Holding

The police must register a FIR and investigate under Section 154 of the CrPC when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence; an inquest under Section 174 does not substitute for FIR registration.

Summary

The parents of two IIT Delhi students who died under suspicious circumstances filed complaints alleging caste-based discrimination and murder, but the police only conducted an inquest under Section 174 of the CrPC and concluded suicide without registering a First Information Report (FIR). The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the police to register FIRs and investigate under Section 154 of the CrPC, which the Delhi High Court rejected. The Supreme Court examined the limited scope of Section 174, clarified that it is an inquiry into the cause of death and does not replace the mandatory registration of an FIR when the information discloses a cognizable offence, especially under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Relying on precedents such as Lalita Kumari and Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the police erred in refusing to register FIRs and must investigate the alleged offences. The Court allowed the appeal, directed the DCP to register FIRs and assign an officer of at least Assistant Commissioner rank to investigate, and constituted a National Task Force to address student mental‑health and suicide prevention in higher educational institutions.

Issues considered

What is the scope of Section 174 CrPC and how does it differ from investigation under Section 154 CrPC?
Does an inquest under Section 174 obviate the requirement to register an FIR under Section 154?
What is the settled law regarding mandatory registration of FIRs when cognizable offences are disclosed?
Was the Delhi High Court correct in rejecting the writ of mandamus directing registration of FIRs and investigation?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 156, s. 166A, s. 174
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989s. 18, s. 18A, s. 3(1)(q)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration (i) What is the scope of section 174 CrPC and how is it different from investigation pursuant to filing of FIR under section 154 CrPC. (ii) Whether recourse to inquest proceedings under Section 174 of the CrPC by the Police obviates the requirement of registration of (iii) What is the settled law with regard to registration of FIR as laid down by this Hon’ble Court. (iv) Whether the High Court was right in passing the impugned order rejecting the prayer for issue of writ of mandamus directing the Police to register FIR and investigate on it.

Subjects

First Information ReportSection 154 CrPCSection 174 CrPCInquestSC/ST ActCaste discriminationSuicideHigher EducationMandamusNational Task ForceMental health

Judgment

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1579 : 2025 INSC 384

Amit Kumar & Ors.
v.
Union of India & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1425 of 2025)
24 March 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
(i) What is the scope of section 174 CrPC and how is it different
from investigation pursuant to filing of FIR under section 154
CrPC.
(ii) Whether recourse to inquest proceedings under Section
174 of the CrPC by the Police obviates the requirement of
registration of F.I.R. under section 154 of CrPC.
(iii) What is the settled law with regard to registration of FIR as
laid down by this Hon’ble Court.
(iv) Whether the High Court was right in passing the impugned
order rejecting the prayer for issue of writ of mandamus
directing the Police to register FIR and investigate on it.

Headnotes†
Scope of inquiry under section 174 CrPC – Explained:
Held: Section 174 CrPC inquiry is limited in scope – Its purpose is
ascertainment of the apparent cause of death – Inquest proceedings
are concerned with discovering whether in a given case the death
was accidental, suicidal, homicidal, or caused by an animal and
in what manner or by what weapon or instrument the injuries on
the body appear to have been inflicted and the evidence taken
therefore is short as held in Chaman Lal v. Emperor, AIR 1940 Lah
210, at 214 – Inquest proceedings are conducted by the police or a
Magistrate and conclude with the filing of an inquest report before
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), District Judge, or Magistrate
as the case may be as explained in Pedda Narayana v. State of
Andhra Pradesh,(1975) 4 SCC 153. [Paras 21-23, 26]

* Author
1580 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Section 154 CrPC – Explained with case laws:
Held: Section 154 CrPC lays down procedure for registration of
First Information Report in cognizable offences – This Court in
Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan (2011) 3 SCC 758 explains
procedure to be undertaken for initiating an investigation into a
cognizable offence beginning with information about the commission
of a cognizable offence, culminating in registration of F.I.R. and
ending with filing of a chargesheet/challan before the competent
court under Section 173 or a final report as the case may be –
Objective of proceedings under Section 154(1) is explained
by this Court in Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh
(2016) 9 SCC 1 – Object and purpose of filing an F.I.R. though
not substantive evidence has been explained in Sheikh Hasib
AliasTabarak v. State of Bihar (1972) 4 SCC 773 from the point
of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and
from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain
information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to
take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party.
[Paras 24-25, 29-30]

Investigations under sections 154 and 174 CrPC – How are
they different:
Held: The investigations conducted under Sections 154 and 174
of the CrPC respectively are distinct in nature and purpose –
Investigation after registration of F.I.R. under Section 154 of the
CrPC is an investigation into an offence and the investigation under
Section 174 of the CrPC is an inquiry into the apparent cause of
death – The phrase ‘investigation’ used in Section 174 CrPC is
not to find out who are the offenders but an inquiry into the cause
of death. [Paras 24, 27-28]

Section 154 CrPC – Settled law with respect to registration of
FIR in light of case laws:
Held: In Thulia Kali v. State of T.N. (1972) 3 SCC 393 this Court
held that delay in lodging FIR quite often results in embellishment
which is a creature of afterthought and report not only gets bereft
of the advantage of spontaneity, but there could be introduction
of coloured, exaggerated or concocted version – In State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 it was held that,
“It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1581

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police
station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code,
the said police officer has no other option except to enter the
substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register
a case on the basis of such information.” – The ratio in Bhajan
Lal was affirmed by a Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari v.
Government of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 where it was held that there
is no reason that there should be any discretion or option left with
the police to register or not to register an FIR when information
is given about the commission of a cognizable offence when the
legislative intent is clear from the section – Timely registration of
FIR helps in upholding rule of law, prevent any undue delay in the
commencement of criminal investigation, preservation of crucial
evidence and protect the rights of victims. [Paras 31-35]

Registration of FIR – Law summarized:
Held: The aforesaid advisory makes the following very clear:
i. Registration of an F.I.R. is mandatory under Section 154
of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a
cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible
in such a situation.
ii. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable
offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary
inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether a
cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
iii. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence,
the F.I.R. must be registered – In cases where preliminary
inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of
such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith
and not later than one week – It must disclose reasons in
brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
iv. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering the
offence if a cognizable offence is disclosed – Action must be
taken against erring officers who do not register an F.I.R. if
information received by them discloses a cognizable offence.
v. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity
or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain
whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
1582 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

vi. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to
be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances
of each case – The category of cases in which preliminary
inquiry may be made are as under:
a. Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b. Commercial offences
c. Medical negligence cases
d. Corruption cases
e. Cases where there is an abnormal delay in initiating
criminal prosecution, for example, over three months
delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily
explaining the reasons for delay – The aforesaid are
only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions
which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
vii. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and
the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time
bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days – The
fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in
the General Diary entry.
viii. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record
of all information received in a police station, we direct that all
information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting
in registration of an F.I.R. or leading to an inquiry, must be
mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and
the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be
reflected, as mentioned above. [Para 46]

Whether an FIR ought to have been registered by the Police
in the facts of this case:
Held: Offence alleged to have been committed under Section
3(1)(q) of the SC ST Act, 1989 is a cognizable offence under
Section 18 of the said Act – Complaint made alleging abatement
of suicide also discloses a cognizable offence under IPC – The
Police ought to have followed due process of law i.e., filed an FIR,
investigated on it and filed a closure report if no case is made
out – DCP (South-West District, New Delhi) to register the First
Information Report in line with two respective complaints lodged in
writing and depute any responsible officer, not below the rank of
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1583

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Assistant Commissioner of Police, to undertake the investigation
in accordance with law. [Paras 40-42, 48]

Responsibilities of educational institutions in case of such
unfortunate circumstance – Elaborated:
Held: Responsibility of maintaining the safety and well-being of
students rests heavily on the administration of every educational
institution – In the event of any unfortunate incident, such as a
suicide occurring on campus, it becomes their unequivocal duty to
promptly lodge an F.I.R. with the appropriate authorities – Such action
is not only a legal obligation but also a moral imperative to ensure
transparency, accountability,and the pursuit of justice. [Para 47]
National Task Force to address mental health concerns of
students and prevent the commission of suicides in Higher
Educational Institutions – Constitution – Duties and powers.
[Paras 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 78]

Case Law Cited
Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1975] Supp. 1 SCR
84 : (1975) 4 SCC 153; Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan [2011]
3 SCR 597 : (2011) 3 SCC 758; Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of
Chhattisgarh [2016] 7 SCR 154 : (2016) 9 SCC 1; Sheikh Hasib
Alias Tabarak v. State of Bihar (1972) 4 SCC 773; Thulia Kali v.
State of T.N. [1972] 3 SCR 622 : (1972) 3 SCC 393; State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 259 : (1992) Supp.
1 SCC 335; Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. [2013] 14 SCR
713 : (2014) 2 SCC 1 – relied on.
National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights v. Union of India [2016]
9 SCR 122 : (2017) 2 SCC 432; Farzana Batool v. Union of India
[2021] 4 SCR 388 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3433 – referred to.
Chaman Lal v. Emperor, AIR 1940 Lah 210 – referred to.

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

List of Keywords
First Information Report; Delay in registering FIR; Suicide; Higher
Education; Indian Institute of Technology.
1584 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1425 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2024 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPCRL No. 2945 of 2023

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Mehmood Pracha, R. H. A. Sikander, Jatin Bhatt, Sanawar, Kshitij
Singh, Ms. Nujhat Naseem.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Brijender Chahar, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Abhijit Pandove,
Amit Sharma Ii, Mrs. Bani Dikshit, Varun Chugh, Gaurang Bhushan.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the
following parts:
INDEX*

A. FACTUAL MATRIX ............................................................. 2
B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS ..... 24
C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
NOS. 2, 3, 4 AND 7 RESPECTIVELY ............................... 26
D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
NO. 5 – IIT DELHI ................................................................ 30
E. ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 41
i. Scope of Section 174 of the CrPC .............................. 44
ii. F.I.R. under Section 154 of the CrPC .......................... 50

* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1585

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

F. CONCLUSION .................................................................. . 68
G. NATIONAL TASK FORCE TO ADDRESS THE MENTAL
HEALTH CONCERNS OF STUDENTS AND PREVENT THE
COMMISSION OF SUICIDES IN HIGHER EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS ................................................................. 69

1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High
Court of Delhi, dated 30.01.2024, in Writ Petition Criminal No. 2945
of 2023 by which the High Court rejected the writ application filed by
the appellants herein declining to issue a writ of mandamus to the
Police for the purpose of registration of a First Information Report
(for short, “F.I.R.”) in connection with the commission of suicide
by two students - sons of the appellant no. 2 and appellant no. 3
herein respectively - while they were studying at the Indian Institute
of Technology, Delhi (for short, “IIT, Delhi”).

