Representative image of a classroom.
Credit: iStock Photo
The Supreme Court’s directions issued while considering a report on student distress and suicides in universities highlight serious concerns around mental health and the gaps in supporting infrastructure in India’s higher education institutions (HEIs). Based on an interim report by a Court-constituted task force, these directions are aimed at establishing preventive institutional mechanisms for student well-being. The Court noted that rigid attendance policies, issues related to curricula and exam assessment, inadequate placement processes, faculty shortage, and other factors create mental stress for students that needs to be addressed to ensure a productive academic life.
The Court issued the directions by invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. Seven of its nine directions pertain to record-keeping, reporting, and tracking suicides, while the other two are about filling up vacancies. The Court directed that vacant faculty positions, in both public and private HEIs, should be filled within four months. Appointments of Vice-Chancellors and Registrars must be made within a month of the posts falling vacant, as a matter of practice. It was pointed out in the task force’s report that, according to the National Education Policy (NEP), leadership positions in HEIs should not be kept vacant for long periods, and the tenures of outgoing and incoming vice-chancellors may overlap for some time. The backlog of scholarship disbursements should also be cleared in four months. The Court observed that the “massification” and “privatisation” of higher education have placed India second globally in student enrolment, but the rush has left behind a trail of deaths, distress, vacancies, and exploitation.
Half of the top positions in the HEIs are considered vacant. They should be filled without delay, but the question that follows the Court’s intervention is whether the appointments can be made in the short period prescribed for them. Appointments to top positions, including Vice-Chancellors and Registrars, are caught in a face-off between governments and Governors in states ruled by the Opposition parties. They involve legal and political challenges. Appointments of faculty members have to be made in compliance with UGC guidelines, and that cannot be done in a hurry, violating established norms. Budgetary considerations also influence these appointments. Qualified candidates for both administrative and faculty positions are not always readily available, especially on short notice. These are challenges, but there is a strong intent in the Court’s directions that, with prompt follow-through action, can be a first step towards comprehensive reform in the sector.