Duty of Care of Universities
toward Students’ Mental Health in India: A Doctrinal Analysis of Legal and
Regulatory Frameworks.
Ms.
Sapana N. Jaiswal1*, Ms. Prajakta Balveer2
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Kharghar Navi
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
sapana.jaiswal@yahoo.com
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Kharghar,
Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Abstract: Mental health concerns among
university students have become an increasingly significant challenge for
higher education institutions in India. Academic pressure, social transitions,
financial difficulties, and competitive learning environments often contribute
to psychological stress, making mental health support an important aspect of
university governance. In recent years, policy debates and judicial
developments have emphasized the responsibility of educational institutions to
foster supportive environments that protect students’ psychological wellbeing.
These developments raise important legal questions regarding the extent to
which universities owe a duty of care toward students facing mental health
challenges. This paper examines the duty of care of universities within the
Indian legal and regulatory framework. Using a doctrinal research methodology,
the study analyses relevant legal provisions, regulatory guidelines, and policy
initiatives, including the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the National
Education Policy 2020, along with regulatory measures issued by the University
Grants Commission. The paper argues that although mental health support is
increasingly recognized in educational policy, the existing framework lacks
clearly defined and enforceable obligations for universities, highlighting the
need for stronger legal accountability and institutional mechanisms to protect
student wellbeing.
Keywords: Duty of Care, Higher Education law, Mental
Healthcare Act 2017, Student Mental health, University Grants Commission
INTRODUCTION
Mental
health has become an increasingly significant concern within higher education
systems across the world. University students often experience a range of
psychological pressures related to academic expectations, career uncertainty,
financial constraints, and social adjustment. These challenges can contribute
to anxiety, depression, and other mental health conditions that may negatively
affect students’ academic performance and overall wellbeing. In India, the
transition to university life frequently coincides with intense academic
competition and societal expectations, which can intensify psychological stress
among young adults. Universities,
as institutions entrusted with fostering students’ academic growth and personal
development, have a crucial responsibility to cultivate supportive environments
that encourage mental wellbeing and help reduce the risk of mental health
crises.
Recent
scholarship highlights that mental health issues among young people are
becoming more visible in Indian colleges and universities, particularly as
awareness of psychological wellbeing grows. Institutions are increasingly
expected to move beyond traditional academic roles and provide structured
support mechanisms such as counselling services, peer support initiatives, and
early intervention systems. Research examining youth mental health policies in
educational settings has emphasized the need for integrated approaches that
combine public health strategies with institutional practices. Such approaches
encourage universities to collaborate with mental health professionals, public
health agencies, and policymakers in order to build comprehensive support
systems capable of addressing the diverse needs of students.
In recent
years, the legal and policy discourse surrounding student mental health in
India has gained momentum, particularly through judicial interventions and
national policy initiatives. Courts have increasingly recognized the
seriousness of mental health concerns among students and have emphasized the
need for institutional accountability. Judicial guidelines have encouraged
universities to develop preventive mechanisms, including counselling
facilities, grievance redressal systems, and awareness programs aimed at
reducing stigma around mental illness. These developments signal a growing
recognition that higher education institutions must actively contribute to
safeguarding student wellbeing rather than treating mental health issues solely
as individual problems.
Another
important dimension of student mental health support involves the provision of
reasonable accommodations for individuals experiencing psychological
challenges. Universities may need to adopt flexible academic arrangements,
modified assessment procedures, or additional academic support to ensure that
students with mental health conditions are not disadvantaged in their
educational pursuits. Scholars examining disability rights and educational
policies in India argue that recognizing mental health conditions within
accommodation frameworks is essential for ensuring equitable access to
education. Such measures not only support individual students but also reflect
the broader responsibility of educational institutions to foster inclusive and
accessible learning environments.
Despite
these evolving policy discussions and institutional initiatives, the legal
contours of universities’ responsibility toward student mental health remain
insufficiently defined in India. While guidelines and policy frameworks
encourage universities to establish support systems, there is limited clarity
regarding the extent to which these responsibilities constitute a legally
enforceable duty of care. This ambiguity raises important questions about the
role of law in ensuring accountability and protecting student wellbeing within higher
education institutions. Against this backdrop, the present paper undertakes a
doctrinal analysis of the legal and regulatory frameworks governing student
mental health support in India. It seeks to examine whether existing laws,
policies, and judicial developments adequately establish a duty of care for
universities and to identify potential gaps that may require further legal and
policy reform.
This study
uses a doctrinal research methodology, analysing existing legal materials to
examine universities’ duty of care toward students’ mental health in India. It
relies on secondary sources such as statutes, judicial decisions, government
policies, and regulatory guidelines. Key frameworks including the Mental
Healthcare Act, 2017, the National Education Policy 2020, and University Grants
Commission guidelines are reviewed, along with academic literature, to assess
legal obligations and identify gaps in protecting student wellbeing.