A. FACTUAL MATRIX
3. We propose to borrow the facts giving rise to this appeal straight from
the impugned judgment of the High Court. The same reads thus:
“1. The present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners with
the following prayers:-
“a) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
including a writ in the nature of mandamus, thereby
directing the police authorities or Respondent No. 6
to register appropriate FIRs in the cases involving the
deaths of the sons of Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner
No. 3; and
b) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
including a writ in the nature of mandamus, thereby
directing the investigation of the cases to be done
by Respondent No. 6; and
1586 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

c) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
including a writ in the nature of mandamus, thereby
directing the Respondent No. 6 to conduct a thorough,
impartial investigation into the caste based atrocities
being committed in the premises of Respondent No.
5; and
d) monitor the investigation of the case; and
e) direct an independent inquiry into caste based
atrocities being committed in the premises of
Respondent No. 5; and
f) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
including a writ in the nature of mandamus, thereby
commanding the Respondents to ensure strict
compliance and implementation of provisions of SC/
ST(POA)Act,1989 and rules and regulations under
the SC/ST(POA) Rules 1995.
g) pass any other or further orders, as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances
of the present case.”
2. In brief the facts of the case are that Complaints dated
26.07.2023 and 09.09.2023 were filed by the petitioners
who are the parents of two deceased students of B.Tech
(Mathematics and Computing) at Indian Institute of
Technology, Delhi, wherein, it was alleged that one student,
namely, Ayush Ashna was found dead on 08.07.2023 at his
Hostel Room No. WH-02, Seventh Floor, Udaigiri Hostel,
IIT, New Delhi and another student, namely, Anil Kumar
was found dead on 01.09.2023 in his Hostel Room No.
EA-18, Ground Floor, Vidhyachal Hostel, IIT, New Delhi. It
is alleged in the complaints that they were murdered with
the conspiracy of IIT Faculty members to hide the real facts
and both the students have been falsely shown to have
committed suicide. It is further alleged in the complaints
that both the students belonged to Scheduled Castes and
they had informed their parents several times regarding
caste discrimination by the faculty/staff of IIT, Delhi and
therefore, the petitioners alleged that the faculty members
are trying to save the real accused persons and the police
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1587

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

officials are also not investigating the matter in a proper
manner. In view of the above said complaints, an enquiry
was conducted in both the cases.
3. As per the Status Report filed by the Ld. ASC, postmortem
of the deceased Ayush Ashna was conducted vide PM
No. 1500/23, wherein the cause of death was held to be
“asphyxia as a result of hanging due to ligature”. During
the course of enquiry, statements of father, brother, other
relatives and friends of the deceased were recorded in
which it was found that the deceased had failed in some
of the subjects in the prior semester exams due to which
he was under depression. They further denied any foul
play or any suspicion regarding the death of deceased.
Father of the deceased, namely, Ramesh Kumar had
later given a written complaint in the police station, in
which he alleged that his son Ayush Ashna was facing
caste based discrimination by his hostel mates and other
faculty members during the beginning of his academic year
2019-2020 and he also suspected in the complaint that
his son could not have taken such steps and someone
might have killed his son with the connivance of faculty
members. Therefore, to clarify the facts, the grade reports
of Ayush Ashna were collected from IIT and it was found
that during the 2nd semester of year 2022-23, he had
failed in some of the subjects and got lower grades i.e.,
Grade F which stands for Very Poor in 5 out of 7 subjects.
During further enquiry, several other students of IIT, Delhi
who belonged to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
were also examined, wherein none of them reported any
caste-based discrimination against any of them.
4. In the case of Anil Kumar, postmortem of the deceased
was conducted vide PM No. 2048/23 wherein the cause of
death was held to be “asphyxia consequent to ante-mortem
compression of neck by ligature”. During the course of
enquiry, statements of the brother, mother, other relatives
and friends of the deceased were recorded who stated that
due to scoring less marks in exams, deceased was under
stress. They further denied any foul play or any suspicion
regarding the death of deceased. Brother of the deceased,
1588 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

namely, Amit Kumar had later given a written complaint
in the police station, in which he alleged that Anil Kumar
was facing caste- based discrimination by his teachers
and other faculty members. He also suspected in the
complaint that his brother could not have taken such steps
and someone might have killed him with the connivance of
faculty members and the faculty members are also trying
to save the real accused persons. He further alleged in
his complaint that there was some kind of bleeding from
the ears of the dead body and blood stains were scattered
all over the room and thus, the same does not appear to
be an incident of suicide.
5. Accordingly, further enquiry was conducted in the case
wherein it was found that Anil Kumar had taken admission
in IIT Delhi in 2019 vide Entry No. 2019 MT10674 in B.Tech
(Mathematics and Computing) and he was allotted Room
No. SD-11, Vindhyachal Hostel at the time of admission.
During the semester period of 2020-21 and 2022-23,
he got low grades in some of the subjects. Deceased
Anil Kumar extended his stay at the hostel for the
preparation of remaining subjects and completing the
course and the same was granted by the relevant
department immediately. Subsequently, he was allotted
Room No. EA-18, Vindhyachal Hostel. The deceased could
not clear some subjects and was residing in hostel on
further six months extension. As per the rules, his hostel
was to be vacated in June but as he could not qualify
some subjects, he was given extension for six months to
clear the exams.
6. On further verification of facts, it was revealed that
the deceased passed all the subjects in 1st year but
he later failed in two subjects out of seven subjects in
3rd semester. Thereafter, in 4th semester he took only
one subject and failed in the same, in the following year
(2021-22) he failed to pass any subject, in 7th semester
he failed in one subject out of six subjects and finally in
8th semester he failed in two subjects out of six subjects
and therefore, he was given an extension to clear all the
subjects. Furthermore, Hostel allotment letters were also
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1589

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

analyzed and it was found that there was no column
revealing the category of the students as to whether she/
he belongs to SC/ST/General category in any of the form
and only entry number was mentioned in all the forms and
thus, no evidence of caste-based discrimination against
the deceased was found.”
4. Thus, it appears from the aforesaid that two young boys aspiring
to be engineers were found dead in their respective hostel rooms
under suspicious circumstances. Ayush Ashna was found dead on
08.07.2023 in his hostel room No. WH-02 situated on the 7th Floor,
Udaigiri Hostel, IIT, New Delhi, whereas, Anil Kumar was found dead
on 01.09.2023 in his hostel room No. EA-18 situated on the Ground
Floor of Vindhyanchal Hostel at IIT Delhi.
5. It appears from the materials on record that the father of Ayush Ashna
lodged a complaint with the Dy. Commissioner of Police, South-West
District, New Delhi, dated 21.07.2023, which reads thus:
“
Seal
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
RECEIVED BY:
DHARAMPAL
SIGNATURE : SD/
Dated:26.07.2023
Dated: 21.07.2023
To
The DCP
(South West District)
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-l10067
Subject: Complaint against the death of Ayush Ashna s/o
Ramesh Kumar, student of 4th year B.Tech.(Mathematics
and Computing) IIT, Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.
1. The complainant is the unfortunate father of the deceased
son Ayush Ashna, student of 4th year B. Tech, (Mathematics
and Computing) BT, Delhi residing at his room No. WH-02,
1590 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Udaigiri Hostel, IIT Delhi-110016 and with heavy heart I am
formally filing a complaint regarding the tragic death of my
beloved son, Ayush Ashna, on midnight of 8th July, 2023
and I believe there circumstances surrounding his death
that warrant a thorough investigation by your esteemed
department and my son, Ayush Ashna was a 21 year old
student who had a bright future ahead of him. His sudden
and unnatural death has left us devastated and searching
for answers. While I recognize that all of sudden and
untimely and unnatural deaths have external causes and
I have also reason to believe that there may have been
factors contributing to his untimely and unnatural deaths,
and I implore you to investigate the matter impartially and
thoroughly and I seek a comprehensive investigation into
the events leading up to our son’s untimely and unnatural
death.
2. That my deceased son Ayush Ashna was a brilliant
student from his school days, and in his first attempt he
had cracked the prestigious JEE-Advanced 2019 exam and
on the basis All India Rank in SC Category qualified to be
admitted in First year of B. Tech. (Chemical Engineering)
in IIT, Delhi in the academic year 2019 as this was proud
moment for parents and relatives as their elder son also
passed out from IIT, Delhi by completing B. Tech. (Civil
Engineering) in the same year.
3. That my deceased son, since beginning of the academic
year 2019-20 started facing caste based discrimination by
his hostel mates and other faculty members however the
complainant advised the deceased son to focus on his study
only and over the time the all things will come in order.
4. That my deceased son Ayush Ashna was full of life
and he always remained in touch with his mother and
his elder brother as both residing in Delhi and with some
close relatives who are also residing in Delhi.
5. That my son changed his department from B.Tech
(Chemical Engineering) to Department of Mathematics and
Computing which clearly demonstrate that my son was
doing well in study and might have a bright future ahead.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1591

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

6. That he had changed his hostel residence from
Jwalamukhi Hostel to Udaigiri Hostel after his category
was disclosed in a published branch change list. He told
that he noticed a change in his friends behaviour as they
grew distant and rarely talked to him.
7. That after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted and all
students were allowed back to their respective hostel
so as my deceased son Ayush Ashna took, residence in
Udaigiri Hostel, IIT Campus, Delhi and was doing well
and in his study.
8. That during his final year at B. Tech., he had not
performed well in some papers and thereafter he decided to
stay in same Hostel for further studies and also registered
in a summer course conducted by Mathematics and
Computing in this regard.
9. That it is pertinent to mention that, 1st July, 2023 was
my deceased son’s 20th birthday and was greeted by
his mother and brother and other near and dears and
on phone he also discussed with his elder brother about
further studies and other future prospect.
10. That on 5th July 2023 his elder brother and his mother
called on his phone many times but no response was
received and at night of 5th July 2023 the elder son and my
wife alongwith her brother went to Udaigiri Hostel where
the family of the deceased kept at dark for an hour and
later on it was disclosed by the IIT Hostel authorities to his
family present at hostel on the night of 8/9 July 2023 that
the my son was left this material world by hanging himself.
11. That after hearing this tragic and devastating news my
elder son and my wife alongwith her brother lost conscious
and went into unconscious stage as it was very hard to
believe that how my young son of age of 21 years can take
such extreme step as he had yesterday celebrated birthday.
12. That as it was so informed, by my wife and my elder
son and my brother-in-law present at that time that the
deceased son Ayush was found hanging, from his study
desk with his knees resting on a small trolley bag and by
looking the body its seems that someone murdered my
1592 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

son and tied rope and wires around his neck which was
attached to leg of his of four feet study table, later on
some crime team arrived and took some photographs of
the crime scene.
13. That was informed by my wife and my elder son and
my brother-in-law (mama of deceased Ayush Ashna) it is
also pertinent to mention here that by instant appearance
of sitting posture of body has been hanged by someone
else as there may not be sufficient pressure on neck in
sitting posture of person and when height of body is more
than 5.8 feet.
14. That the IIT Delhi administration since beginning of
the present tragic incident.
15. That it is highly improbable that my son can hang himself
from with the table with the height of around four feet as
my son was around 5.8 feet tall and weighed around 75-
80 kg. as it is also important to mention here that during
the periods of last four years with his stay in IIT Delhi not
a single person complained against him about anything.
16. That IIT, Delhi as an educational institution, it is of
utmost importance to prioritize the well-being of students
specially hailed from marginalized society. The loss of my
deceased son Ayush Ashna is not just an isolated incident
but a reflection of potential systemic deficiencies in the
support and resources available to students facing caste
based discrimination and harassment I feel compelled to
bring the issue to your attention.
17. That Conduct a thorough investigation into the
circumstances leading to untimely and unnatural death of
my son Ayush Ashna and assess whether any deliberate
negligence or oversight contributed to this tragedy.
18. That the biased attitude of IIT Delhi is also neglecting
in the conduct of the IIT Delhi administration as on the
fateful night, the concerned person IIT Delhi prevented,
the mother, brother and mama (maternal uncle) to follow
the ambulance upto the Safdarjung Hospital and confined
the aforesaid person into IIT guest house and on 9th July
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1593

