India’s highest court, the Supreme Court, has initiated an inquiry into a critical case involving an Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kharagpur student. The student, who has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, is seeking a transfer to IIT Delhi to access essential and affordable mental healthcare at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Delhi, where he can also be closer to his parents for vital support.
This case is particularly significant as it arises just two months after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in July, which unequivocally declared mental health an “integral component of the right to life.” That judgment powerfully emphasized that mental well-being is fundamental to an individual’s dignity, autonomy, and overall quality of life.
In its earlier July verdict, the court had laid down comprehensive guidelines, urging all educational institutions to establish robust systems for protecting and engaging with students facing mental health challenges. It affirmed the constitutional right to accessible and affordable mental healthcare services for everyone.
During the July ruling in the ‘Sukdeb Saha Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh’ case, which examined the tragic suicide of a 17-year-old at a NEET coaching center, the Supreme Court cited writer Jiddu Krishnamurti, stating, “Education is meant to liberate, not burden the learner.” The court further pointed out an alarming “emerging pattern of distress” within educational institutions, coaching centers, and residential facilities, signaling a widespread failure to address students’ emotional and mental health needs effectively.
A recent order, made public on September 27, 2025, revealed that a Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, issued notices to both IIT Kharagpur and IIT Delhi, as well as AIIMS, on September 26. The identity of the IIT Kharagpur student remains anonymous, a measure taken by the court to uphold his privacy. The case is slated for a hearing on October 10, marking the first week of court proceedings after the Dussehra holidays.
The first-year Bachelor of Architecture student, represented by advocates Vipin Nair, Aditya Narendranath, and M.B. Ramya, detailed in his petition that his diagnosed medical condition necessitates specialized Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation therapy. This crucial “life-preserving” treatment is readily available at AIIMS Delhi, along with the continuous parental supervision he requires. While the therapy is also available in Kolkata, it is only offered at prohibitively expensive private medical hospitals, making it inaccessible to him.
The student’s petition highlighted that past requests for medical transfers within the IIT system have been granted, suggesting that the denial in his specific situation is discriminatory. Furthermore, the IIT transfer policy itself includes provisions for students to transfer due to medical reasons.
The court specifically acknowledged Mr. Nair’s reference to Section 18 of the Mental Healthcare Act, which explicitly “guaranteed mental health services to all.” It also took note of the petitioner’s submissions asserting that the earlier Sukdeb Saha judgment mandated that institutions adopt comprehensive mental health policies and accessible mechanisms to address the mental health concerns of their student communities.
Counsel for the petitioner further brought to the court’s attention judicial precedents from cases like Shatrughan Chauhan and Navtej Singh Johar. These landmark rulings recognized mental integrity, psychological autonomy, and freedom from degrading treatment as fundamental aspects of human dignity, reinforcing the student’s plea for appropriate care and support.