AMIT KUMAR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2. Briefly stated that both Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Ayush Ashna were students of B. Tech in the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “IIT, Delhi”) and that Petitioner no. 1 and Petitioner no. 2 are the brother and mother of Anil Kumar and Petitioner No. 3 is the parent of Ayush Ashna.

3. That Mr. Ayush Ashna was found dead on 08.07.2023 at his Hostel Room No. WH-02, Seventh Floor, Udaigiri Hostel, IIT, New Delhi and another student, namely, Mr. Anil Kumar was found dead on 01.09.2023 in his Hostel Room No. EA-18, Ground Floor, Vindhyachal Hostel, IIT, New Delhi.

4. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the death of both the students were approximately two months apart and both the deaths cannot be interlinked to each other in any way. Brief facts surrounding the death of Mr. Ayush Ashna:

5. That on the night of 8th July 2023, at approximately 2300 hrs., Ayush Ashna’s mother called the reception of Udaigiri hostel and informed the guard on duty that her son Ayush Ashna, resident of Room No. WH-02, was not answering his phone. She also requested the guard to look for him.

6. Subsequently, the guard went to Room No. WH-02 and found that it was locked from inside. The guard knocked several times, and on not receiving any response, immediately reported the matter to the Security Control 1612 room as per protocol. The Security team rushed to the hostel room and knocked, but there was still no response.

7. The Security staff then looked inside the room through the ventilator and saw what appeared to be a non-moving body with the neck rolled to one side, hanged to an inverted study table. The matter was immediately reported to Delhi Police and other IIT Delhi authorities. IIT Delhi authorities reached the hostel main gate within minutes and almost simultaneously and independently, without having any further contact with the Answering Respondent, the student’s mother, brother, and maternal uncle also arrived at the hostel.

8. That while the Hostel warden was speaking with the student’s parent/relatives, Delhi police PCR also reached the hostel main gate. The situation was now under the charge of Delhi Police who took over and reported the matter as per law.

9. It is submitted that at this juncture, everyone present, including the family was informed by the Police of the tragedy. The Police took over the scene and initiated their official procedures. When the family requested that they be allowed to go inside the room, the Police said that the Crime Branch was on the way and asked them to wait for the Inquiry Officer (hereinafter referred to as “I.O.”) to arrive at the spot.

10. Thereafter, within another few minutes, the Police team from the Kishangarh Police Station arrived. The police then broke open the room door following due procedure, and in the presence of the family; inside a body was discovered and identified by the family as that of Ayush Ashna.

11. Two doctors from the IIT Delhi hospital confirmed the body to be lifeless. Subsequently, the crime branch also arrived, took charge of the scene, and spoke with the family. Post suicide information

12. The tragic news was a shock to all present. IIT Delhi personnel provided all possible assistance during this [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. challenging time and faithfully followed all instructions from the Police and Crime Branch. All possible support for the family was ensured, including a medical doctor and a counsellor was provided by IIT Delhi.

13. It is submitted that IIT Delhi is fully committed towards the safety and security of its students. After receiving the telephone call from the student’s mother, IIT Delhi security responded and acted as swiftly as possible and informed the Delhi police immediately- all within 30 minutes of the initial telephone call. Delhi police also arrived most promptly within minutes.

14. It is submitted that as per the postmortem report of the deceased Ayush Ashna, the cause of death was held to be asphyxia as a result of hanging due to ligature.

15. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted to understand the cause of death. During the course of enquiry, statements of father, brother, other relatives and friends of the deceased were recorded in which it was found that the deceased had failed in some of the subjects in the prior semester exams due to which he was under depression.

16. Consequently, the grade reports of Ayush Ashna were seen and it was found that during the 2nd semester of year 2022-23, he had failed in some of the subjects and got lower grades i.e., Grade F which stands for Very Poor in 5 out of 7 subjects.

17. It is pertinent to mention herein that no complaints regarding any caste-based discrimination have been found and there is no record of any complaint being received from the deceased or any of his family members since 2019- 2020 by the College authorities. It is further pertinent to note that during the enquiry, the relatives of the deceased denied any foul play or suspicion regarding the death of the deceased.

18. Thereafter, father of the deceased, namely, Ramesh Kumar gave a written complaint to the police station on 26.07.2023, wherein it was alleged that his son Ayush Ashna was facing caste-based discrimination by his hostel 1614 mates and other faculty members during the beginning of his academic year 2019-2020 and he also suspected in the complaint that his son could not have taken such steps and someone might have killed his son with the connivance of faculty members.

19. That IIT Delhi took due consideration to the complaint filed by the deceased student’s father and therefore submitted a point-by-point response dated 14.08.2023 to the representation made by Mr. Ramesh Kumar to clarify his doubts regarding his Complaints surrounding his son’s death. Brief facts of case surrounding the death of Mr. Anil Kumar:

20. It is submitted that Anil Kumar had taken admission in IIT Delhi in 2019 in B.Tech, Mathematics and Computing and he was allotted Room No. SD-11, Vindhyachal Hostel at the time of admission. During the semester period of 2020-21 and 2022-23, he got low grades in some of the subjects.

21. That the deceased Anil Kumar extended his stay at the hostel for the preparation of remaining subjects and completing the course and the same was granted by the relevant department immediately. Subsequently, he was allotted Room No. EA-18, Vindhyachal Hostel.

22. It is submitted that the deceased could not clear some subjects and was residing in hostel on further six months extension. As per the rules, his hostel was to be vacated in June but as he could not qualify some subjects, he was given extension for six months to clear the exams.

23. It is submitted that the deceased passed all the subjects in 1st year but he later failed in two subjects out of seven subjects in 3rd semester. Thereafter, in 4th semester he took only one subject and failed in the same, in the following year (2021-22) he failed to pass any subject, in 7th semester he failed in one subject out of six subjects and finally in 8th semester he failed in two subjects out of six subjects and therefore, he was given an extension [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. to clear all the subjects. Therefore, in toto, the deceased Anil Kumar was failing in two subjects out of seven subjects in 3rd semester, in 4th semester he took only one subject and failed in the same, in the following year he failed to pass any subject, in 7th semester he failed in one subject out of six subjects and in 8th semester he failed in two subjects out of six subjects.

24. It is pertinent to note that the students are nowhere required to reveal the category as to whether the students belong to SC/ST/General category. Hostel allotment letters also prove that there was no column revealing the category of the students in any of the form and only entry number was mentioned in all the forms and thus, no evidence of caste-based discrimination against the deceased was found.

25. That on the evening of 1st September 2023, at around 5pm, a student residing in one of the ground floor wings in Vindhyachal hostel reported a foul smell to the hostel caretaker. Thereafter, it was found that the neighbouring room’s door was locked from inside and glass panes of the grilled window facing the hostel basketball court were also shut with the curtains drawn.