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

2023 ambulance booked by the person concerned present
at mortuary, Safdarjung Hospital broke down midway and
adding insult to injury replacement ambulance arrived
without equipped with freezer resultant body decomposed
rapidly and according the complainant was forced by
circumstances to perform last rites in the honour of departed
soul during midnight.
19. That the till date no FIR, has been registered against
the person/s responsible for tragic demise of my son Ayush.
20. That, the IIT Delhi administration is in process of
suppressing vital information and playing down the tragic
demise of my son Ayush and treating it as an another
suicide case of due to study stress. And not even
considering the possibility of murdering of the student of
the marginalized society.
21. That as a grieving parents, we understand that this
investigation cannot bring our son back, but we hope that
it may shed light on the circumstances surrounding his
untimely and unnatural death of my son Ayush and further
under the facts and circumstances as explained herein
above, you are kindly requested to order for registration
of FIR against the person involved in this well planned of
our beloved young son Ayush Ashna and thorough and
impartial investigation be made into the case against the
person responsible for doing such heinous crime.
22. That it is my sincere hope that your esteemed department
will take this complaint seriously and act promptly to do
justice. By doing so, the esteemed department can
demonstrate its commitment to the well-being of its students
hailed from marginalized society and create a supportive
environment that fosters growth and resilience.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Kumar)
Father of deceased son Ayush Ashna
R/o Plot No. 26, Lane No. 8,
Rameshwaram Colony, Sacred Heart School
Bareiily-243122
M. No. 9068401586.”
1594 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

6. In the same manner, on 09.09.2023, the elder brother of Anil
Kumar lodged a complaint in writing with the Station House Officer,
Kishangarh, New Delhi which reads thus:

“Dated: 09.09.2023
To,
Station House Officer
Kishangarh, New Delhi
Subject: Regarding the fearless murder of my younger
brother Anil Kumar, S/o Suresh Kumar - Village Anosa,
District Banda, Uttar Pradesh. In connection with the brutal
murder due to racial hatred at IIT Delhi,
Sir,
I, Amit Kumar S/o Suresh Kumar, Village Anosa District
Banda, Uttar Pradesh. Date 01.09.2023 in 7:25 I
received call from someone who is saying I am professor,
Aditya Mittal, who are of you Anil Kumar? I told him I
am his elder brother. Then he said that Anil Kumar has
committed suicide. After that I received lots of call from
different phone numbers.
Between the calls a college security officer named Balram
Yadav also Call me (mob no. 9650612090) and told me
that Anil Kumar committed suicide.
Then around 10:30 PM Mobile No.991632959, 1 got
call saying that I am calling from Kishangarh IIT Delhi
Anil Kumar committed suicide come to Delhi. I with my
brother Aashis Kumar, brother in law Vimal Kumar, brother
in law Vinod Kumar, mother Vidya Devi, wife Sunaina devi
left for Delhi.
On Dated 2-9-23 approx 7:30 AM we reached to Delhi.
We called the same mobile number of Kishangarh police
station and said, we have reached to Delhi but we are not
able to find the way to the police station, you come and
take us. Police said, you come yourself, we cannot come,
we can send you the location. I said I don’t understand.
But police did not come to us.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1595

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

After that I called Balram Yadav stating that I don’ t know
the way to the College, please send someone to pick me
up. So they sent two guards who took us to the college
guest house and did not give us any information for the
next 2 hours. On our continued request, we were taken
to Anil Kumar’s hostel Vindhyanchal. Where the gate was
locked. When we asked the college to open the lock, they
said that the key is with the police.
Then someone told that there is a window, it will be
visible from there, when I looked through the window,
there was a lot of blood on the table and floor in the
room. There were some other things lying in the room.
We took videos and photos, then after seeing all this
I said that my brother was murdered because of caste
hatred. This is not suicide, my brother cannot commit
suicide. He knew very well the situation at home and
the circumstances how were we teaching him. On 27-
08-23 I sent Anil Kumar 15,000/- money for buying new
mobile phone. On 29-08-23 he called me and told me
that the mobile is working well. Then I asked him, is
there anything like that? So he told me that sometimes
inappropriate case based words are used by the teacher.
Then I called 9971632959, which is SI Dharmendra ji’s
mobile number, I told him that my brother was murdered,
he is not commit suicide. Our family members were
deeply shocked by Anil’s murder.
SI Dharmendra ji asked me to come Kishangarh police
station, I again said, I do not know the way to Kishangarh
police station.
Then he said that you have to come here. At around
11:00 a.m., Balram Yadav or some other people brought
us to Kishangarh police station. At the police station, SI
Dharmendra ji showed the video on mobile and laptop,
I watched the video and told SI Dharmendra ji that this
was not suicide but murder due to caste hatred. But he
did not agree and kept saying again and again that it was
suicide not murder. Then he introduced us to SHO Sir.
1596 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

SHO Sir said that his marks were low and he had failed
in one subject, due to which he committed suicide. We
said, again because of caste hatred Anil was murdered.
We have come from his college, professor Simon a madam
who was his professor told us that Anil was very good in,
studies, his marks never go down, nor can he commit
suicide still police officials said it was suicide, not murder.
Then we were made, to sign many papers and at around
12:10 pm, the police took us to ACT Yadav Sir of Sarojini
Nagar police station, he also told us that Anil Kumar had
committed suicide because his number was low then.
I told him that 1 had talked to Anil Kumar on 29-08-23, he
had told that sometimes, inappropriate case based words
are used by the teacher otherwise everything is OK. Sir,
he has been murdered. We demand CBI investigation for
my brother at approx 12:40 pm police officer take us to
Safdarjung hospital. Were got a lot of papers signed at
the police station in the hospital. When the media persons
tried to talk to us in. the hospital, the police told us that we
cannot talk to the media. We kept requesting the police to
show the body of Anil Kumar for 2 hours, but the police
refused. Then before the post mortem at 2:40 pm they
took me, Vinod Kumar and Aashis to see the body. When
we saw the body of Anil Kumar, there was red coloured
cloth on the neck, we tried to remove the cloth the police
or the doctor told us that the cloth could not be removed
or nor we touch the body. Anil was murdered because of
ruthless caste hatred, despite our repeated requests for the
reason of asking the police did not remove the cloth and
said that a video is being made, you can watch it. Blood
was coming out from the ears of Anil Kumar and there
was a lot of smell from the body, then we came out, after
the post mortem we asked the police to show the CCTV
camera of the college and Anil Kumar’s room. The police
showed the video of 10 or 15 minutes, after that they told
us this will take time don’t waste time. I. asked the police
office to give us the CCTV videos or to record the videos
The policeman kept our phones, safe in his car and said
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1597

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

that we could not make videos. Then we were taken to
Anil Kumar’s room. There was a lot of blood and other
things lying on the table or floor of the room. Then, I told
to the police that how could this much of blood come from
hanging. This is a murder committed due to caste hatred.
Then we took the body from, the hospital and came to
the Banda and after coming to Muktidhaam we opened
the body and saw that there was soot on his mouth, hand
and foot. We did videos and photos and on 03-09-2023 at
9:45 am Ani’s last rites were performed then I remembered
ones when Anil Kumar comes to home in may on vacation.
Then he told me that, by the some of the college teacher
always used caste indicative word and they said that ‘how
did you came here, you don’t have right to study, this is
not for you guys.’ I called SI Dharmendra ji three four
times, but he did not pick up my call. Then I called later
to asking when will the PM report come, he said that it will
be received after 15 days, then I said why is it getting so
late, he said, this is what happens. Just like my brother
Anil Kumar was murdered on the basis of caste hatred.
Similarly, something similar happened with Ayush student of
the same department. And I have come to my knowledge
that SC caste students are treated very badly in IIT Delhi.
I request you Sir that my brother Anil Kumar has been
murdered because of Caste Hatred. So register a case
against culprits and take legal action. I want justice.
Sd/-
Amit Kumar
Applicant
Dated
09.09.2023.”
7. The record further reveals that a letter was addressed by an Advocate
named Mahmood Pracha of New Delhi to the Chief Secretary,
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi on 13.09.2023,
seeking directions to the Delhi Police to register the F.I.R. in connection
with the suspicious deaths of the two students referred to above.
The letter reads thus:
1598 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“Dated 13th September 2023
To
The Chief Secretary
Government of National Capital Region of Delhi
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate,
New Delhi -110002
Subject: Request for directions to Delhi Police for registering
FIR and effective and proper implementation of provisions
of the Criminal Procedure Code and provisions under
the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act and Rules made thereunder-Regarding-
Dear Sir,
I am constrained to inform you about the caste-based
atrocities that were committed on the members of the
following families belonging to the Scheduled Caste
community due to which they have lost their sons who
were studying at Indian Institute of Technology New Delhi.
The members of both the families have exercised their
rights- under Section 15-A(12) of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989 (Hereinafter referred to as “SC/ST(POA) ACT”
and Rule 4(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (Hereafter
referred to as SC/ST (POA) Rules), which provide that
the atrocity victims have the right to take assistance from
NGOs, social workers or Advocates, and have sought my
assistance as an Advocate to pursue their ease as they
are facing continuous hardships, and further atrocities,
from the erring Government/police officials in the murder
of both the victims/deceased namely Mr Anil Kumar s/o
late Shri Suresh Kumar resident of Banda District of Uttar
Pradesh, and Mr. Ayush Ashna s/o Mr. Ramesh Kumar,
resident of Bareilly, U.P.
Pursuant to their request for assistance under Section
15-A(12) “SC/ST (POA) Act” and Rule 4(5) “SC/ST (POA)
Rules”), I have met the members of both families of the
victims/deceased, namely Anil Kumar s/o late Shri Suresh
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1599

