NEET and the state’s duty to minimise harm
The article discusses the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence, particularly in Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025), which recognized student mental health as part of the right to life under Article 21 and established institutional responsibility for student well-being. It argues that this principle, highlighted by events like the NEET paper leak, should extend to all state-controlled processes for higher education and public employment. The state has a positive duty to create fair systems that minimize foreseeable harm, rather than merely resolving individual controversies, to prevent recurring crises and ensure constitutional obligations are met.
The article discusses the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence, particularly in Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025), which recognized student mental health as part of the right to life under Article 21 and established institutional responsibility for student well-being. It argues that this principle, highlighted by events like the NEET paper leak, should extend to all state-controlled processes for higher education and public employment. The state has a positive duty to create fair systems that minimize foreseeable harm, rather than merely resolving individual controversies, to prevent recurring crises and ensure constitutional obligations are met.
Exam linkage
GS Paper II - Indian Polity and Governance: Fundamental Rights (Article 21), Judiciary (Supreme Court's role, judicial review, landmark judgments), Constitutional principles, Government policies and interventions.
Syllabus mapping
This topic appears in Mains
Questions on Indian Polity & Governance come up regularly in GS papers. Practice writing an answer — and see exactly what earns marks.
Editorial & Review Process
Every current affairs analysis and practice question on UPSC Practice is researched using authoritative primary sources and reviewed for factual accuracy and syllabus relevance. Read our Editorial Policy.