26. Consequently, the warden and security were immediately called, who then reached the hostel. The security unit pried open the window-pane from outside and undrew the curtain. They discovered a hanging body. Post suicide information

27. The security immediately called the police and the warden informed the Dean Student Affairs. The Dean and Associate Dean reached Vindhyachal hostel within minutes. Three Counsellors were also immediately called, and arrived within minutes, to talk to other residents of the hostel.

28. By approximately 06:10 PM, the police and fire department personnel arrived at the hostel, followed by Crime branch. The Chief Medical Officer of IIT Delhi was also called, who immediately arrived at the hostel. The police then took over the proceedings, the ACP arrived 1616 at approximately 07:10 PM and their fire personnel broke the door open at approximately 07:15 PM. The body was identified as that of student Anil Kumar residing in the room as per records.

29. Immediately, upon identification of the body, IIT Delhi officials tried contacting the mobile numbers of family, provided as per the student records. By approximately 1930 hrs., Mr. Amit Kumar, elder brother of the student, could be contacted on the phone. He was informed of the tragic loss and was requested to reach IIT Delhi at the earliest possible. Mr. Amit Kumar informed that they had lost their father a few months ago, and at the present time the whole family was in their village 600-700 Km away from Delhi. They will try to reach by the morning of 2nd Sept. 2023.

30. Thereafter, Director, Dy. Director Operations, Registrar, Dy. Registrar Student Affairs also reached the hostel. An ambulance was called and the police took custody of the body at approximately 2050 hrs. for transporting to the Safdarjung hospital mortuary.

31. Thereafter, postmortem of the deceased was conducted vide PM No. 2048/23, wherein the cause of death was held to be “asphyxia consequent to ante-mortem compression of neck by ligature”.

32. It is submitted that Mr. Amit Kumar, along with his family, reached IIT Delhi faculty guest house by approximately 0730 hrs. on the morning of 2nd Sept. 2023. Warden, SC/ ST Liaison Officer, former SC/ST advisor, Head Counsellor, Director, Dean, Associate Dean met with the family. On their request, family were taken to Vindhyachal hostel to look at the student’s room from outside.

33. During the course of enquiry, statements of the brother, mother, other relatives and friends of the deceased were recorded who stated that due to scoring less marks in exams, deceased was under stress.

34. It is pertinent to mention herein that the family and relatives of deceased further denied any foul play or any suspicion regarding the death of the deceased. [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

35. Academically, Anil Kumar had finished a little less than 50% of the 150 credits required for the award of a BTech degree. He was identified as a student who was underperforming academically. His advisor reached out to him; unfortunately, a meeting did not materialize.

36. Outside of academics, he had not approached the counselling unit for any assistance. In the first week of June 2023, he had informed the hostel caretaker, while beginning his extended hostel stay, that he had lost his father. Below is the hostel residence history of Mr. Anil Kumar (2019MT10674) as per records: (i) Pre-pandemic: Resident of Vindhyachal hostel from 15th July 2019 till vacating due to pandemic. (ii) Post-pandemic: Resident of Vindhyachal hostel from 19th April 2022 till current date. After completion of applicable tenure of 8 semesters, the student requested extension of stay for completion of remaining credits on 1st June 2023 (extension request form was duly recommended and forwarded by Course Advisor and Head of Department of Mathematics). Extension of stay was granted as per rules, either till end of 1st Sem 2023-24 or 26th Dec. 2023 (whichever is earlier), on 2nd June 2023.

37. It was only on 09.09.2023, that Mr. Amit Kumar (brother of Anil Kumar) gave a written Complaint in the Police station, wherein he alleged that Anil Kumar was facing caste-based discrimination by his teachers and other faculty members. It is pertinent to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Court that this is the first time any such Complaint of caste-based discrimination was being heard of from the deceased or his family. Submissions:

38. That it is the policy of the institution that before the start of every semester, students who have previously underperformed academically are identified. Then they are advised to take a slower pace academic program to avoid overburdening. Their respective faculty advisors are 1618 notified as to their deteriorating academic performance and are asked to contact their advisees for any help with the scholastic pursuits. Thereafter, the faculty advisors contact the students, and on a regular basis continue to contact, to discuss any issues that they might have with respect to their course and graduation plans.

39. During the time relevant for the present case, the same procedure was followed and about 10% of students were recommended for counselling sessions through this intervention, and a handful of students were identified as requiring language support.

40. It is submitted that the institution takes every complaint regarding caste-based discrimination with utmost seriousness and the apprehensions of the parents of the deceased were also duly considered. In this regard, a thorough enquiry was conducted wherein statements of family and friends of the deceased were recorded and several other students of IIT, Delhi who belonged to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were also examined. During this enquiry, not even a single assertion cropped up which suggested that the deceased students were murdered in the campus and as a matter of fact, none of those students had ever reported any caste-based discrimination either by any faculty members or anybody else within the institution.

41. It is also pertinent to mention herein that no complaint was ever given by either of the deceased students to the Police or to the SC/ST Cell of IIT, Delhi regarding any caste-based discrimination. Moreover, in order to mitigate the possibility of bigotry and discrimination amongst the students, it is the policy of the institution that no person, except the Dean of Academics, is aware about the category to which any student belongs and all students are treated equally in the campus by all the staff members. It is further submitted that the students are not required to disclose their castes in any other forms filled by them during their time at IIT Delhi.

42. That in order to bring forth the actual facts of the death of the deceased students, a detailed enquiry was [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. conducted, wherein all relevant materials were collected and subjected to rigorous scrutiny. In the absence of any specific allegation or even an iota of evidence in the enquiry suggesting any caste-based discrimination in the present case or that the deceased committed suicide for any reason other than weary academic load, it is humbly submitted that there are no grounds for either registration of FIR or directing CBI to investigate the matter in the present case and the same deserves to be dismissed.

43. It is submitted that IIT Delhi is fully committed to the physical and mental well-being of all the students, including those belonging to marginalized groups. It is the top priority of the answering respondents to eradicate caste-based discrimination and/or any form of harassment from the academic pursuits of its students. IIT Delhi makes conscious efforts to encourage, counsel and motivate the students.

44. IIT Delhi has a zero-tolerance policy for any discrimination inflicted by any person in the campus and stringent steps are taken to expunge such possibilities. The institution ensures that any systemic deficiencies that can be identified are immediately addressed.

45. It is submitted that in order to aid the scholastic journey of the students at IIT Delhi, each undergraduate student in the Institution is allotted a faculty advisor. This information is constantly reflected on the institute academics portal, which is routinely accessed by each student for various purposes, including fees payment and registration for courses. The advisors are also informed of their advisees on their respective academics’ portal. Advisees can meet their advisor at any time to discuss their issues.