Concept of Duty of Care in Law
The legal
doctrine of duty of care is a foundational principle in negligence law,
establishing when one party is legally obligated to avoid causing harm to
another. Its development reflects a gradual shift from rigid, category-based
rules toward a more flexible, principle-driven approach grounded in
foreseeability and relational proximity. Historically, courts were cautious in
recognizing duties, limiting them to specific relationships, but over time,
especially following landmark cases like Donoghue v Stevenson, the
concept evolved to emphasize whether harm was reasonably foreseeable and
whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose liability. Modern
interpretations balance multiple considerations, including policy implications
and the need to prevent indeterminate liability. As a result, the doctrine
serves not only as a mechanism for compensating harm but also as a tool for
shaping socially responsible behaviour by defining the scope of legal
obligations between individuals.
The doctrine
of duty of care in negligence law determines when a person must take reasonable
care to avoid causing harm to others. It has evolved into a flexible principle
based on foreseeability, the relationship between parties, and whether imposing
liability is fair and reasonable. To establish negligence, a claimant must
prove four key elements: the existence of a duty of care, a breach of that
duty, a direct causal link between the breach and the harm, and actual damage.
Together, these principles ensure that liability is imposed only where careless
conduct leads to real and foreseeable harm.
Institutions such as schools, hospitals, and prisons owe a duty of care due to relationships of control, dependence, and vulnerability. They must take reasonable steps to ensure safety, prevent harm, and uphold dignity, failing which may result in negligence liability. In India, this duty is reinforced by Article 21 of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to health and dignity, requiring institutions to act with care toward those in their charge.
Mental Health Challenges in Higher Education
Mental
health challenges in higher education have become increasingly significant,
with students often facing intense stress and academic pressure, as well as
issues like bullying and ragging, social isolation, and difficulties in
adjusting to new environments. These factors can adversely affect students’
emotional well-being and academic performance, especially when adequate support
systems are lacking. The absence of accessible counselling services further aggravates
these concerns, leaving many students without the help they need. In this
context, educational institutions bear a clear responsibility for student
welfare, as they exercise supervision and influence over the student
environment. This creates a duty to implement preventive measures, provide
mental health support, and foster a safe and inclusive atmosphere, ensuring
that students are not only academically supported but also protected in terms
of their psychological well-being.
Institutional Responsibility and Duty of Care of Universities
universities
have an important institutional responsibility to uphold a duty of care toward
their students. As centres of learning and community life, higher education
institutions must balance academic goals with the safety, health, and overall
welfare of those they admit, recognising that authority over campus life
creates foreseeable risks that demand proactive management. The concept of in loco
parentis has shifted over time, with institutions now expected to go beyond
traditional supervisory roles to adopt comprehensive risk assessment, clear
policies, and support services that anticipate and respond to student needs. A
failure to integrate effective risk management with duty‑of‑care
obligations can lead not only to legal exposure but, more importantly, to
actual harm to students. Therefore, colleges and universities are responsible
for continually evaluating their practices, aligning institutional policies
with current legal and social expectations, and ensuring that organisational
leadership actively mitigates foreseeable risks as part of their core
commitment to student welfare.
Universities
have moral, regulatory, and legal duties toward students’ well-being. Their
moral duty involves creating a supportive environment that addresses stress,
prevents harassment, and promotes mental health awareness. Regulatory duties
arise from policies and guidelines requiring measures such as counselling
services and anti-ragging initiatives. Legally, institutions may be liable
under negligence principles if they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent
foreseeable harm. Key responsibilities include providing counselling,
preventing harassment, managing academic pressure, and promoting mental health.
Failure to fulfil these duties may constitute a breach of duty of care and
result in institutional negligence.
Statutory
Framework under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
The enactment of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 marks a significant
shift toward a rights-based approach to mental health in India, emphasizing
dignity, access, and non-discrimination. Although the Act does not explicitly
impose a statutory duty of care on universities, its provisions have important
implications for higher educational institutions. Section 18 guarantees the
right to access mental healthcare services, thereby creating an indirect
obligation on public institutions, including universities, to facilitate access
within their institutional capacities. This is particularly relevant for
students, who often face psychological stress due to academic pressure and
social transitions.
Additionally, Section 21 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of
mental illness, requiring universities to foster inclusive environments. A key
feature of the Act is the decriminalization of suicide under Section 115, which
recognizes severe stress as the underlying cause and promotes care-based
responses. This has direct implications for student welfare policies in
universities. Judicial developments, such as Amit Kumar v. Union of India, highlight the need for institutional accountability in
addressing student mental health crises. However, the absence of explicit
enforcement mechanisms results in a gap between legal recognition and
implementation, underscoring the need for clearer statutory obligations.
