Editor,
The shocking incident on October 6, 2025, in which 71-year-old advocate Mr. Rakesh Kishore hurled a shoe at Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr. B. R. Gavai during Supreme Court proceedings, has provoked widespread outrage particularly among progressive voices across the country. This was not merely an act of contempt; it was a symptom of a deeper malaise afflicting our democracy.
That such behaviour occurred within the sanctum of our highest judicial institution is both deplorable and deeply troubling. It must not be viewed in isolation. This incident signals a concerning transformation in our socio-political climate, propelled by the provocative rhetoric of extremist elements that continue to advance caste-based, Manuvadi, and communal ideologies. Such provocative discourse has emboldened fringe elements to act with impunity, corroding the rule of law and destabilizing the democratic foundations upon which our republic stands. The attack on the Chief Justice, accompanied by invocations of Sanatan Dharma, starkly illustrates the pernicious infusion of sectarian extremism into the fabric of our society. It exposes a profound intolerance among those unwilling to engage with viewpoints that deviate from their rigid ideological stance. This entrenched dogmatism poses a serious threat to the pluralistic spirit and constitutional foundations that sustain our democratic republic. It also undermines our secular cultural foundation, which is essential for fostering a constructive and inclusive society.
We must stand in resolute unity to denounce this act not merely by ensuring individual accountability, but by confronting the wider ecosystem that fosters and legitimizes such conduct. The judiciary, as a pillar of constitutional governance, must be safeguarded from coercion and intimidation. Our democratic framework and secular ethos demand vigilant protection from the corrosive influence of ideological extremism.
Yours etc.,
Dr PC Neogi
Via email
Supreme Court on mental health and suicides
Editor,
Just two days ago another student died of suicide in Kota. Now the Supreme Court’s decision to monitor the implementation of mental health and suicide-prevention guidelines for students should be appreciated by all. Actually this step should have been taken earlier and the present step should be considered an overdue recognition of a growing national emergency.
It is well known that India’s classrooms and coaching centres, once seen as springboards for success have increasingly become spaces of unbearable pressure, fear and isolation and now Supreme Court has directed the all states and Union Territories to file compliance affidavits on the guidelines it laid down in July .At the heart of the court’s concern lies an alarming truth. India’s education system, for all its emphasis on performance, remains poorly equipped to handle psychological distress. The rising number of student suicides, especially in coaching hubs such as Kota, Hyderabad and Vishakapatnam, exposes a culture of relentless competition where failure is equated with shame. In many cases, students live away from families, under rigid academic regimes and with little access to counselling or peer support. By insisting on a uniform mental health policy and a transparent grievance-redressal mechanism, the court seeks to push institutions toward systemic empathy. because such empathy is missing and ignored for a long time.
The directive fills a legislative void that has persisted for too long. While mental health has gained some attention in national policy — through initiatives like Manodarpan during the pandemic and the Ummeed guidelines introduced by the Ministry of Education — the absence of enforceable regulations has left their implementation uneven and optional. Institutions have treated mental well-being as an afterthought, addressing crises only after tragedies occur. The Supreme Court’s move to make these guidelines binding until a formal law is enacted ensures a measure of continuity and seriousness that voluntary frameworks often lack.
Equally significant is the inclusion of private coaching centres within the ambit of these rules. These unregulated ecosystems, where lakhs of aspirants chase limited seats in medical and engineering colleges, have turned into intense pressure chambers. Mandatory registration, grievance mechanisms, and counselling cells can bring long-needed oversight to a sector that has thrived on anxiety and ambition. The proposed mental health policy — to be displayed publicly and reviewed annually — could create a culture of openness, allowing students to seek help without stigma or fear of reprisal
However, judicial vigilance must now be matched by administrative will. Mental health policy cannot succeed as a checklist exercise. States must allocate trained counsellors, ensure confidentiality, and integrate emotional literacy into daily academic life. Schools and colleges should move beyond token workshops and invest in building trust between teachers and students. This also means training educators to recognise warning signs, easing parental pressure, and revising curricula that prioritise marks over meaning.
The Centre, for its part, must create a framework to evaluate outcomes rather than intentions — measuring how many institutions actually provide access to mental health resources and whether those interventions are making a difference. The social context cannot be ignored. India’s deep-seated stigma around mental illness often silences those who most need help. Families, bound by aspirations and fear of social judgment, hesitate to acknowledge distress. Students internalise these expectations, often feeling that seeking help signals weakness. Changing this mindset demands consistent public messaging — that academic success means little if it costs a life, and that mental health is as vital as physical health. The Supreme Court’
Consistent failure to balance ambition with compassion is proving to be a deadly cocktail. India’s demographic advantage — its young population — risks turning fragile if its brightest minds continue to view education as punishment rather than possibility. The court’s intervention offers an institutional framework, but the real transformation depends on how society redefines success and well-being. The January 2026 review should, therefore, not be seen as a mere compliance report but as a moral checkpoint. It must measure whether educational institutions have become kinder, safer, and more responsive spaces. Every student suicide is not just a personal tragedy; it is an indictment of a system that confuses pressure for progress. If India’s schools and universities can emerge from this scrutiny more humane and self-aware, the Supreme Court’s intervention will have done more than enforce rules–it will have restored the meaning of education itself.
It is expected that intervention by Supreme Court will show a positive impact on the present situation of mental health and suicides.
Yours etc.,
Yash Pal Ralhan,
Via email