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Kumar resident of Banda District of Uttar Pradesh, and
Mr. Ayush Ashna s/o Mr. Ramesh Kumar resident of Bareilly,
U.P. After the meetings based on the information given to
me by them, which clearly shows gross culpability on part
of police, teachers, professors, other officials, and some of
unknown students in these cases, in helping the accused
to escape the lawful punishment, I am compelled to inform
you that there has been a flagrant violation/disobedience
of most of the mandatory provisions of the SC/ST (POA)
Act by various officials.
The brief facts of both the matters are given below which
are elaborated in the respective complaints.
a) Mr. Amit Kumar S/O late Shri Suresh Kumar, a resident
of Village Anousa, Distt. Banda Uttar Pradesh presently
residing at New Delhi has filed a complaint with SHO Kishan
Garh New Delhi vide DD No. 71A dated 9th September
2023 and also with the office of Deputy Commissioner of
Police (DCP) on 11/09/2023 vide diary No 11416 regarding
gruesome and brutal murder of his younger brother,
Mr. Anil Kumar, under mysterious circumstances due to
caste related atrocities and discrimination committed on
01.09.2023 upon him in the premises of Indian Institute
of Technology, Delhi, wherein he was studying. A copy of
the said complaint is attached herewith as Annexure-I.
b) Another complaint filed by Mr. Ramesh Kumar, a
resident of Rameshwar Colony, Bareilly with the Office
of Deputy Commissioner of Police (South West),
Vasant Vihar New Delhi on 26.07.2023 vide diary No.
9584 regarding gruesome and brutal murder of his son
Mr. Ayush Ashna again tinder mysterious circumstances,
due to caste related atrocities committed upon him and
caste based discrimination in the premises of IIT, Delhi,
who was studying there and residing in Udaigiri Hostel of
Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi. A copy of the
said complaint is also attached herewith as Annexure-II.
Needless to say that both the families are devastated
by unnatural and mysterious death of victims (deceased
persons) and they are running from pillar to posts for the
1600 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

justice so that guilty are punished. However, the Police
have not registered any FIR in either case so far.
In this regard, the following submissions are made for your
kind perusal and immediate action.
1. That in both the cases, there are serious allegations
of gruesome murder of their sons, who were otherwise
quite academically brilliant, due to cast based, atrocities
and discrimination in the IIT Delhi.
2. That under the provisions of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989,
it is mandatory to lodge an FIR without any preliminary
enquiry or investigation, as mandated under section 18
A of the Act.
3. That Rule 5 of the SC/ST (PoA) Rules, 1995 also
provides that every information relating to the commission
of an offence under the Act, if given orally to an officer
in-charge of a police station, shall, be reduced to writing
by him or under his direction, and be read over to the
informant, and every such information, whether given in
writing, or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed
by the persons giving it, and the substance thereof shall be
entered m a book to be maintained by that police station.
4. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Lalita
Kumari vs State of UP has held that “Registration of
FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if
the information discloses commission of a cognizable
offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such
a situation”.
5. That provisions under Section 4(2) of the SC/ST(POA)
Act, 1989 provides for certain duties of public servant
referred to in sub-section (1) that includes -
a) to read out to an informant the information given orally
and reduced to writing by the officer in charge of the police
station before taking the signature of the informant.
b) to register a complaint or a First Information Report
under this Act and other relevant provisions and to register
it under appropriate sections of Act;
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1601

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

c) to furnish a copy of the information so recorded forthwith
to the informant;
6. That any violations of the provisions under SC/ST(PoA)
Act and dereliction of duty referred to in sub section (2)
by a public servant entails penal proceeding against such
public servant.
7. That the section 15A of the said Act provides for the
statutory duty and responsibility of the State to make
arrangements for the protection of various rights of the
victims, their dependents as laid down therein, and to
ensure the implementation of such rights and entitlements
of the victims, and witnesses in accessing the justice.
8. That section 17 of the said Act casts an obligation upon
the District Magistrate, or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or
any Executive Magistrate, or even any Police officer, to
declare such an area to be an area prone to atrocities where
such atrocities are committed or likely to be committed
and take necessary preventive action.
9. That Section 21 provides that the State Government
shall take such measures as may be necessary for effective
implementation of the Act.
10. That Rule 3 of the SC/ST(PoA) Rules, 1995, provides
that State government shall take precautionary and
preventive measures with a view to prevent atrocities
on the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes including
identification of the area where it has reason to believe that
atrocity may take place, constitution of a high power State-
level committee, district and divisional level committees,
or such number of other committees as it may deem
proper and necessary for assisting the Government in
implementation of the provisions of the Act, to set-up a
vigilance and monitoring committee to suggest effective
measures to implement the provisions of the Act, etc.
11. That the provisions of other various Rules under
the SC/ST(PoA) Rules, 1995 provide for the obligations
and duties on the State Government such as setting
up of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
1602 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Protection Cell under Rules 8, Nomination of Nodal
Officers under Rule 9 for coordinating the functioning of
the District Magistrates, and Superintendent of Police, or
other officers authorized by them, investigating officers
and: other officers responsible for implementing the
provisions of the Act, Measures to be taken by the District
Administration under Rule 12, specific responsibility of
the state Government under Ruie 14 to make necessary
provisions in its annual budget for providing relief and
rehabilitation facilities to the victims of atrocity, to frame
contingency Plan under Rule 15 for implementing the
provisions of the Act and notify the same in the: Official
Gazette of the State Government, Constitution of State
Level high power Vigilance and Monitoring Committee
under Rule 16, District level committee under Rule 17
and Sub Divisional Level under Rule 17A, to review
the implementation of provisions of the Act, relief and
rehabilitation facilities provided to the victims, and other
matters connected therewith, prosecution of cases under
the Act, role of different officers/agencies responsible for
implementing the provisions of the Act, etc.
12.That despite the above provisions contained in said
SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 and Rules made thereunder, and
directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Lalita Kumari vs State of UP, police have not yet registered
FIR in both the matters in respect of above mentioned
complaints cases, and hence flouted all the provisions
of the said Act and Rules made thereunder, but also the
provisions of Criminal Procedure Code.
In view of the above circumstances, and fact of the above-
mentioned cases, you are humbly requested to kindly
issue necessary directions to the Police to lodge FIR in
both the cases at tile earliest and provide the copy of the
same to the complainants.
You are also requested to kindly order for immediate
compliance of all the above-named provisions of the SC/
ST (POA) Act, 1989 and SC/ST (POA) Rules, 1995 made
thereunder by the concerned officials.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1603

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

You are also requested to take immediate action under
Section 4 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 against the
concerned police officials of concerned police station
namely Kishan Garh, and concerned DCP office of Vasant
Vihar for not registering the FIR and deliberately changing
the true version given by the, family members of the
deceased to help the erring police/government officials,
and also action against other officials for not undertaking
their duties as per the mandate of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, who
have till now disobeyed the above-mentioned mandatory
provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
Thanking you
Mehmood Pracha
Advocate
C-66, Second Floor
Nizamuddin East
New Delhi, 110013
Ph. No. 011-41404040”
8. The record reveals that all that was done by the Police was an
inquiry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for
short, “the CrPC”). At the end of the inquiry, the Police reached
the conclusion that the two students had committed suicide due to
depression. In other words, the Police closed the matter saying that
the two students were unable to cope up with the pressure of their
respective studies and in such circumstances they both committed
suicide in their respective hostel rooms.
9. However, the fact remains that at no point of time the Police thought
fit to register the F.I.R. in accordance with the provisions of Section
154 of the CrPC and carry out the investigation in accordance with
law, more particularly when complaints were lodged - one by the
father and another by the brother of the two students prima facie
disclosing commission of a cognizable offence.
10. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellants herein
preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi and prayed
for issuing a writ of mandamus to the Police to register an F.I.R. and
undertake the investigation.
1604 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

11. The Delhi High Court declined to entertain the writ petition and
rejected the same.
12. In such circumstances, the appellants are here before this Court
with the present appeal.

B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
13. The appellants in their written submissions have stated thus:
“i. That the present Written Submissions are being filed
by the Petitioners in terms of the Order dated 07.01.2024
passed in the present SLP.
ii. That the Petitioners have filed the present SLP against
the impugned Order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.
2945 of 2023, whereby the Writ Petition filed, inter alia,
by the Petitioners for registration of FIRs in respect of the
death of two students of the IIT Delhi, i.e. the respective
sons of the Petitioners No. 2 and 3, was dismissed.
iii. That despite categorical Complaints (Annexure P-1 @
page 56 of the SLP and Annexure P-2 @ page 63 of the
SLP) given by the Petitioners, which disclosed several
cognizable offences, the Police had failed to register the
FIRs. The Police had merely conducted an eyewash inquiry
as part of the inquest proceedings, and had recorded false
statements attributed to the Petitioners and their family
members (Please refer to Paragraph 10 of the Counter
Affidavit, and respective Paragraph Wise Rejoinders filed
by the Petitioners) in order to present a case of suicide of
the deceased students. It is submitted that the Petitioners
No. 1 and 2 had stated in their Complaint itself (Annexure
P-2) that they had been asked to sign on several papers
without being informed about their nature.
iv. That the Petitioners had filed the Writ Petition before the
Hon’ble High Court on account of the extremely biased and
prejudicial conduct on part of the concerned Police officials,
who had categorically stated that they would not register
an FIR under any circumstances, and would be willing to
face any consequences (Please refer to Paragraph 13 of
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1605

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

the original Writ Petition Annexure P-4 @ page 96 of the
SLP). The Petitioners had also, inter alia, sought a CBI
investigation before the Hon’ble High Court, and monitoring
of such investigation. As such, in these circumstances, an
application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was not an
efficacious remedy for the Petitioners.
v. That it is further submitted that the Hon’ble High Court
had failed to appreciate that even if the case of the
Police is taken at its face value, and it is assumed that
the students died due to suicide, it is still incumbent on
the Police to register the FIRs on the Complaints made to
it, and investigate the abetment of such possible suicide
within the campus of the IIT Delhi.
vi. That it is submitted that the IIT Delhi Administration
had failed to put forth its case before the Hon’ble High
Court, and has failed to even appear before this Hon’ble
Court despite service, to present its version of events,
and its stand. There has been no manner of support or
assistance by the IIT Delhi Administration for the parents
and the family members of the deceased students. It is
submitted that such oblivious and disinterested conduct
on part of the IIT Delhi Administration, towards a case
involving the death of its two students within its campus
in a span of less than two months, further strengthens the
case of the Petitioners that an investigation is necessary
into these deaths.
vii. That it is submitted that the Police has, for the first
time before this Hon’ble Court, placed on record the
Post Mortem Reports of the deceased students and
the purported statements recorded during the inquest
proceedings, including those stated to have been given by
the Petitioners and their family members. It is submitted
that the statements attributed to the Petitioners and their
family members are doctored and false, which is besides
the fact that the Hon’ble High Court had failed to call for
these documents from the Police, and had simply relied
upon a concocted Status Report, contents whereof had
been categorically rebutted by the Petitioners.
1606 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

viii. That it is settled law that at the stage of registration of
FIR, the Police has to simply consider whether a cognizable
offence is made out or not, from the information/complaint.
It is submitted that in violation of the settled proposition of
law, and in complete derogation of the procedure prescribed
by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (as was then
applicable), and Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the
Police has conducted a detailed inquiry without registering an
FIR for the sole purpose of substantiating a predetermined
conclusion, i.e., that the deceased students had committed
suicide due to academic pressure. It is submitted that the
record itself reflects that the deaths of these students require
detailed and thorough investigations, which cannot be
initiated, let alone concluded, without registration of FIRs.
ix. That hence, it is submitted that this Hon’ble Court
may kindly be pleased to issue necessary directions
for registration of the FIRs into the deaths of the
deceased students, investigation by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI), and may kindly be pleased to monitor
the investigation.”