46. Further, a Board of Student Welfare (BSW) has also been established at the Institute which assists in ensuring student wellness and addressing mental health issues. In addition to being led by an elected student General Secretary, this board is also mentored by several faculty members, with the Associate Dean Student Welfare (ADSW) serving as the President of the Board. BSW 1620 reaches out to students and regularly encourages them to come forward with any issue that they may face during their time at IIT Delhi.

47. Additionally, the Institution operates a separate Counselling Unit to aid mental tonicity of the students. Currently, there are three female and one male counsellors in this Unit from diverse backgrounds. Two counsellors (one female and one male) reside on campus and are available 24×7 on call. Four (04) more permanent counsellor positions have also been advertised and the hiring process is underway. Services of an online counselling portal (Your Dost) are also made available to all students 24×7.

48. The Institution also ensures that at least one contractual psychiatrist remains physically available in the hospital at the campus from 0800- 2000 hrs. Mon-Fri and on-call for emergencies on weekends. The process of hiring a permanent psychiatrist for the hospital is also underway.

49. In addition to the above steps, the following support systems are also operational at the Institute level to promptly address the concerns of students and provide efficacious remedy to their problems: * ICC (Internal Complaints Committee) * Grievance Redressal Committee * Student Grievance web portal * IGES (Initiative for Gender Equity and Sensitization) * Office of Diversity & inclusion headed by a Dean * SC/ST Cell

50. It is submitted that IIT Delhi is also in the process of setting up a Central Attendance monitoring system for all students, with special attention on the underperforming students.

51. It is submitted that IIT Delhi aims at providing a comfortable and a safe environment for its students and emotions of their parents. In the case at hand as well, the Answering Respondents have fully cooperated with the [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Police, parents and have even conducted internal inquiry to verify the claims of the Petitioners.

