Supreme Court Links Soaring Student Suicides To Parental Pressure And Fierce Exam Competition

The Supreme Court, in response to a plea advocating the regulation of proliferating coaching institutes and addressing the alarming rise in student suicides, attributed the surge to the "intense competition" and "pressure" imposed by parents. Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti acknowledged the challenging circumstances but expressed their inability to issue directives in this complex scenario, PTI reported.

While sympathizing with the concerns raised by advocate Mohini Priya on behalf of petitioner Dr. Aniruddha Narayan Malpani, the court pointed out the overarching influence of parental expectations. Justice Khanna highlighted the predicament faced by students who, due to fierce competition and inadequate school conditions, feel compelled to resort to coaching institutes.

Referring to the 2020 data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Priya emphasized that approximately 8.2 percent of students in the country succumb to suicide. Despite recognizing the severity of the issue, the court suggested that the petitioner present their concerns to the government, as passing directives might not be within the judiciary's purview.

The petitioner's plea underscored the necessity for appropriate regulations governing profit-driven coaching institutes across India. It asserted that the lack of oversight by the government has contributed to student suicides, painting a grim picture of young individuals thrust into the cutthroat world of competitive exams without adequate mental preparation.

The plea contended that these coaching factories prioritize financial gains over student well-being, subjecting young minds to subpar living and studying conditions. It highlighted the invisible nature of mental health issues and stressed the extrinsic forces, environmental factors, and pressures that trigger these problems.

Terming student suicides a grave human rights concern, the petition accused the Centre of displaying a lackadaisical attitude towards enacting protective laws. It argued that the government's inaction reflects apathy towards safeguarding the constitutional right of young minds to live with dignity under Article 21.

In a move towards resolution, the court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea, urging them to pursue appropriate channels for redressal and reform, underscoring the collaborative effort needed to address the complex interplay of societal, parental, and educational factors contributing to the distressing trend of student suicides.