C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS.
2, 3, 4 AND 7 RESPECTIVELY
14. The respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 in their written submissions have
stated thus:
“1. Names of deceased:
(i) Ayush (death on 08.07.2023)
(ii) Anil (death on 01.09.2023)
2. Complaints dated 28.07.2023 & 9.9.2023 were lodged
before Police by parents of deceased alleging caste-
based discrimination in the hostel and that they have
been murdered.
3. Then WP (Crl.) No. 2945 of 2023 was filed before
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi praying for direction
to register FIR and an independent inquiry in caste-
based atrocities.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1607

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

4. In view of the above said complaints, it submitted
that a fair enquiry was conducted under Section 174
CrPC in both the cases which is as follows:

A. IN CASE OF DECEASED AYUSH ASHNA
i. On 8.7.2023: Upon receiving a PCR call regarding
suicide of a student in Udayagiri Hostel, IIT Delhi, police
officials reached the spot i.e. Room No. WH-02 7th floor,
Udayagiri Hostel, IIT, New Delhi.
In the presence of IIT staff, mother, brother of deceased
and maternal uncle of deceased, the door of the room
which was locked from inside was broken wherein it waw
found that Ayush was found hanging.
Post Mortem Report (R-1 @pg. 11-13) : Death is due to
asphyxia as a result of hanging due to ligature. However,
viscera has been preserved to rule out any concomitant
poisoning/intoxication.

ii. Annexure R-3 @ pg. 17-42
During the course of enquiry, statements of Father, Brother
and other relatives/friends of the deceased was recorded
in which it was found that Ayush Ashna had failed in some
of the subjects in prior semester exams due to which he
was under depression and because of that he might have
taken this extreme step. They further denied any foul play
or any suspicion regarding the death of Ayush.
a. Ramesh (Father of Ayush): Ayush took this step under
depression. He does not have any doubt on death of his
son.
b. Rahul (Brother of Ayush): I am also IIT Delhi pas out.
Ayush was under depression due to failing. The hostel
door was broken in front of us.
Ayush had committed suicide on table by plastic rope and
extension wire. There is only one way entry and exit to
the room of my brother, which was locked from inside. I
do not have any doubt on death of my brother.
1608 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

c. Sushma (Mother of Ayush): He was not picking calls
since morning of 8.7.2023. He was in tension due to failing
in one or two subjects, room as broken in front of us, I do
not have any doubt on death of my son.
d. Praveen (Professor and in charge SC/ST Cell: since his
appointment in SC/ST cell, he never received any complaint
of caste based discrimination from Anil and Ayush.
e. Geratony Abhishek (student): Both Late Anil Kumar and
Ayush were students of my class. I am also studying in
extended period and both students were also studying in
extended period. He had received one WhatsApp message
from Ayush regarding his one semester due. There was
no caste based discrimination with the deceased. I also
belong to SC caste but there was never any caste based
misbehaviour with me and there is no partition on caste
basis.
f. Kaushal Verma (student): Being from SC category I have
never faced any caste based remarks.
g. Pritish (student): Late Anil and Ayush were also studying
in extended period. There is no discrimination on caste
basis. I am also from SC and there has never been any
misbehaviour.

iii. Annexure R 4@pg. 43
Grade reports of Ayush Ashna were collected from the IIT
and it was found that during the 2nd semester period of
year 2022-2023, he had failed in some of the subjects and
got lower grades (Grade F, in 5 out of 7 subjects which
stands for Very Poor.

B. IN CASE OF DECEASED ANIL KUMAR
i. It is submitted that on dated 1.9.2023, a PCR call was
received regarding suicide of student in Vindhayachal
Hostel, IIT Delhi. On reach the spot i.e. Room No.
EA -18, Ground Floor, Vindhayachal Hostel, IIT, New
Delhi, it was found that the same was locked and smell
was coming from inside. Accordingly, in the presence
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1609

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

of IIT staff members and the police, the door of the
room was broken. Anil was found hanging from the
ceiling fan of his room with the help of bedsheet and
towel. The body was in a decomposed state.

Post Mortem Report (R-2@pg 14-16):
“Death is due to asphyxia consequent to ante-mortem
compression of neck by ligature”.

Annexure R-3 @pg. 17-42:
Statements of brother Amit, mother, hostel staff and friends
were taken who stated that Anil was under depression
due to less marks:
a. Amit (brother of Anil): Anil was student of 2019-2023
session, for 2 years he stayed at home. On 30.8.2023,
I talked with Anil and he was under depression due
to fail and less marks in exams. On 01.09.2023,
I got a call from IIT that Anil has hanged himself from
a ceiling fan. I have no doubt but enquiry be done.
b. Vidya Devi (Mother of Anil): For 2 years he stayed at
home due to lockdown, due to less marks Anil was
under depression, enquiry be done.
c. Naveen Kumar (student): Anil was my classmate
and his room was near to my room. His position in
studies was not good. Anil never complained about
caste discrimination, and he always remained alone
and did not talk with others. I have never seen or
heard any caste-based discrimination.
d. Vaibhav Shivrani (student): I am house secretary in
Vindhyachal Hostel and my work is to forward the
complaint of students and there was never any issue
of ST/SC with Anil.
e. Anil Nawani (Security Inspector): Guard of Vindhyachal
Hostel called on 1.9.2023 that bad smell is coming
from room No. EA-18. The window was opened from
behind of the room and deceased was seen hanging
from fan.
1610 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

f. Kailash Meena (student of Room No. EA-17): Foul
smell was coming and on knocking room no. EA-
18 there was no response and just below the door
yellow liquid was seen and flies were there, informed
the guard.
ii. On 09.09.2023 Amit Kumar (Petitioner/brother of the
deceased) gave a written complaint in the police
station, alleging caste-based discrimination by his
teachers and other faculty members and murder.
He had also alleged that there was some kind of
bleeding from ears of the dead body and blood stains
were scattered all over the room which cannot be an
incident of suicide.
iii. Accordingly, further enquiry was conducted. It was
found there was no column revealing the category of
the student whether he/she belongs to SC/ST/General
category in any of the forms, only entry number was
mentioned in all the forms.
Annexure R-4 @pg. 44: He failed in two subjects out of
seven subjects in IIIrd semester. In IVth semester he took
only one subject and he failed in the same. In next year
(2021-2022) he did not pass any subject. In VIIth semester
he failed in one subject out of six. In VIIIth semester he
failed in two subjects out of six subjects. He was given
an extension to complete his subjects.
5. In the Hostel allotment letters it was found that there
was no column revealing the category of the students
as to whether she/he belongs to SC/ST/General
category in any of the form.
6. The Hon’ble High Court found that no complaint
was ever given by any of the deceased students to
the police, SC/ST cell of IIT Delhi or to any of their
friends regarding caste-based discrimination and
held that mandamus as prayed cannot be issued in
the present case.
7. That, during the course of enquiry, the allegations
levelled could not be corroborated and nothing came
on record to substantiate the same.”
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1611

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
NO. 5 – IIT DELHI
15. IIT, Delhi in their written submissions have stated thus:
“1. That the present Special Leave Petition has been
preferred against impugned Final Order and Judgment
dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2945 of 2023, whereby
the Hon’ble High Court rightly dismissed the Writ Petition
as it was devoid of merits.
2. Briefly stated that both Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Ayush
Ashna were students of B. Tech in the Indian Institute of
Technology, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “IIT, Delhi”)
and that Petitioner no. 1 and Petitioner no. 2 are the
brother and mother of Anil Kumar and Petitioner No. 3 is
the parent of Ayush Ashna.
3. That Mr. Ayush Ashna was found dead on 08.07.2023
at his Hostel Room No. WH-02, Seventh Floor, Udaigiri
Hostel, IIT, New Delhi and another student, namely, Mr.
Anil Kumar was found dead on 01.09.2023 in his Hostel
Room No. EA-18, Ground Floor, Vindhyachal Hostel, IIT,
New Delhi.
4. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the death
of both the students were approximately two months apart
and both the deaths cannot be interlinked to each other
in any way.

Brief facts surrounding the death of Mr. Ayush Ashna:
5. That on the night of 8th July 2023, at approximately
2300 hrs., Ayush Ashna’s mother called the reception of
Udaigiri hostel and informed the guard on duty that her
son Ayush Ashna, resident of Room No. WH-02, was not
answering his phone. She also requested the guard to
look for him.
6. Subsequently, the guard went to Room No. WH-02
and found that it was locked from inside. The guard
knocked several times, and on not receiving any response,
immediately reported the matter to the Security Control
1612 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

room as per protocol. The Security team rushed to the
hostel room and knocked, but there was still no response.
7. The Security staff then looked inside the room through
the ventilator and saw what appeared to be a non-moving
body with the neck rolled to one side, hanged to an
inverted study table. The matter was immediately reported
to Delhi Police and other IIT Delhi authorities. IIT Delhi
authorities reached the hostel main gate within minutes and
almost simultaneously and independently, without having
any further contact with the Answering Respondent, the
student’s mother, brother, and maternal uncle also arrived
at the hostel.
8. That while the Hostel warden was speaking with the
student’s parent/relatives, Delhi police PCR also reached
the hostel main gate. The situation was now under the
charge of Delhi Police who took over and reported the
matter as per law.
9. It is submitted that at this juncture, everyone present,
including the family was informed by the Police of the
tragedy. The Police took over the scene and initiated their
official procedures. When the family requested that they
be allowed to go inside the room, the Police said that the
Crime Branch was on the way and asked them to wait
for the Inquiry Officer (hereinafter referred to as “I.O.”) to
arrive at the spot.
10. Thereafter, within another few minutes, the Police team
from the Kishangarh Police Station arrived. The police then
broke open the room door following due procedure, and in
the presence of the family; inside a body was discovered
and identified by the family as that of Ayush Ashna.
11. Two doctors from the IIT Delhi hospital confirmed the
body to be lifeless. Subsequently, the crime branch also
arrived, took charge of the scene, and spoke with the family.

Post suicide information
12. The tragic news was a shock to all present. IIT Delhi
personnel provided all possible assistance during this
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1613

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

challenging time and faithfully followed all instructions
from the Police and Crime Branch. All possible support for
the family was ensured, including a medical doctor and a
counsellor was provided by IIT Delhi.
13. It is submitted that IIT Delhi is fully committed towards
the safety and security of its students. After receiving the
telephone call from the student’s mother, IIT Delhi security
responded and acted as swiftly as possible and informed
the Delhi police immediately- all within 30 minutes of
the initial telephone call. Delhi police also arrived most
promptly within minutes.
14. It is submitted that as per the postmortem report of
the deceased Ayush Ashna, the cause of death was held
to be asphyxia as a result of hanging due to ligature.
15. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted to understand the
cause of death. During the course of enquiry, statements of
father, brother, other relatives and friends of the deceased
were recorded in which it was found that the deceased
had failed in some of the subjects in the prior semester
exams due to which he was under depression.
16. Consequently, the grade reports of Ayush Ashna were
seen and it was found that during the 2nd semester of
year 2022-23, he had failed in some of the subjects and
got lower grades i.e., Grade F which stands for Very Poor
in 5 out of 7 subjects.
17. It is pertinent to mention herein that no complaints
regarding any caste-based discrimination have been found
and there is no record of any complaint being received from
the deceased or any of his family members since 2019-
2020 by the College authorities. It is further pertinent to
note that during the enquiry, the relatives of the deceased
denied any foul play or suspicion regarding the death of
the deceased.
18. Thereafter, father of the deceased, namely, Ramesh
Kumar gave a written complaint to the police station on
26.07.2023, wherein it was alleged that his son Ayush
Ashna was facing caste-based discrimination by his hostel
1614 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

mates and other faculty members during the beginning
of his academic year 2019-2020 and he also suspected
in the complaint that his son could not have taken such
steps and someone might have killed his son with the
connivance of faculty members.
19. That IIT Delhi took due consideration to the complaint
filed by the deceased student’s father and therefore
submitted a point-by-point response dated 14.08.2023
to the representation made by Mr. Ramesh Kumar to
clarify his doubts regarding his Complaints surrounding
his son’s death.