52. However, in both the inquiries conducted by the Answering Respondents as well as the Police, no cognizable offence has been made out.” ANALYSIS 16. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order. 17. It is not in dispute that the Police for some reason or the other declined to register an F.I.R. on the ground that no one could be said to have abetted the commission of suicide. All that the Police did in the course of the inquiry under Section 174 of the CrPC was to record the statements of other students belonging to SC/ST category studying in IIT Delhi, who stated that there was no caste- based discrimination in the hostel. 18. The High Court while rejecting the writ petition observed thus: “14. Perusal of the Status Report filed by the Ld. ASG for the State shows that a thorough and detailed enquiry was conducted into both the cases and it was found that no complaint was ever given by any of the deceased students to the police, SC/ST Cell IIT Delhi or to any of their friends in Campus regarding any caste based discrimination being faced by them. Moreover, statements of family and friends of the deceased were recorded and several other students of IIT, Delhi who belonged to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were also examined and none of them reported any caste-based discrimination taking place in the IIT Campus, Delhi. The allegations levelled by the petitioners, therefore, could not be corroborated and nothing came on record to substantiate the same. 15. Undoubtedly, the academic career of two brilliant and young students came to an end under devastating circumstances and one cannot even fathom the challenges and emotions which the parents of the deceased must be 1622 facing every day. This Court can understand the sentiments of the parents of the deceased and deeply discourages the growing trend of pressurising young minds to perform the best in every aspect of life leading them to take unfortunate steps. It is high time that the faculty as well as other staff members of Indian Institute of Technology make conscious efforts and take endeavours to counsel, encourage, motivate and invigorate the students. It is of utmost priority to make the young minds understand that scoring good marks and performing your best is important but it is not the most important thing in life and one can certainly give his/ her best without succumbing to the pressures or stress of performing better. The most significant way of instilling this into young minds who face challenges everyday in the professional and competitive environment of colleges is by teaching them in the very same campus where they spend years of their students life the values of prioritizing their health be it physical or mental which will also give them the confidence to face every challenge in life. 16. Taking into consideration the totality of facts and- circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that a mandamus cannot be issued in a routine manner merely on the basis of sympathy or sentiments, accordingly, the present petition along with pending applications, if any is dismissed being devoid of any merits.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. This litigation is an eye-opener not just for the police but also for the parents whose children are studying in different educational institutions, more particularly those students residing in a hostel far from their respective homes, and also the management of the educational institutions across the country. 20. The pivotal question that falls for our consideration is whether the Police was justified in closing the matter upon conclusion of the inquiry under Section 174 of the CrPC? In other words, whether recourse to inquest proceedings under Section 174 of the CrPC obviates the requirement of registration of F.I.R.? To put it in a still lucid manner, [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. whether an inquest report discovering the cause of death would be good enough to close the matter without registration of an F.I.R.? i. Scope of Section 174 of the CrPC 21. Section 174 of the CrPC reads as under: “Section 174. Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc. 1) When the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any); such marks appear to have been inflicted. (2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein, and shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate. (3)When- (i) the case involves suicide by a woman within seven years of her marriage; or (ii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage in any circumstances raising a 1624 reasonable suspicion that some other person committed an offence in relation to such woman; or (iii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and any relative of the woman has made a request in this behalf; or (iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death; or (v) the police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do, he shall, subject to such rules as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the State Government, if the state of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless. (4) The following Magistrates are empowered to hold inquests, namely, any District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or the District Magistrate.” 22. The proceedings under Section 174 of the CrPC should be kept more distinct from the proceedings taken on the complaint. Investigation under Section 174 is limited in scope and is confined to the ascertainment of the apparent cause of death and should not be equated with investigation into cognizable offences under Sections 160 and 161 of the CrPC respectively. The procedure under Section 174 of the CrPC is for the purpose of discovering the cause of death and the evidence taken is very short. Sub-section (4) of Section 174 empowers any District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or the District Magistrate to hold inquest. The inquest held by the magistrate under Section 174 is distinct from an inquiry under Section 202. 23. The inquest proceedings are concerned with discovering whether in a given case the death was accidental, suicidal, homicidal, or caused by an animal and in what manner or by what weapon or instrument the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted, therefore, the [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. evidence taken is very short. (See: Chaman Lal v. Emperor, AIR 1940 Lah 210, at 214) 24. The investigations conducted under Sections 154 and 174 of the CrPC respectively are distinct in nature and purpose. A study of Chapter XII of the CrPC reveals that these two provisions cater to different procedural objectives. The former begins with information about the commission of a cognizable offence referred to in Section 154(1), culminating in registration of F.I.R. and ending with filing of a chargesheet/challan before the competent court under Section 173 or a final report as the case may be. This procedure to be undertaken for initiating an investigation into a cognizable offence has been explained by this Court in Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan, (2011) 3 SCC 758, in the following words: “48. Under the scheme of the Code, investigation commences with lodgement of information relating to the commission of an offence. If it is a cognizable offence, the officer in charge of the police station, to whom the information is supplied orally has a statutory duty to reduce it to writing and get the signature of the informant. He shall enter the substance of the information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, in a book prescribed by the State in that behalf. The officer- in-charge has no escape from doing so if the offence mentioned therein is a cognizable offence and whether or not such offence was committed within the limits of that police station.[…]” (Emphasis supplied) 25. Further, the objective of proceedings under Section 154(1) has been succinctly explained by this Court in Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 9 SCC 1, as under: “19. […] Whereas the starting point of the powers of the police was changed from the power of the officer in charge of a police station to investigate into a cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate, to the reduction of the first information regarding commission of a cognizable offence, whether received orally or in writing, into writing. As such, the objective of such placement of provisions was 1626 clear which was to ensure that the recording of the first information should be the starting point of any investigation by the police. The purpose of registering FIR is to set the machinery of criminal investigation into motion, which culminates with filing of the police report and only after registration of FIR, beginning of investigation in a case, collection of evidence during investigation and formation of the final opinion is the sequence which results in filing of a report under Section 173 of the Code. […]” (Emphasis supplied) 26. In contrast, an investigation under Section 174 of the CrPC focuses on ascertaining the apparent cause of death in cases of unnatural or suspicious deaths. This position has been well explained by this Court in Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1975) 4 SCC 153. The proceeding under Section 174 is limited in scope and fundamentally distinct from investigations aimed at prosecuting offences. Inquest proceedings are conducted by the police or a Magistrate and conclude with the filing of an inquest report before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), District Judge, or Magistrate as the case may be. The relevant observations are reproduced herein below: “11. A perusal of this provision would clearly show that the object of the proceedings under Section 174 is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted appears to us to be foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174. In these circumstances, therefore, neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to have mentioned these details in the inquest report. […]” (Emphasis supplied) 27. The investigation after registration of F.I.R. under Section 154 of the CrPC is an investigation into an offence. In contrast, the investigation under Section 174 of the CrPC is an investigation or an “inquiry” into the apparent cause of death. [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 28. The marginal note attached to Section 174 of the CrPC reads “Police to inquire and report on suicide, etc.” This is self-explanatory as to the scope of the provision. Sections 174 to 176 of the CrPC only contemplate inquiry into the cause of death. Although the phrase ‘investigation’ is used in Section 174 of the CrPC, yet it is only an investigation in the nature of an inquiry. Sometimes, during the inquest, the police record the presence of witnesses who are also witnesses in the case. These statements are not meant as substitutes for statements under Section 161 of the CrPC. The inquest requirement under Section 174 does use the word investigation but if one considers the entire phraseology of Section 174 of the CrPC, one comes to the conclusion that the word investigation in Section 174 is not an investigation to find out who are the offenders. It is only to enable the police to come up with the “apparent cause of death”. This phrase in Section 174 should give us the clue as to the correct understanding of the role of the police in inquest panchnama. ii. F.I.R. under Section 154 of the CrPC 29. Section 154 of the CrPC lays down the procedure for the registration of a First Information Report in cases of cognizable offenses. The relevant portion of the provision is reproduced hereunder: “154. Information in cognizable cases.