the data gap – ethically

One of the central challenges will be the absence of consolidated data. Student suicides are underreported, and even when recorded, their causes are rarely captured accurately. The NTF must advocate for better data systems — anonymised, secure, and standardised across institutions. But even more critically, it must triangulate this data with qualitative insights. Numbers are necessary, but they cannot capture the lived experiences of exclusion and despair. Stories can.

Moreover, there must be safeguards to ensure that data collection does not retraumatise or expose students. The methodology must centre on dignity, not just diagnosis.

Consultation, not tokenism

The idea of consultation has become a buzzword. But to be meaningful, consultations must be structured, representative, and consequential. The NTF must not only meet students but also demonstrate how their inputs are shaping recommendations. Creating regional consultation clusters — perhaps led by a central university in each region — could allow for sustained dialogue and ensure smaller colleges are not left out.

These clusters should be tasked not just with expressing grievances but also articulating institutional constraints. University administrations, often portrayed as villains, may themselves be hamstrung by inadequate funding or contradictory policy directives. Their voice, too, must be heard — not to dilute accountability, but to design support systems that are feasible and durable.

The time tightrope

The Court’s timeline is well-intentioned but very ambitious. If followed too rigidly, it risks reducing the exercise to a bureaucratic tick-box. The NTF must treat this timeline not as a deadline but as a launchpad. A preliminary report can highlight regulatory gaps and immediate interventions. But the core focus must be on building a methodology that is replicable, scalable, and capable of generating systemic insights over time.

If done right, this methodology will outlive the Task Force and serve as a foundation for how we think about student wellbeing more broadly, not as an episodic concern in times of crisis, but as an enduring institutional commitment.

This is a pivotal moment. Student suicides are not simply individual tragedies — they are institutional indictments. They tell us that somewhere in our systems, silence triumphed over support. The National Task Force has an opportunity to change that story. But only if it starts with humility, proceeds with empathy, and ends with a commitment to systemic change.

It is not enough to study the problem. We must humanise it. The students deserve nothing less.

Roy is founder of Project Saathi and research fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Sahoo is at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law. Views are personal