Brief facts of case surrounding the death of
Mr. Anil Kumar:
20. It is submitted that Anil Kumar had taken admission in
IIT Delhi in 2019 in B.Tech, Mathematics and Computing
and he was allotted Room No. SD-11, Vindhyachal Hostel
at the time of admission. During the semester period of
2020-21 and 2022-23, he got low grades in some of the
subjects.
21. That the deceased Anil Kumar extended his stay at
the hostel for the preparation of remaining subjects and
completing the course and the same was granted by the
relevant department immediately. Subsequently, he was
allotted Room No. EA-18, Vindhyachal Hostel.
22. It is submitted that the deceased could not clear some
subjects and was residing in hostel on further six months
extension. As per the rules, his hostel was to be vacated
in June but as he could not qualify some subjects, he was
given extension for six months to clear the exams.
23. It is submitted that the deceased passed all the subjects
in 1st year but he later failed in two subjects out of seven
subjects in 3rd semester. Thereafter, in 4th semester
he took only one subject and failed in the same, in the
following year (2021-22) he failed to pass any subject, in
7th semester he failed in one subject out of six subjects
and finally in 8th semester he failed in two subjects out
of six subjects and therefore, he was given an extension
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1615

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

to clear all the subjects. Therefore, in toto, the deceased
Anil Kumar was failing in two subjects out of seven subjects
in 3rd semester, in 4th semester he took only one subject
and failed in the same, in the following year he failed to
pass any subject, in 7th semester he failed in one subject
out of six subjects and in 8th semester he failed in two
subjects out of six subjects.
24. It is pertinent to note that the students are nowhere
required to reveal the category as to whether the students
belong to SC/ST/General category. Hostel allotment letters
also prove that there was no column revealing the category
of the students in any of the form and only entry number
was mentioned in all the forms and thus, no evidence
of caste-based discrimination against the deceased was
found.
25. That on the evening of 1st September 2023, at around
5pm, a student residing in one of the ground floor wings
in Vindhyachal hostel reported a foul smell to the hostel
caretaker. Thereafter, it was found that the neighbouring
room’s door was locked from inside and glass panes of
the grilled window facing the hostel basketball court were
also shut with the curtains drawn.
26. Consequently, the warden and security were
immediately called, who then reached the hostel. The
security unit pried open the window-pane from outside
and undrew the curtain. They discovered a hanging body.

Post suicide information
27. The security immediately called the police and the
warden informed the Dean Student Affairs. The Dean and
Associate Dean reached Vindhyachal hostel within minutes.
Three Counsellors were also immediately called, and arrived
within minutes, to talk to other residents of the hostel.
28. By approximately 06:10 PM, the police and fire
department personnel arrived at the hostel, followed by
Crime branch. The Chief Medical Officer of IIT Delhi was
also called, who immediately arrived at the hostel. The
police then took over the proceedings, the ACP arrived
1616 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

at approximately 07:10 PM and their fire personnel broke
the door open at approximately 07:15 PM. The body was
identified as that of student Anil Kumar residing in the
room as per records.
29. Immediately, upon identification of the body, IIT Delhi
officials tried contacting the mobile numbers of family,
provided as per the student records. By approximately 1930
hrs., Mr. Amit Kumar, elder brother of the student, could
be contacted on the phone. He was informed of the tragic
loss and was requested to reach IIT Delhi at the earliest
possible. Mr. Amit Kumar informed that they had lost their
father a few months ago, and at the present time the whole
family was in their village 600-700 Km away from Delhi.
They will try to reach by the morning of 2nd Sept. 2023.
30. Thereafter, Director, Dy. Director Operations, Registrar,
Dy. Registrar Student Affairs also reached the hostel. An
ambulance was called and the police took custody of the
body at approximately 2050 hrs. for transporting to the
Safdarjung hospital mortuary.
31. Thereafter, postmortem of the deceased was conducted
vide PM No. 2048/23, wherein the cause of death was held
to be “asphyxia consequent to ante-mortem compression
of neck by ligature”.
32. It is submitted that Mr. Amit Kumar, along with his family,
reached IIT Delhi faculty guest house by approximately
0730 hrs. on the morning of 2nd Sept. 2023. Warden, SC/
ST Liaison Officer, former SC/ST advisor, Head Counsellor,
Director, Dean, Associate Dean met with the family. On
their request, family were taken to Vindhyachal hostel to
look at the student’s room from outside.
33. During the course of enquiry, statements of the brother,
mother, other relatives and friends of the deceased were
recorded who stated that due to scoring less marks in
exams, deceased was under stress.
34. It is pertinent to mention herein that the family and
relatives of deceased further denied any foul play or any
suspicion regarding the death of the deceased.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1617

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

35. Academically, Anil Kumar had finished a little less
than 50% of the 150 credits required for the award of a
BTech degree. He was identified as a student who was
underperforming academically. His advisor reached out to
him; unfortunately, a meeting did not materialize.
36. Outside of academics, he had not approached the
counselling unit for any assistance. In the first week of
June 2023, he had informed the hostel caretaker, while
beginning his extended hostel stay, that he had lost his
father. Below is the hostel residence history of Mr. Anil
Kumar (2019MT10674) as per records:
(i) Pre-pandemic: Resident of Vindhyachal hostel
from 15th July 2019 till vacating due to pandemic.
(ii) Post-pandemic: Resident of Vindhyachal hostel
from 19th April 2022 till current date. After completion
of applicable tenure of 8 semesters, the student
requested extension of stay for completion of
remaining credits on 1st June 2023 (extension
request form was duly recommended and forwarded
by Course Advisor and Head of Department of
Mathematics). Extension of stay was granted as per
rules, either till end of 1st Sem 2023-24 or 26th Dec.
2023 (whichever is earlier), on 2nd June 2023.
37. It was only on 09.09.2023, that Mr. Amit Kumar
(brother of Anil Kumar) gave a written Complaint in the
Police station, wherein he alleged that Anil Kumar was
facing caste-based discrimination by his teachers and
other faculty members. It is pertinent to bring to the notice
of this Hon’ble Court that this is the first time any such
Complaint of caste-based discrimination was being heard
of from the deceased or his family.

Submissions:
38. That it is the policy of the institution that before the
start of every semester, students who have previously
underperformed academically are identified. Then they
are advised to take a slower pace academic program to
avoid overburdening. Their respective faculty advisors are
1618 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

notified as to their deteriorating academic performance
and are asked to contact their advisees for any help with
the scholastic pursuits. Thereafter, the faculty advisors
contact the students, and on a regular basis continue to
contact, to discuss any issues that they might have with
respect to their course and graduation plans.
39. During the time relevant for the present case, the
same procedure was followed and about 10% of students
were recommended for counselling sessions through this
intervention, and a handful of students were identified as
requiring language support.
40. It is submitted that the institution takes every complaint
regarding caste-based discrimination with utmost
seriousness and the apprehensions of the parents of
the deceased were also duly considered. In this regard,
a thorough enquiry was conducted wherein statements
of family and friends of the deceased were recorded
and several other students of IIT, Delhi who belonged
to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were also
examined. During this enquiry, not even a single assertion
cropped up which suggested that the deceased students
were murdered in the campus and as a matter of fact,
none of those students had ever reported any caste-based
discrimination either by any faculty members or anybody
else within the institution.
41. It is also pertinent to mention herein that no complaint
was ever given by either of the deceased students to the
Police or to the SC/ST Cell of IIT, Delhi regarding any
caste-based discrimination. Moreover, in order to mitigate
the possibility of bigotry and discrimination amongst the
students, it is the policy of the institution that no person,
except the Dean of Academics, is aware about the category
to which any student belongs and all students are treated
equally in the campus by all the staff members. It is further
submitted that the students are not required to disclose
their castes in any other forms filled by them during their
time at IIT Delhi.
42. That in order to bring forth the actual facts of the
death of the deceased students, a detailed enquiry was
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1619

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

conducted, wherein all relevant materials were collected
and subjected to rigorous scrutiny. In the absence of
any specific allegation or even an iota of evidence in the
enquiry suggesting any caste-based discrimination in the
present case or that the deceased committed suicide for
any reason other than weary academic load, it is humbly
submitted that there are no grounds for either registration
of FIR or directing CBI to investigate the matter in the
present case and the same deserves to be dismissed.
43. It is submitted that IIT Delhi is fully committed to
the physical and mental well-being of all the students,
including those belonging to marginalized groups. It is
the top priority of the answering respondents to eradicate
caste-based discrimination and/or any form of harassment
from the academic pursuits of its students. IIT Delhi makes
conscious efforts to encourage, counsel and motivate the
students.
44. IIT Delhi has a zero-tolerance policy for any
discrimination inflicted by any person in the campus and
stringent steps are taken to expunge such possibilities.
The institution ensures that any systemic deficiencies that
can be identified are immediately addressed.
45. It is submitted that in order to aid the scholastic journey
of the students at IIT Delhi, each undergraduate student in
the Institution is allotted a faculty advisor. This information
is constantly reflected on the institute academics portal,
which is routinely accessed by each student for various
purposes, including fees payment and registration for
courses. The advisors are also informed of their advisees
on their respective academics’ portal. Advisees can meet
their advisor at any time to discuss their issues.
46. Further, a Board of Student Welfare (BSW) has also
been established at the Institute which assists in ensuring
student wellness and addressing mental health issues.
In addition to being led by an elected student General
Secretary, this board is also mentored by several faculty
members, with the Associate Dean Student Welfare
(ADSW) serving as the President of the Board. BSW
1620 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

reaches out to students and regularly encourages them
to come forward with any issue that they may face during
their time at IIT Delhi.
47. Additionally, the Institution operates a separate
Counselling Unit to aid mental tonicity of the students.
Currently, there are three female and one male counsellors
in this Unit from diverse backgrounds. Two counsellors (one
female and one male) reside on campus and are available
24x7 on call. Four (04) more permanent counsellor
positions have also been advertised and the hiring process
is underway. Services of an online counselling portal (Your
Dost) are also made available to all students 24x7.
48. The Institution also ensures that at least one contractual
psychiatrist remains physically available in the hospital
at the campus from 0800- 2000 hrs. Mon-Fri and on-call
for emergencies on weekends. The process of hiring a
permanent psychiatrist for the hospital is also underway.
49. In addition to the above steps, the following support
systems are also operational at the Institute level to
promptly address the concerns of students and provide
efficacious remedy to their problems:
* ICC (Internal Complaints Committee)
* Grievance Redressal Committee
* Student Grievance web portal
* IGES (Initiative for Gender Equity and Sensitization)
* Office of Diversity & inclusion headed by a Dean
* SC/ST Cell
50. It is submitted that IIT Delhi is also in the process of
setting up a Central Attendance monitoring system for all
students, with special attention on the underperforming
students.
51. It is submitted that IIT Delhi aims at providing a
comfortable and a safe environment for its students and
emotions of their parents. In the case at hand as well, the
Answering Respondents have fully cooperated with the
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1621

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Police, parents and have even conducted internal inquiry
to verify the claims of the Petitioners.
52. However, in both the inquiries conducted by the
Answering Respondents as well as the Police, no
cognizable offence has been made out.”