—(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf […]” 30. The object and purpose of filing an F.I.R. has been explained by this Court in Sheikh Hasib Alias Tabarak v. State of Bihar, (1972) 4 SCC 773, observing that the main purpose of the F.I.R. is to initiate the criminal justice process and to gather information about the alleged crime, enabling them to take appropriate actions to identify and apprehend the offender. The Court held: 1628 “4…The principal object of the first information report from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party. The first information report, we may point out, does not constitute substantive evidence though its importance as conveying the earliest information regarding the occurrence cannot be doubted. It can, however, only be used as a previous statement for the purpose of either corroborating its maker under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act or for contradicting him under Section 145 of that Act. It cannot be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting other witnesses.” (Emphasis supplied) 31. In Thulia Kali v. State of T.N., (1972) 3 SCC 393, this Court elucidated the impact of delay in registration of F.I.R. The Court held as follows: “12. … First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted” (Emphasis supplied) 32. The point of law on mandatory registration, as interpreted from Section 154 of the CrPC, has been elaborated by this Court in State [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Upon thorough examination of the mandatory implications of Section 154 of the CrPC, this Court arrived at the following finding in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the judgment: “31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Code, the police officer concerned cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157. (As we have proposed to make a detailed discussion about the power of a police officer in the field of investigation of a cognizable offence within the ambit of Sections 156 and 157 of the Code in the ensuing part of this judgment, we do not propose to deal with those sections in extenso in the present context.) In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who if satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by sub- section (3) of Section 154 of the Code. 32. Be it noted that in Section 154(1) of the Code, the legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the expression ‘information’ without qualifying the same as in Section 41(1)(a) or (g) of the Code wherein the expressions, ‘reasonable complaint’ 1630 and ‘credible information’ are used. Evidently, the non- qualification of the word ‘information’ in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code may be for the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words, ‘reasonableness’ or ‘credibility’ of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. A comparison of the present Section 154 with those of the earlier Codes will indicate that the legislature had purposely thought it fit to employ only the word ‘information’ without qualifying the said word. Section 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1861 (Act 25 of 1861) passed by the Legislative Council of India read that ‘every complaint or information’ preferred to an officer in charge of a police station should be reduced into writing which provision was subsequently modified by Section 112 of the Code of 1872 (Act 10 of 1872) which thereafter read that ‘every complaint’ preferred to an officer in charge of a police station shall be reduced in writing. The word ‘complaint’ which occurred in previous two Codes of 1861 and 1872 was deleted and in that place the word ‘information’ was used in the Codes of 1882 and 1898 which word is now used in Sections 154, 155, 157 and 190(c) of the present Code of 1973 (Act 2 of 1974). An overall reading of all the Codes makes it clear that the condition which is sine qua non for recording a first information report is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. 33. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information.” (Emphasis supplied) [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 33. In Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, a five-Judge Bench of this Court affirmed the requirement for the mandatory registration of an F.I.R. under Section 154 of the CrPC. The Court ruled that, once the information provided discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it is imperative for the police to register the F.I.R. without conducting any preliminary inquiry. This judgment reinforces the principle that the registration of an F.I.R. is a duty that must be carried out promptly upon the receipt of credible information regarding a cognizable crime. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow: “83. In terms of the language used in Section 154 of the Code, the police is duty-bound to proceed to conduct investigation into a cognizable offence even without receiving information (i.e. FIR) about commission of such an offence, if the officer in charge of the police station otherwise suspects the commission of such an offence. The legislative intent is therefore quite clear i.e. to ensure that every cognizable offence is promptly investigated in accordance with law. This being the legal position, there is no reason that there should be any discretion or option left with the police to register or not to register an FIR when information is given about the commission of a cognizable offence. Every cognizable offence must be investigated promptly in accordance with law and all information provided under Section 154 of the Code about the commission of a cognizable offence must be registered as an FIR so as to initiate an offence. The requirement of Section 154 of the Code is only that the report must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and that is sufficient to set the investigating machinery into action.” (Emphasis supplied) 34. The foregoing discussion leads us to the inevitable conclusion that when an informant approaches the police with information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the police owes a duty to promptly register an F.I.R. and initiate investigation in accordance with Section 154 of the CrPC. The police authorities are not vested with any discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry to assess the credibility of the information before registering the F.I.R. Any such practice would be contrary to the established principles of criminal law. 1632 35. Over a period of time, this Court through its legion of decisions, has emphasized the necessity of ensuring the prompt registration of F.I.R. to uphold the rule of law and prevent any undue delay in the commencement of criminal investigation. Timely registration of an F.I.R. not only ensures that crucial evidence is preserved but also serves to protect the rights of victims by setting the criminal justice process in motion without unnecessary procedural impediments. 36. In the present case, the appellants had approached the territorial police station on 21.07.2023 and 09.09.2023 respectively for registration of an F.I.R., alleging foul play and commission of offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant nos. 1 and 2 respectively, further, on 11.09.2023, addressed a detailed letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South-West, New Delhi for registration of F.I.R. However, no heed was paid to the fervent appeal made by the appellants herein. 37. The husband of appellant no. 3 (father of Ayush Ashna) in his complaint, dated 21.07.2023 addressed to the D.C.P., Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, had informed the Police that his son, Ayush Ashna, was facing caste-based harassment from his hostel inmates as well as the faculty members. He further informed the Police that his son had to change his hostel owing to his caste category being revealed in the branch change list. He, therefore, demanded an investigation into his son’s untimely and unnatural death. 38. Appellant nos. 1 and 2 respectively in their complaint dated 09.09.2023, stated that the death of Anil Kumar was not due to suicide, but was a result of murder based on caste hatred. They also informed the Police that Anil Kumar was facing caste-based discrimination including the use of derogatory caste-based words by the members of the faculty. 39. There is no doubt that the offence alleged by the appellants in their respective complaints disclosed commission of cognizable offences. 40. It is altogether a different thing to say that there is no element of truth in what has been alleged by the appellants in their respective complaints. It could just be a figment of their imagination. It could also be just a reflection of their anger towards the management as two young boys lost their lives. Even if the Police was of the view that there was no element of truth in what had been alleged by the [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. appellants, it could have said so only after registering an F.I.R. and conducting an investigation pursuant thereto. We say so because this is the law. The Police could not have taken a shortcut just because something happened in the hostel of an eminent educational institution like IIT Delhi. It seems that the Police very quickly jumped to the conclusion that the two boys were in some sort of depression as they were not doing well in their studies. Such conclusion of the Police may as well be correct. However, again, at the cost of repetition, we say that such a conclusion could have been arrived at only after following the due process of law, i.e., registration of an F.I.R. and investigation. Nobody would have stopped the Police from filing an appropriate closure report saying that no case is made out. However, to close the entire matter after undertaking an investigation under Section 174 of the CrPC is something which we do not approve of. 41. It is legitimate to argue that the commission of suicide is not a cognizable offence. A person who commits suicide goes beyond the cognizance of police. What is cognizable in cases of suicide is the abetment to commit suicide. Therefore, the complaint made by the complainant must disclose abetment of commission of suicide by the person named therein before an F.I.R. can be registered. 