Constitutional Perspective on Student Mental Health
The duty of care of universities toward student mental health is
grounded in the Constitution of India, particularly Article 21, which
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Judicial interpretation has
expanded this right to include dignity and health, encompassing mental
well-being. In Bandhua
Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes
conditions necessary for a dignified existence, forming the basis for
recognizing mental health as a constitutional concern.
Articles 14 and 15 further reinforce equality and non-discrimination,
ensuring that students with mental health conditions are treated fairly.In Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India, the Court
emphasized institutional responsibility for student safety, a principle
extendable to mental well-being. More recent cases, such as Shivani Bhatia v. Union of India, highlight
the growing judicial focus on mental health support in educational settings.
Despite these developments, constitutional protections remain broad and lack
specific enforceable duties for universities.
Policy Framework under the National Education Policy
2020
The National Education Policy 2020 represents a progressive step in
integrating mental health into the educational framework. It emphasizes
holistic development, recognizing the importance of emotional well-being
alongside academic achievement. The policy recommends establishing counseling
systems, well-being centers, and trained professionals in educational
institutions to address mental health concerns proactively.It also seeks to
reduce academic pressure through flexible curricula and continuous assessment.
To operationalize these objectives, the University Grants Commission has
issued guidelines encouraging universities to establish counseling cells and
support systems.While these measures strengthen the institutional duty of care,
they remain largely recommendatory. The lack of binding enforceability leads to
inconsistent implementation across institutions. Consequently, despite
advancing recognition of student mental health, the framework falls short of
creating a clear legal obligation, highlighting the need for stronger
regulatory accountability.
Gaps in the Existing Legal Framework
Despite the
progressive recognition of mental health within the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, constitutional
jurisprudence, and the National Education Policy
2020, significant gaps persist in the existing legal framework governing
student mental health in universities. Foremost among these is the absence of
an explicit statutory duty of care imposed on higher educational institutions,
leaving their responsibilities largely interpretative rather than mandatory.
This ambiguity is compounded by inadequate mental health infrastructure across
campuses, where counselling services, trained professionals, and
crisis-response mechanisms remain either underdeveloped or entirely absent in
many institutions. Furthermore, the lack of enforceable accountability
mechanisms results in minimal consequences for non-compliance, reducing legal
and policy provisions to largely aspirational standards. Although guidelines
issued by bodies such as the University Grants
Commission encourage the establishment of support systems, their
non-binding nature leads to uneven and often superficial implementation.
Consequently, the framework reflects a disconnect between normative recognition
and practical enforcement, underscoring the urgent need for clearer statutory
obligations and robust regulatory oversight.
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSION
The evolving
legal and policy landscape in India reflects a growing recognition of the
importance of student mental health within higher education. Frameworks such as
the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, Constitutional principles, and the National
Education Policy 2020 collectively underscore the need for institutions to
foster safe and supportive environments. However, the absence of a clearly
defined and enforceable duty of care continues to limit the effectiveness of
these frameworks. While universities are increasingly expected to play a
proactive role in addressing mental health concerns, existing measures remain
largely advisory and inconsistently implemented. Bridging this gap requires a
shift from broad policy recognition to concrete legal obligations supported by
strong enforcement mechanisms. By establishing clearer statutory duties,
strengthening institutional infrastructure, and ensuring regulatory
accountability, India can move toward a more robust and responsive system that
not only protects student well-being but also promotes a more inclusive and
humane educational environment.
References
1.
Mental
Healthcare Act, 2017, §18 (India).
2.
Amit
Kumar v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 891/2016 (Supreme Court of India).
3.
Constitution
of India, art. 21; see also Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608.
4.
Bandhua
Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161.
5.
Constitution
of India, arts. 14–15.
6.
Avinash
Mehrotra v. Union of India, (2009) 6 SCC 398.
7.
Shivani
Bhatia v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 867/2020 (Delhi High Court).
8.
Ministry of Education, Government of India, National Education Policy 2020.
9.
University Grants Commission (UGC), Guidelines on Promotion of Physical Fitness,
Sports, Student Health, Welfare, Psychological and Emotional Well-being(various circulars, 2020–2022).
10.
Dar, D. R., &
Sobhana, H. (2025). Bridging the Gap and Integrating Youth Mental Health Support
in Colleges: Insights from Policy to Practice within a Public Health
Framework–A Systematic Narrative Review. Indian Journal of Social
Psychiatry, 41(4), 342-353.
11.
Mehrotra, S., &
Vijayakumar, L. (2025). Strengthening student mental health support systems in
India: reflections on the Supreme Court's landmark guidelines. The
Lancet Regional Health-Southeast Asia, 43.
12.
Ahuja, D., Raghavan, A.,
Ahuja, A. K., & Srinivasan, S. P. (2024). Reasonable accommodations for
mental health challenges in higher education institutions in India.
13.
Plunkett, J. C. (2015).
The historical foundations of the duty of care. Monash University Law
Review, 41(3), 716-744.