E. ANALYSIS
16. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the materials on record, the only question that
falls for our consideration is whether the High Court committed any
error in passing the impugned judgment and order.
17. It is not in dispute that the Police for some reason or the other
declined to register an F.I.R. on the ground that no one could be
said to have abetted the commission of suicide. All that the Police
did in the course of the inquiry under Section 174 of the CrPC was
to record the statements of other students belonging to SC/ST
category studying in IIT Delhi, who stated that there was no caste-
based discrimination in the hostel.
18. The High Court while rejecting the writ petition observed thus:
“14. Perusal of the Status Report filed by the Ld. ASG for
the State shows that a thorough and detailed enquiry was
conducted into both the cases and it was found that no
complaint was ever given by any of the deceased students
to the police, SC/ST Cell IIT Delhi or to any of their friends
in Campus regarding any caste based discrimination
being faced by them. Moreover, statements of family and
friends of the deceased were recorded and several other
students of IIT, Delhi who belonged to Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes were also examined and none
of them reported any caste-based discrimination taking
place in the IIT Campus, Delhi. The allegations levelled
by the petitioners, therefore, could not be corroborated
and nothing came on record to substantiate the same.
15. Undoubtedly, the academic career of two brilliant
and young students came to an end under devastating
circumstances and one cannot even fathom the challenges
and emotions which the parents of the deceased must be
1622 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

facing every day. This Court can understand the sentiments
of the parents of the deceased and deeply discourages
the growing trend of pressurising young minds to perform
the best in every aspect of life leading them to take
unfortunate steps. It is high time that the faculty as well
as other staff members of Indian Institute of Technology
make conscious efforts and take endeavours to counsel,
encourage, motivate and invigorate the students. It is
of utmost priority to make the young minds understand
that scoring good marks and performing your best is
important but it is not the most important thing in life and
one can certainly give his/ her best without succumbing
to the pressures or stress of performing better. The most
significant way of instilling this into young minds who face
challenges everyday in the professional and competitive
environment of colleges is by teaching them in the very
same campus where they spend years of their students
life the values of prioritizing their health be it physical or
mental which will also give them the confidence to face
every challenge in life.
16. Taking into consideration the totality of facts and-
circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that a
mandamus cannot be issued in a routine manner merely
on the basis of sympathy or sentiments, accordingly, the
present petition along with pending applications, if any is
dismissed being devoid of any merits.”
(Emphasis supplied)

19. This litigation is an eye-opener not just for the police but also for
the parents whose children are studying in different educational
institutions, more particularly those students residing in a hostel
far from their respective homes, and also the management of the
educational institutions across the country.
20. The pivotal question that falls for our consideration is whether the
Police was justified in closing the matter upon conclusion of the inquiry
under Section 174 of the CrPC? In other words, whether recourse
to inquest proceedings under Section 174 of the CrPC obviates the
requirement of registration of F.I.R.? To put it in a still lucid manner,
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1623

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

whether an inquest report discovering the cause of death would be
good enough to close the matter without registration of an F.I.R.?

i. Scope of Section 174 of the CrPC
21. Section 174 of the CrPC reads as under:
“Section 174. Police to enquire and report on suicide,
etc.
1) When the officer in charge of a police station or some
other police officer specially empowered by the State
Government in that behalf receives information that a
person has committed suicide, or has been killed by
another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident,
or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable
suspicion that some other person has committed an
offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to
the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold
inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule
prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or
special order of the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate,
shall proceed to the place where the body of such
deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two
or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood,
shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of
the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds,
fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be
found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by
what weapon or instrument (if any); such marks appear
to have been inflicted.
(2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and
other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein,
and shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate
or the Sub-divisional Magistrate.
(3)When-
(i) the case involves suicide by a woman within seven
years of her marriage; or
(ii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven
years of her marriage in any circumstances raising a
1624 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

reasonable suspicion that some other person committed
an offence in relation to such woman; or
(iii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven
years of her marriage and any relative of the woman has
made a request in this behalf; or
(iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death; or
(v) the police officer for any other reason considers it
expedient so to do, he shall, subject to such rules as the
State Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward
the body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest
Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed
in this behalf by the State Government, if the state of the
weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded
without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would
render such examination useless.
(4) The following Magistrates are empowered to hold
inquests, namely, any District Magistrate or Sub-divisional
Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate specially
empowered in this behalf by the State Government or the
District Magistrate.”
22. The proceedings under Section 174 of the CrPC should be kept more
distinct from the proceedings taken on the complaint. Investigation
under Section 174 is limited in scope and is confined to the
ascertainment of the apparent cause of death and should not be
equated with investigation into cognizable offences under Sections
160 and 161 of the CrPC respectively. The procedure under Section
174 of the CrPC is for the purpose of discovering the cause of death
and the evidence taken is very short. Sub-section (4) of Section 174
empowers any District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any
other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by
the State Government or the District Magistrate to hold inquest. The
inquest held by the magistrate under Section 174 is distinct from an
inquiry under Section 202.
23. The inquest proceedings are concerned with discovering whether in
a given case the death was accidental, suicidal, homicidal, or caused
by an animal and in what manner or by what weapon or instrument
the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted, therefore, the
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1625

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

evidence taken is very short. (See: Chaman Lal v. Emperor, AIR
1940 Lah 210, at 214)
24. The investigations conducted under Sections 154 and 174 of the
CrPC respectively are distinct in nature and purpose. A study of
Chapter XII of the CrPC reveals that these two provisions cater to
different procedural objectives. The former begins with information
about the commission of a cognizable offence referred to in Section
154(1), culminating in registration of F.I.R. and ending with filing of a
chargesheet/challan before the competent court under Section 173 or
a final report as the case may be. This procedure to be undertaken
for initiating an investigation into a cognizable offence has been
explained by this Court in Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan,
(2011) 3 SCC 758, in the following words:
“48. Under the scheme of the Code, investigation
commences with lodgement of information relating to the
commission of an offence. If it is a cognizable offence,
the officer in charge of the police station, to whom the
information is supplied orally has a statutory duty to
reduce it to writing and get the signature of the informant.
He shall enter the substance of the information, whether
given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, in a
book prescribed by the State in that behalf. The officer-
in-charge has no escape from doing so if the offence
mentioned therein is a cognizable offence and whether or
not such offence was committed within the limits of that
police station.[…]”
(Emphasis supplied)

25. Further, the objective of proceedings under Section 154(1) has been
succinctly explained by this Court in Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State
of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 9 SCC 1, as under:
“19. […] Whereas the starting point of the powers of the
police was changed from the power of the officer in charge
of a police station to investigate into a cognizable offence
without the order of a Magistrate, to the reduction of the
first information regarding commission of a cognizable
offence, whether received orally or in writing, into writing.
As such, the objective of such placement of provisions was
1626 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

clear which was to ensure that the recording of the first
information should be the starting point of any investigation
by the police. The purpose of registering FIR is to set the
machinery of criminal investigation into motion, which
culminates with filing of the police report and only after
registration of FIR, beginning of investigation in a case,
collection of evidence during investigation and formation
of the final opinion is the sequence which results in filing
of a report under Section 173 of the Code. […]”
(Emphasis supplied)

26. In contrast, an investigation under Section 174 of the CrPC focuses
on ascertaining the apparent cause of death in cases of unnatural
or suspicious deaths. This position has been well explained by this
Court in Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1975) 4
SCC 153. The proceeding under Section 174 is limited in scope
and fundamentally distinct from investigations aimed at prosecuting
offences. Inquest proceedings are conducted by the police or a
Magistrate and conclude with the filing of an inquest report before the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), District Judge, or Magistrate as the
case may be. The relevant observations are reproduced herein below:
“11. A perusal of this provision would clearly show that
the object of the proceedings under Section 174 is merely
to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious
circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is
the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding
the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or
who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was
assaulted appears to us to be foreign to the ambit and
scope of the proceedings under Section 174. In these
circumstances, therefore, neither in practice nor in law
was it necessary for the police to have mentioned these
details in the inquest report. […]”
(Emphasis supplied)

27. The investigation after registration of F.I.R. under Section 154 of the
CrPC is an investigation into an offence. In contrast, the investigation
under Section 174 of the CrPC is an investigation or an “inquiry” into
the apparent cause of death.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1627

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

28. The marginal note attached to Section 174 of the CrPC reads
“Police to inquire and report on suicide, etc.” This is self-explanatory
as to the scope of the provision. Sections 174 to 176 of the CrPC
only contemplate inquiry into the cause of death. Although the
phrase ‘investigation’ is used in Section 174 of the CrPC, yet it
is only an investigation in the nature of an inquiry. Sometimes,
during the inquest, the police record the presence of witnesses
who are also witnesses in the case. These statements are not
meant as substitutes for statements under Section 161 of the
CrPC. The inquest requirement under Section 174 does use the
word investigation but if one considers the entire phraseology of
Section 174 of the CrPC, one comes to the conclusion that the
word investigation in Section 174 is not an investigation to find
out who are the offenders. It is only to enable the police to come
up with the “apparent cause of death”. This phrase in Section 174
should give us the clue as to the correct understanding of the role
of the police in inquest panchnama.

ii. F.I.R. under Section 154 of the CrPC
29. Section 154 of the CrPC lays down the procedure for the registration
of a First Information Report in cases of cognizable offenses. The
relevant portion of the provision is reproduced hereunder:
“154. Information in cognizable cases.—(1) Every
information relating to the commission of a cognizable
offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police
station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his
direction, and be read over to the informant; and every
such information, whether given in writing or reduced to
writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it,
and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be
kept by such officer in such form as the State Government
may prescribe in this behalf […]”
30. The object and purpose of filing an F.I.R. has been explained by this
Court in Sheikh Hasib Alias Tabarak v. State of Bihar, (1972) 4
SCC 773, observing that the main purpose of the F.I.R. is to initiate
the criminal justice process and to gather information about the
alleged crime, enabling them to take appropriate actions to identify
and apprehend the offender. The Court held:
1628 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“4…The principal object of the first information report from
the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law
in motion and from the point of view of the investigating
authorities is to obtain information about the alleged
criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps
for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party. The first
information report, we may point out, does not constitute
substantive evidence though its importance as conveying
the earliest information regarding the occurrence cannot
be doubted. It can, however, only be used as a previous
statement for the purpose of either corroborating its
maker under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act or for
contradicting him under Section 145 of that Act. It cannot
be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting
other witnesses.”
(Emphasis supplied)

31. In Thulia Kali v. State of T.N., (1972) 3 SCC 393, this Court elucidated
the impact of delay in registration of F.I.R. The Court held as follows:
“12. … First information report in a criminal case is an
extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the
purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the
trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be
overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object
of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police
in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early
information regarding the circumstances in which the crime
was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the
part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses
present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the
first information report quite often results in embellishment
which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the
report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity,
danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version,
exaggerated account or concocted”
(Emphasis supplied)

32. The point of law on mandatory registration, as interpreted from
Section 154 of the CrPC, has been elaborated by this Court in State
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1629