42. Further, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 3(1)(q) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989”) is a cognizable offence under Section 18 of the said Act. The relevant provision reads thus: “18-A. No enquiry or approval required. – (1) For the purposes of this Act,- i. preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of a First Information Report against any person; or ii. the investigating officer shall not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person, against whom an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act has been made and no procedure other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall apply.” 1634 43. The aforementioned provision, in the most unambiguous language, lays down that no preliminary enquiry is required for the registration of an F.I.R. This leaves no room for the authorities to delve into an investigation so as to determine the reasons leading to the commission of suicide by the students when categorical statements regarding caste-based harassment and discrimination were made in the complaint. The SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 was enacted with the intent to enlarge the scope of criminal liability by including several acts or omissions of atrocities that were not covered by the I.P.C. or the Protection of Civil Liberties Act, 1955 as summed up by this Court in National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights v. Union of India, (2017) 2 SCC 432. 44. We also take notice of the following: “No. 15011/91/2013-SC/ST-W Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs ***** NDCC – II Building, Jai Singh Road New Delhi Dated the 12th October, 2015 To The Chief Secretaries All State Governments/UT Administrations Subject: Advisory on no discrimination in compulsory registration of FIRs- Regarding Sir/Madam, 1. Reference is invited to this Ministry’s Advisories dated 10th May 2013 and 5th February 2014 regarding compulsory registration of FIR u/s 154 Cr P.C. (copies enclosed). [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2. In these advisories it was made clear that as per section 154(1) of the Cr. P.C. a police officer is duty bound to register a case on the basis of such information disclosing a cognizable offence and FIR has to be registered irrespective of territorial jurisdiction. 3. National Commission for Minorities in its Annual Report 2011-12 has recommended prompt action in registration of FIRs, timely filing of charge sheet and speedy trial to restore the faith of minorities. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that registration of FIR is the first step in the whole process. Therefore all States/UTs must ensure that utmost promptness in registering FIRs is extended to all those who approach the police for registration of FIRs without any discrimination of whatever kind. Once again it is requested to ensure that FIRs get registered in strict compliance to above stated advisories. 4. It is requested to kindly ensure that these instructions are circulated amongst all concerned Departments/ Organizations and others under your jurisdiction for strict compliance. Yours faithfully Kumar Alok Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India Tel No. 23438100.” 45. We also take notice of the following advisory dated 5.02.2024 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs: “Mo. 15011/91/2013 – SC/ST-W Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs Centre State Division 5th Floor, NDCC-II Building Jai Singh Road, New Delhi Dated the 5th February, 2024 1636 To The Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home Department) Sub:- Compulsory Registration of FIR u/s 154 Cr.P.C. when the information makes out a cognizable offence Sir/Madam, This is in continuation to the earlier advisory of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 10-05-2013 regarding the registration of FIR irrespective of territorial jurisdiction and zero FIR. We had made it clear that as per section 154(1) of the Cr. P.C. a police officer is duty bound to register a case on the basis of such information disclosing a cognizable offence. We had also made it clear that when it becomes apparent that even if the offence has been committed outside the jurisdiction of the police station, zero FIR would still be registered and the FIR would be then transferred to the appropriate police station as per Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. 2. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in W.P, (Cri.) No.68 of 2008 in Lalita Kumar Vs Government of U.P. and others on 12-11-2013 had addressed the issue of mandatory registration of FIRs and had held that registration of FIR either on the basis of the information furnished by the informant when it makes out a cognizable offence u/s 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. or otherwise u/s 157(1) of the Cr. P.C. is obligatory. It also held that reliability, genuineness and credibility of the information are not conditions precedent for registering a case u/s 154 of the Cr. P.C. Since the legislative intent is to ensure that every cognizable offence is promptly investigated in accordance with law, hence there is no discretion or option left with the police to register or not to register an FIR once information of a cognizable offence has been provided. The court was quite perturbed about the burking of crime registration and has concluded that non-registration of crime leads to dilution of rule of law and thus leads to definite lawlessness in the society, [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. which is detrimental to the society as a whole. It has hence called for action against erring officers who do not register an FIR if information received by him/her discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. It may be mentioned that Section 166A of Cr.P.C. prescribes a penalty of imprisonment up to two years and also a fine for non-registration of a FIR for an offence described u/s 166A. It may be also mentioned that if after investigation the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR under Chapter XI of the I.P.C. 3. The Supreme Court has provided for some exceptions to the mandatory registration of FIR and for the conduct of preliminary inquiry which are as follows: (a) If the information received does not disclose the commission of cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant within one week and it must also disclose the reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. (b) The other categories of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are: (i) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (ii) Commercial offences (iii) Medical negligence cases (iv) Corruption cases (v) Cases where there is an abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution. Example: over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay 1638 (vi) The Supreme Court has also insisted that all preliminary inquiries should be completed within 7 days and any delay with the causes should be reflected in the General Diary/Station House Diary/ Daily Diary. 4. The Supreme Court has, inter-alia, deprecated the practice of first recording the information in the General Diary and then conducting a preliminary inquiry and thereafter registering the FIR. It has clarified that registration of the FIR is to be done in the FIR Register/ Book (in the standard format prescribed) and in addition, the gist or substance of the FIR is to be recorded in the General Diary as mandated in the Police Act or Police Regulations. 5. In addition, to ensure accountability in the functioning of police, the Supreme Court emphasized that all actions of the police should be reduced to writing and documented through entries made in the General Diary of the Police Station. 6. Home Departments of the States/UTs may direct the DGPs/IGPs to issue necessary instructions in the light of the above advisory so that ail police officers are made aware of them and the contents are also incorporated in the training curriculum of the police personnel. 7. The receipt of the same may kindly be acknowledged.” (S. Suresh Kumar) Joint Secretary (CS)” 46. The aforesaid advisory makes the following very clear: i. Registration of an F.I.R. is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. ii. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not. [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. iii. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the F.I.R. must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. iv. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering the offence if a cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register an F.I.R. if information received by them discloses a cognizable offence. v. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. vi. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: a. Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes b. Commercial offences c. Medical negligence cases d. Corruption cases e. Cases where there is an abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over three months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. vii. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. viii. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we 1640 direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of an F.I.R. or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above. CONCLUSION 47. We are of the view that responsibility of maintaining the safety and well-being of students rests heavily on the administration of every educational institution. Therefore, in the event of any unfortunate incident, such as a suicide occurring on campus, it becomes their unequivocal duty to promptly lodge an F.I.R. with the appropriate authorities. Such action is not only a legal obligation but also a moral imperative to ensure transparency, accountability, and the pursuit of justice. Simultaneously, it is incumbent upon the police authorities to act with diligence and responsibility by registering the FIR without refusal or delay. This ensures that due process of law is upheld, and a thorough investigation can be conducted to uncover the truth and address any underlying causes. The harmonious discharge of these duties by both educational institutions and law enforcement agencies is essential to prevent the recurrence of such tragedies and to preserve trust in societal institutions. In a given case, failure on part of the administration of any educational institution may be viewed strictly. 