Bridging the Counsellor Gap

The recurring news of student suicides in India’s premier technical institutions presents a distressing picture of the country's higher education system. Widespread student demonstrations across various Indian Institutes of Technology reflect an urgent, collective demand for institutional accountability and immediate reform in campus mental health support. These tragedies highlight an ongoing pattern across these prestigious campuses rather than isolated events. Official government data compiled for a Lok Sabha question reveals that 23 IITs reported 45 student suicides between the academic years 2020-21 and 2024-25, alongside eight additional unnatural deaths. This grim tally reflects a sharp rise in recent years, peaking with 16 deaths in 2023-24 and 13 deaths in 2024-25. Behind these figures lies a profound mental health crisis that challenges the perceived excellence of these elite engineering centers. 

The roots of this distress are deeply intertwined with structural, academic and socio-cultural pressures within elite campuses. Students face relentless academic competition, high-stakes relative grading systems and immense placement anxieties that can foster intense isolation. Furthermore, official statistics reveal a troubling demographic vulnerability: out of the 45 student suicides reported across the 23 IITs over the five-year period, 28 victims representing more than 62 percent, belonged to marginalized communities, including 12 from Other Backward Classes, nine from Scheduled Castes and seven from Scheduled Tribes. This disproportionate impact points toward compounding layers of alienation, systemic adjustment hurdles and inadequate institutional integration for students arriving from diverse socio-economic and linguistic backgrounds.

Managing Stress 

The University Grants Commission (UGC) issued guidelines for higher educational institutions on mental health and well-being to address these systemic issues. The UGC framework mandates that every institution establish a Student Service Centre (SSC) functioning as a single-window system to manage stress and emotional adjustment. These centers are expected to maintain balanced representation, offer both online and in-person guidance, collaborate with nearby medical institutions and pay targeted attention to vulnerable groups, including students from rural or underprivileged backgrounds. Crucially, the guidelines stipulate that higher educational institutions must deploy at least one qualified mental health professional or psychologist for every 500 enrolled students. 

Data obtained through Right to Information (RTI) applications reveals that almost all premier institutes fail to meet these essential mandates. Across the country, IIT campuses operate with counsellor-to-student ratios that fall far short of the regulatory threshold. IIT Kharagpur, despite reporting multiple student suicides over recent years, operates with 12 regular counsellors and one contractual psychiatrist for over 14,000 students, amounting to one counsellor for every 1,136 students. IIT Roorkee maintains eight counsellors for 10,500 students (1:1,317), while IIT-BHU presents a ratio of two counsellors for over 9,500 students (1:4,750). Similar disparities exist at IIT Jodhpur (six counsellors for 4,000 students), IIT Patna (two counsellors for 4,000 students), and IIT Tirupati (three counsellors for 1,700 students). Out of the multiple institutions surveyed, only IIT Ropar met the prescribed benchmark by employing six counsellors for its student body. 

This numerical deficit reflects broader practical and structural impediments on campuses. While the World Health Organization recommends three psychiatrists per 1,00,000 people, India possesses approximately 0.75 per 100,000. Beyond nationwide supply shortages, campus environments present unique internal obstacles. Students facing intense academic competition, relative grading systems, hyper-competitive placement pressures, social isolation and subtle socio-economic or caste-based marginalization often find counselling services inaccessible or stigmatized.

Impending Shadow

To meaningfully reverse this alarming trend, premier institutions must urgently overhaul their student welfare architecture through a series of concrete measures. IIT administrations must immediately ramp up recruitment to strictly comply with the UGC norm of one professional counsellor for every 500 students, while expanding psychiatric care and establishing active, barrier-free Student Service Centres. Academic structures also require reform by replacing harsh relative grading and hyper-competitive pressures with collaborative learning models, alongside mandatory sensitization programs to eradicate caste-based discrimination and social alienation on campus. Furthermore, institutions must foster a culture of open dialogue by destigmatizing psychological help. 

If institutes as well-funded, autonomous and resource-rich as the IITs fail to provide basic mental health safety nets, the situation across general state universities and degree colleges is far more critical. Millions of students attend state institutions that lack dedicated mental health budgets, functional Student Service Centres or trained psychological counsellors.

Higher education cannot be evaluated solely on technological advancements and placement statistics while student well-being remains unaddressed. Prioritizing mental health support is essential to ensuring that these academic environments foster both growth and safety. 

(The writer is a former college Principal and Founder of Supporting Shoulders, an Odisha-based non-profit Trust. Views personal.)