Students’ well-being: SC spells out institutional responsibility

THE wide-ranging directions issued by the Supreme Court to address the issue of student distress are a much-needed intervention. These follow submission of an interim report by the National Task Force constituted last year to attend to the mental health concerns of students. The apex court has rightly imposed the accountability clause on higher education institutions (HEIs), both public and private. They cannot shirk away from their fundamental duty to ensure safe, equitable, inclusive and conducive spaces of learning, it has said. A terse reminder highlights how the mental well-being of students is as important as ensuring academic excellence. Any incident of suicide or unnatural death of a student will have to be reported, and an annual report submitted to regulatory bodies. The ruling chalks out a broad framework of institutional responsibility. It’s a commendable step forward.

The significance of prescribing a new way of functioning cannot be overstated in an ecosystem that prioritises profit over student well-being in case of private institutions, and chooses amnesia for government-run colleges and universities. It’s in ordering the filling of key teaching and non-teaching vacancies, including of Vice Chancellors, within four months that the ruling can be truly impactful. The backlog of pending scholarship disbursements, too, has to be cleared within the same period. HEIs have been asked to ensure that positions are filled within a month from the date on which the vacancy arises. Considering the sizeable number of vacancies across the country, how this plays out is unclear, especially when both the Central and state governments have been equally inept.

An overhaul of a flawed system within months is too much to expect. From now on, though, the governments and higher education institutions will find it difficult to seek cover behind lame excuses. Inaction must invite censure.