48. For all the foregoing reasons we direct the DCP (South-West District, New Delhi) to register the First Information Report in line with two respective complaints lodged in writing by the kith and kin of the two students who committed suicide and depute any responsible officer, not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, to undertake the investigation in accordance with law. We need not say anything further as investigation of any crime is within the domain of the police. NATIONAL TASK FORCE TO ADDRESS THE MENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS OF STUDENTS AND PREVENT THE COMMISSION OF SUICIDES IN HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 49. However, we do not intend to close the matter just with a direction to register the F.I.R. We deem it absolutely necessary to discuss the disturbing pattern of student suicides being reported from various educational institutes across the country. [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 50. On 19th March, 2025, a third-year law student, aged 21 years, at the Gujarat National Law University (GNLU) was found dead in his dorm room. The deceased student was a native of Patiala in Punjab. He had apparently hanged himself from the latch and was found on the floor.1 51. On 25th February, 2025, a third-year student at the Indian Institute of Technology, Patna took his life by allegedly jumping from the seventh floor of his hostel premises situated within the campus itself allegedly owing to excessive academic pressure.2 52. On 15th February, 2025, a third-year student pursuing a Bachelors in Technology from Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) campus in Bhubaneswar, Odisha, was found hanging from the ceiling fan in her hostel room on account of alleged sexual harassment and blackmailing by a fellow student.3 53. On 18 February, 2024, a second-year student at the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Wayanad, Kerala, was found hanging in the bathroom of his hostel, after allegedly being tortured by his seniors and batchmates days before his death.4 54. What disturbs us even more is that the abovementioned incidents are not isolated one-off occurrences but are only a few out of the many which have taken place over a period of time owing to a multitude of reasons like ragging, academic pressure, caste-based discrimination, sexual harassment, etc. As per the data provided by the Union Minister of State for Education to the Rajya Sabha in 2023, 98 students died by suicide in higher educational institutes since 2018, out of which 39 were from IITs, 25 from NITs, 25 from central universities, four from IIMs, three from IISERs and two from IIITs.5 55. Each suicide is a personal tragedy that prematurely takes the life of an individual and has a continuing ripple effect, affecting the lives of Gujarat National Law University student ends life on campus, The Times of India, March 19, 2025. IIT Patna student dies by ‘suicide’ on campus, The Indian Express, February 27, 2025. Why suicide of Nepali student at Odisha’s KIIT campus forced Nepal PM to intervene, Firstpost, February 18, 2025. Wayanad student suicide: Six arrested for college student’s suicide, The New Indian Express, February 29, 2024. 98 students died by suicide in higher educational institutes since 2018: Centre, Hindustan Times, July 27, 2023. 1642 families, friends and communities. According to the 210th Report of the Law Commission of India, suicide has been identified as one of the most significant factors contributing to the premature and unnatural cessation of human life.6 The statistics contained in the Report of the National Crime Records Bureau (for short, “the NCRB”) for the year 2021 highlight the grim reality of over 13,000 students having lost their lives by committing suicide in the country which is almost twice the already disturbing number a decade ago. The number of student suicides has now surpassed suicides committed by farmers due to agrarian distress, with a four percent rise in 2024 alone.7 According to the NCRB Report titled “Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India, 2022” student suicides accounted for 7.6% of the total number of suicides committed in India in 2022 with 1.2% of total suicides attributable to professional/career problems and 1.2% to failure in examination. 56. In the backdrop of the rising incidence of student suicides on college campuses and in higher educational institutions, including the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), National Institutes of Technology (NITs) and Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), we believe that it is high time we take cognizance of this serious issue and formulate comprehensive and effective guidelines to address and mitigate the underlying causes contributing to such distress among students. 57. We believe from our little understanding that the suicide epidemic in educational institutions can be attributed to a plethora of factors including but not limited to academic pressure, caste-based discrimination, financial stress, and sexual harassment, with eminent institutions like the IITs and NITs reporting high rates linked to exam failures8. 58. A number of news reports point out that caste-based discrimination is rampant and pervasive, even in prestigious educational institutions, aggravating the sense of alienation among students from marginalised communities. Caste-based discrimination on college campuses is in clear violation of Article 15 of the Constitution which inter alia prohibits discrimination on the ground of caste. In response to a question put up in the Rajya Sabha in 2021, the Ministry of Education submitted Law Commission of India, Report No. 210 on the Humanisation and Decriminalisation of Attempt to Suicide, Para 1.5 (October 2008). More Students Dying by Suicide Than Farmers Reveals Another Deadly Crisis, The Quint, October 23, 2024. Id. [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. that 60% of the students who dropped-out from seven reputed IITs belonged to the reserved categories. 59. We are aware that a coordinate Bench of this Court is in seisin of the issue pertaining to caste-based discrimination in educational institutions in the case of Abeda Salim Tadvi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (W.P. (C) No. 1149/2019). Pursuant to the directions of this Court in the said matter, the University Grants Commission (for short, “the UGC”) has published the draft University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2025. The avowed object of the said Regulations is to ensure a safe, inclusive, and equitable learning environment for all students, faculty members, and staff by preventing any form of discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth within Higher Educational Institutions. 60. The aforesaid draft Regulations published by the UGC also assume importance as the phenomenon of “othering” of students belonging to the marginalised communities, whether based on caste, gender or ethnicity, is being reported with an increasing frequency and it is only through sensitization of students and the faculty members that it can be ensured that campuses become safe spaces which are equal for students coming from the different walks of life. 61. While the steps taken by the UGC pursuant to the directions of this Court in Abeda Salim Tadvi (supra) are in the right direction inasmuch as they aim to prevent all forms of on-campus discrimination, we intend to take a step further towards creating an institutionalised mechanism for ensuring the mental well-being of students studying in Higher Educational Institutions so as to mitigate the instances of commission of suicides by students owing to discrimination, academic pressure, harassment, or any other concern affecting the mental well-being of students. 62. Based on a survey conducted by Seena Mary Thankachan, a researcher at the Pune International Centre, it was reported that 70% of the faculty members across IITs felt ill-equipped to address mental health issues, and 90% lacked proper training to support students with such sensitive concerns.9 Implementing strict anti- OPINION: The silent crisis in the IITs, The Week, July 27, 2024. 1644 discrimination policies, cultural sensitivity training, and support groups for marginalised students is crucial to uproot institutional and systemic discrimination against disadvantaged groups which effectively undermines their full and equal social, economic, political, and cultural participation in society.10 63. The relentless pressure to perform in a purely score-based education system, coupled with the extreme competition for limited seats in premier educational institutions, places a terrifying burden on the students’ mental health. The inordinate burden on students to work on multiple projects simultaneously exacerbates academic pressure. Several students who come from competitive coaching centres bring pre-existing mental health issues, which get further heightened when they enter Higher Educational Institutions. Although it is difficult to eradicate this distress yet it can be managed by introducing flexible curricula, continuous assessment methods, structured support for managing backlogs and on campus support for psychological issues faced by the students.11 64. Another cause of student suicides remains brutality in the form of ragging, which is often concealed by colleges and universities to safeguard their reputation. This violates the right to dignity and education of students. It has been clarified by this Court in Farzana Batool v. Union of India, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 3433 that “while the right to pursue higher (professional) education has not been spelt out as a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution, it bears emphasis that access to professional education is not a governmental largesse. Instead, the State has an affirmative obligation to facilitate access to education, at all levels.” 65. The R.K. Raghavan Committee was appointed to curb the menace of ragging which detailed the causes and actionable remedies in its 2007 Report. It was pointed out by the Committee that most State laws only seek to prohibit, and not prevent, ragging, and “while prevention must lead to prohibition, the reverse need not be true.” There also exist the UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions 2009, however, news reports have pointed out that tangible actions have not been taken by the stakeholders other Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3129. Supra 8. [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. than mere formalities such as mandating undertakings from students and parents against indulging in ragging, and putting up no-ragging notices on university premises.12 While the existing guidelines need to be enforced, there is also a requirement of bringing in new measures for providing psychological support to victims of ragging so as to stop them from taking extreme steps like commission of suicide. 66. We are of the firm view that universities must acknowledge their role not just as centres of learning but as institutions responsible for the well-being and holistic development of their students. The failure to do so would mean failing the very purpose of education – to uplift, empower, and transform lives. Universities assume the role of a parent when a student leaves his home and comes to study on the campus of the university. As per the principle of ‘loco parentis’ when a student at the adolescent age or childhood is sent to school by the parents, it is also the duty of the school authorities to play the role of parents in safeguarding the intertest and welfare of the students. A person in loco parentis means a person taking upon himself the duty of a father of a child to make a provision for that child. The duty of the college authorities is not just to ensure academic excellence of the students but also to ensure their mental well-being, and not just exercise authority and control over students but also to provide support in times of distress. 