The Right to Mental Health: A Constitutional and Human Rights Perspective
- NLR Journal
- Nov 13
- 1 min read
Updated: Nov 16
By Anushka Kaushik, Advocate pursuing LL.M. from Shobhit University.
Abstract
The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 INSC 893) represents a fundamental re-calibration of mental health in India's legal landscape. This modern mandate finds philosophical grounding in the ancient Indian tradition, where texts like the Sushruta Samhita defined true health (Swasthya) as inseparable from the balance of the mind (Manas) and soul (Ātman). Sparked by the tragic suicide of a student, the Court’s ruling decisively translated this historical value into a modern constitutional right under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The resulting “Saha Guidelines” impose binding, judicially enforceable duties on educational institutions, requiring them to implement professional counselling and suicide prevention mechanisms. This move effectively elevates existing national policies (like MANODARPAN and Tele-MANAS) to the level of constitutional obligations.Furthermore, the decision solidifies India's adherence to international human rights standards. By affirming the state's duty to ensure mental well-being, the judgment aligns with the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and the core obligation under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.This paper analyzes Sukdeb Saha as a crucial moment where India’s expanding Article 21 jurisprudence formally embraces and enforces the holistic view of mental health long cherished in its ancient wisdom, establishing a comprehensive and legally robust framework for mental well-being.
Keywords: Mental Health, Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Saha Guidelines, Ancient India, Constitutional Law, Supreme Court of India.