67. The nation has already suffered the tragic loss of numerous students – young individuals with immense potential who could have gone on to become successful professionals. However, due to the absence of adequate institutional support, they were driven to take the extreme step of ending their own lives. These distressing incidents not only highlight systemic failures but also expose a severe lack of institutional empathy and accountability on the part of educational institutions. When academic environments fail to address discrimination, harassment, and mental health concerns effectively, they contribute to a culture of neglect that can have devastating consequences. 68. As a society, and as stakeholders in shaping the future of our youth, we must take collective responsibility to ensure that no more lives are lost due to apathy or indifference. It is imperative for institutions to have a culture of sensitivity and proactive intervention so that Unending ordeal: On continuing acts of ragging, The Hindu, November 27, 2023. 1646 every student feels safe, supported, and empowered to pursue their aspirations without fear or discrimination. 69. The recurring instances of student suicides in Higher Educational Institutions, including private educational institutions, serve as a grim reminder of the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of the existing legal and institutional framework in addressing mental health concerns of students on campuses and to prevent the students from taking the extreme step of committing suicides. These tragedies underscore the urgent need for a more robust, comprehensive, and responsive mechanism to address the various factors which compel certain students to resort to taking their own lives. In light of the concerns expressed above, a National Task Force to address the mental health concerns of students and prevent the commission of suicides in Higher Educational Institutions is being constituted and shall comprise of the following members: i. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, as the Chairperson; ii. Dr. Alok Sarin, Consultant Psychiatrist, Sitaram Bhartia Institute of Science & Research, New Delhi; iii. Prof. Mary E. John (retired), Former Director, Centre for Women’s Development Studies, New Delhi; iv. Mr. Arman Ali, Executive Director, National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People; v. Prof. Rajendar Kachroo, Founder, Aman Satya Kachroo Trust; vi. Dr. Aqsa Shaikh, Professor of the Department of Community Medicine in Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, New Delhi; vii. Dr. Seema Mehrotra, Professor of Clinical Psychology, NIMHANS; viii. Prof. Virginius Xaxa, Visiting Professor at the Institute for Human Development (IHD), New Delhi; ix. Dr. Nidhi S. Sabharwal, Associate Professor, Centre for Policy Research in Higher Education, National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi; x. Ms. Aparna Bhat, Senior Advocate (as amicus curiae). [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 70. The following shall be the ex-officio members of this Task Force: i. Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Government of India; ii. Secretary, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India; iii. Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India; iv. Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. 71. We direct the Chief Secretaries of all the States/Union Territories to nominate a high ranking officer, not below the rank of Joint Secretary in the Department of Higher Education of the respective State/Union Territory, to act as the nodal officer on behalf of the respective State/ Union Territory. We further direct all the concerned departments/ authorities of the respective State/Union Territory to cooperate with the nodal officer concerned and furnish necessary information, data and assistance as may be sought by such nodal officer. 72. The Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Government of India shall act as the convener of the Task Force. 73. The Task Force includes representatives from diverse fields to ensure an interdisciplinary approach to tackling the issue of commission of suicides in Higher Educational Institutions. 74. The remit of this Task Force is to prepare a comprehensive report that includes: i. Identification of the predominant causes which lead to commission of suicides by students: An examination of the various causes which lead to student suicides in Higher Educational Institutions, including but not limited to ragging, caste-based discrimination, gender-based discrimination, sexual harassment, academic pressure, financial burden, mental health related stigma, discrimination based on ethnicity, tribal identity, disability, sexual orientation, political views, religious belief or any other grounds. 1648 ii. Analysis of Existing Regulations: A thorough assessment of the effectiveness of current laws, policies, and institutional frameworks applicable to Higher Educational Institutions concerning ragging, caste-based and gender-based discrimination, sexual harassment, mental health support, support for students facing academic challenges, financial support to students in need of funds, etc. This analysis will evaluate whether these frameworks adequately address the challenges faced by students. iii. Recommendations for Strengthening Protections: Proposing necessary reforms to the existing legal and institutional frameworks to ensure stronger enforcement, accountability, and preventive measures. The Task Force shall also put forth recommendations to address existing gaps, create a more inclusive and supportive academic environment, and ensure equal opportunities for members of marginalized communities. 75. In the process of preparing its report, the Task Force shall have the authority to conduct surprise inspections of any Higher Educational Institution. Additionally, the Task Force shall be at liberty to make further recommendations beyond the specified mandate, wherever necessary, to ensure a holistic and effective approach towards addressing mental-health concerns of students and eliminating the incidence of suicides in Higher Educational Institutions. The Task Force is requested to take into account the views and concerns of all stakeholders, including those of student unions, whether elected or nominated and other student representative bodies, wherever they exist. The Task Force is also requested to seek representation from and consult the governments of all the States and Union Territories. The Task Force may also consider obtaining the views of the different stakeholders by way of circulating a questionnaire and seeking written responses thereupon. 76. It is clarified that the term “Higher Educational Institution” is used broadly to cover all higher educational institutions, including government and private universities, deemed to be universities, government and private colleges, etc. 77. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education; the Secretary, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment, [2025] 3 S.C.R.  Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment; the Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development; and the Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, shall collaborate with the Task Force and extend full cooperation by providing all necessary information, documents, and resources required by the Task Force to effectively carry out its mandate. 78. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Government of India shall serve as the Member-Secretary of the Task Force. The Ministry of Education, Government of India shall be responsible for providing all necessary logistical support to facilitate the functioning of the Task Force. This shall include making arrangements for travel, accommodation, and secretarial assistance, as well as covering all related expenses of the Task Force members. The Ministry shall provide a sufficiently large office space to the Task Force for holding its meetings and also to enable the officials to carry on its day-to-day activities. Additionally, the Ministry shall provide an appropriate honorarium to the members in recognition of their contributions. 79. We also direct that the Central Government, the Governments of all the States/Union Territories and agencies thereof, and Universities shall extend their full and active cooperation to the Task Force and provide the requisite data, information and assistance, as may be necessary. In the case of delay, reluctance or neglect on part of the aforesaid bodies, the Task Force will be at liberty to approach this Court through the amicus curiae seeking remedial actions. 80. The Chairperson of the Task Force shall be at liberty to engage the services of any person for the purpose of providing secretarial assistance in coordinating with the members of the Task Force, preparation of the interim and final report and for the smooth and effective discharge of any other responsibilities as may arise during the course of carrying out the mandate of the Task Force. This shall include the engagement of the services of Data Analysts and Research Assistants as may be necessary for the effective discharge of the mandate of the Task Force. 81. The Chairperson of the Task Force shall also be at liberty to constitute, after due consultation with the members of the Task Force, committees and sub-committees as may be required for the purpose of carrying out specific functions. 1650 82. We direct the Union of India to deposit an amount of Rupees Twenty Lacs (Rs 20,00,000/-) with the Registry within two weeks from the date of this order as an outlay for the initial operations of the Task Force. The amicus curiae shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application seeking orders for disbursement of any additional funds, whenever necessary. We clarify that this amount is in addition to the financial and administrative responsibility of the Ministry of Education as described aforesaid. 83. The Task Force is requested to present an interim report within four months from the date of this order. The final report shall be submitted preferably within eight months from the date of this order. 84. We treat this matter as part heard. The registry shall notify this matter after four months alongwith the interim report of the Task Force before this very Bench (J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.) after obtaining appropriate orders from Honourable the Chief Justice of India. Result of the case: Directions issued. Headnotes prepared by: Swathi H. Prasad, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)