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Upon thorough
examination of the mandatory implications of Section 154 of the
CrPC, this Court arrived at the following finding in paragraphs 31
and 32 of the judgment:
“31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the
basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence
in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the
Code, the police officer concerned cannot embark upon
an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the
informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse
to register a case on the ground that the information is
not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in
charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register
a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he
has reason to suspect the commission of an offence
which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code
to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157. (As
we have proposed to make a detailed discussion about
the power of a police officer in the field of investigation of
a cognizable offence within the ambit of Sections 156 and
157 of the Code in the ensuing part of this judgment, we do
not propose to deal with those sections in extenso in the
present context.) In case, an officer in charge of a police
station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him
and to register a case on the information of a cognizable
offence reported and thereby violates the statutory duty
cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can
send the substance of the information in writing and by
post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who if
satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses
a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case
himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police
officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by sub-
section (3) of Section 154 of the Code.
32. Be it noted that in Section 154(1) of the Code, the
legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and
cautiously used the expression ‘information’ without
qualifying the same as in Section 41(1)(a) or (g) of the
Code wherein the expressions, ‘reasonable complaint’
1630 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and ‘credible information’ are used. Evidently, the non-
qualification of the word ‘information’ in Section 154(1)
unlike in Section 41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code may be for
the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record
an information relating to the commission of a cognizable
offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that
he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility
of the information. In other words, ‘reasonableness’ or
‘credibility’ of the said information is not a condition
precedent for registration of a case. A comparison of the
present Section 154 with those of the earlier Codes will
indicate that the legislature had purposely thought it fit
to employ only the word ‘information’ without qualifying
the said word. Section 139 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure of 1861 (Act 25 of 1861) passed by the
Legislative Council of India read that ‘every complaint or
information’ preferred to an officer in charge of a police
station should be reduced into writing which provision
was subsequently modified by Section 112 of the Code
of 1872 (Act 10 of 1872) which thereafter read that ‘every
complaint’ preferred to an officer in charge of a police
station shall be reduced in writing. The word ‘complaint’
which occurred in previous two Codes of 1861 and 1872
was deleted and in that place the word ‘information’ was
used in the Codes of 1882 and 1898 which word is now
used in Sections 154, 155, 157 and 190(c) of the present
Code of 1973 (Act 2 of 1974). An overall reading of all
the Codes makes it clear that the condition which is sine
qua non for recording a first information report is that
there must be an information and that information must
disclose a cognizable offence.
33. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information
disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer
in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements
of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has
no other option except to enter the substance thereof in
the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on
the basis of such information.”
(Emphasis supplied)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1631

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

33. In Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, a
five-Judge Bench of this Court affirmed the requirement for the
mandatory registration of an F.I.R. under Section 154 of the CrPC.
The Court ruled that, once the information provided discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, it is imperative for the police
to register the F.I.R. without conducting any preliminary inquiry. This
judgment reinforces the principle that the registration of an F.I.R. is
a duty that must be carried out promptly upon the receipt of credible
information regarding a cognizable crime. The relevant paragraphs
are reproduced hereinbelow:
“83. In terms of the language used in Section 154 of the
Code, the police is duty-bound to proceed to conduct
investigation into a cognizable offence even without
receiving information (i.e. FIR) about commission of such
an offence, if the officer in charge of the police station
otherwise suspects the commission of such an offence.
The legislative intent is therefore quite clear i.e. to ensure
that every cognizable offence is promptly investigated
in accordance with law. This being the legal position,
there is no reason that there should be any discretion
or option left with the police to register or not to register
an FIR when information is given about the commission
of a cognizable offence. Every cognizable offence must
be investigated promptly in accordance with law and all
information provided under Section 154 of the Code about
the commission of a cognizable offence must be registered
as an FIR so as to initiate an offence. The requirement
of Section 154 of the Code is only that the report must
disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and that
is sufficient to set the investigating machinery into action.”
(Emphasis supplied)

34. The foregoing discussion leads us to the inevitable conclusion that
when an informant approaches the police with information regarding
the commission of a cognizable offence, the police owes a duty to
promptly register an F.I.R. and initiate investigation in accordance
with Section 154 of the CrPC. The police authorities are not vested
with any discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry to assess the
credibility of the information before registering the F.I.R. Any such
practice would be contrary to the established principles of criminal law.
1632 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

35. Over a period of time, this Court through its legion of decisions, has
emphasized the necessity of ensuring the prompt registration of
F.I.R. to uphold the rule of law and prevent any undue delay in the
commencement of criminal investigation. Timely registration of an
F.I.R. not only ensures that crucial evidence is preserved but also
serves to protect the rights of victims by setting the criminal justice
process in motion without unnecessary procedural impediments.
36. In the present case, the appellants had approached the territorial police
station on 21.07.2023 and 09.09.2023 respectively for registration
of an F.I.R., alleging foul play and commission of offence under the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. The appellant nos. 1 and 2 respectively, further, on
11.09.2023, addressed a detailed letter to the Deputy Commissioner
of Police, South-West, New Delhi for registration of F.I.R. However, no
heed was paid to the fervent appeal made by the appellants herein.
37. The husband of appellant no. 3 (father of Ayush Ashna) in his
complaint, dated 21.07.2023 addressed to the D.C.P., Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi, had informed the Police that his son, Ayush Ashna, was
facing caste-based harassment from his hostel inmates as well as
the faculty members. He further informed the Police that his son had
to change his hostel owing to his caste category being revealed in
the branch change list. He, therefore, demanded an investigation
into his son’s untimely and unnatural death.
38. Appellant nos. 1 and 2 respectively in their complaint dated
09.09.2023, stated that the death of Anil Kumar was not due to
suicide, but was a result of murder based on caste hatred. They
also informed the Police that Anil Kumar was facing caste-based
discrimination including the use of derogatory caste-based words
by the members of the faculty.
39. There is no doubt that the offence alleged by the appellants in their
respective complaints disclosed commission of cognizable offences.
40. It is altogether a different thing to say that there is no element of
truth in what has been alleged by the appellants in their respective
complaints. It could just be a figment of their imagination. It could
also be just a reflection of their anger towards the management as
two young boys lost their lives. Even if the Police was of the view
that there was no element of truth in what had been alleged by the
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1633

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

appellants, it could have said so only after registering an F.I.R. and
conducting an investigation pursuant thereto. We say so because
this is the law. The Police could not have taken a shortcut just
because something happened in the hostel of an eminent educational
institution like IIT Delhi. It seems that the Police very quickly jumped
to the conclusion that the two boys were in some sort of depression
as they were not doing well in their studies. Such conclusion of
the Police may as well be correct. However, again, at the cost of
repetition, we say that such a conclusion could have been arrived
at only after following the due process of law, i.e., registration of
an F.I.R. and investigation. Nobody would have stopped the Police
from filing an appropriate closure report saying that no case is
made out. However, to close the entire matter after undertaking an
investigation under Section 174 of the CrPC is something which
we do not approve of.
41. It is legitimate to argue that the commission of suicide is not a
cognizable offence. A person who commits suicide goes beyond the
cognizance of police. What is cognizable in cases of suicide is the
abetment to commit suicide. Therefore, the complaint made by the
complainant must disclose abetment of commission of suicide by the
person named therein before an F.I.R. can be registered.
42. Further, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section
3(1)(q) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989”) is a cognizable
offence under Section 18 of the said Act. The relevant provision
reads thus:
“18-A. No enquiry or approval required. –
(1) For the purposes of this Act,-
i. preliminary enquiry shall not be required for
registration of a First Information Report against
any person; or
ii. the investigating officer shall not require approval
for the arrest, if necessary, of any person, against
whom an accusation of having committed an
offence under this Act has been made and no
procedure other than that provided under this
Act or the Code shall apply.”
1634 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

43. The aforementioned provision, in the most unambiguous language,
lays down that no preliminary enquiry is required for the registration
of an F.I.R. This leaves no room for the authorities to delve into
an investigation so as to determine the reasons leading to the
commission of suicide by the students when categorical statements
regarding caste-based harassment and discrimination were made
in the complaint. The SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 was enacted with the
intent to enlarge the scope of criminal liability by including several
acts or omissions of atrocities that were not covered by the I.P.C.
or the Protection of Civil Liberties Act, 1955 as summed up by this
Court in National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights v. Union of
India, (2017) 2 SCC 432.
44. We also take notice of the following:

“No. 15011/91/2013-SC/ST-W
Government of India/Bharat Sarkar
Ministry of Home Affairs
*****
NDCC - II Building,
Jai Singh Road
New Delhi
Dated the 12th October, 2015
To
The Chief Secretaries
All State Governments/UT Administrations

Subject: Advisory on no discrimination in compulsory
registration of FIRs-
Regarding

Sir/Madam,

1. Reference is invited to this Ministry’s Advisories
dated 10th May 2013 and 5th February 2014 regarding
compulsory registration of FIR u/s 154 Cr P.C. (copies
enclosed).
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1635

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

2. In these advisories it was made clear that as per section
154(1) of the Cr. P.C. a police officer is duty bound to
register a case on the basis of such information disclosing
a cognizable offence and FIR has to be registered
irrespective of territorial jurisdiction.
3. National Commission for Minorities in its Annual Report
2011-12 has recommended prompt action in registration
of FIRs, timely filing of charge sheet and speedy trial to
restore the faith of minorities. In this regard, it is pertinent
to note that registration of FIR is the first step in the whole
process. Therefore all States/UTs must ensure that utmost
promptness in registering FIRs is extended to all those who
approach the police for registration of FIRs without any
discrimination of whatever kind. Once again it is requested
to ensure that FIRs get registered in strict compliance to
above stated advisories.
4. It is requested to kindly ensure that these instructions
are circulated amongst all concerned Departments/
Organizations and others under your jurisdiction for strict
compliance.

Yours faithfully
Kumar Alok
Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India
Tel No. 23438100.”
45. We also take notice of the following advisory dated 5.02.2024 issued
by the Ministry of Home Affairs:

“Mo. 15011/91/2013 - SC/ST-W
Government of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
Centre State Division
5th Floor, NDCC-II Building
Jai Singh Road, New Delhi
Dated the 5th February, 2024
1636 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

To
The Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home
Department)
Sub:- Compulsory Registration of FIR u/s 154 Cr.P.C. when
the information makes out a cognizable offence
Sir/Madam,
This is in continuation to the earlier advisory of the Ministry
of Home Affairs dated 10-05-2013 regarding the registration
of FIR irrespective of territorial jurisdiction and zero FIR.
We had made it clear that as per section 154(1) of the
Cr. P.C. a police officer is duty bound to register a case
on the basis of such information disclosing a cognizable
offence. We had also made it clear that when it becomes
apparent that even if the offence has been committed
outside the jurisdiction of the police station, zero FIR would
still be registered and the FIR would be then transferred
to the appropriate police station as per Section 170 of
the Cr.P.C.
2. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in W.P,
(Cri.) No.68 of 2008 in Lalita Kumar Vs Government of
U.P. and others on 12-11-2013 had addressed the issue
of mandatory registration of FIRs and had held that
registration of FIR either on the basis of the information
furnished by the informant when it makes out a cognizable
offence u/s 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. or otherwise u/s 157(1)
of the Cr. P.C. is obligatory. It also held that reliability,
genuineness and credibility of the information are not
conditions precedent for registering a case u/s 154 of
the Cr. P.C. Since the legislative intent is to ensure
that every cognizable offence is promptly investigated
in accordance with law, hence there is no discretion or
option left with the police to register or not to register
an FIR once information of a cognizable offence has
been provided. The court was quite perturbed about the
burking of crime registration and has concluded that
non-registration of crime leads to dilution of rule of law
and thus leads to definite lawlessness in the society,
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1637

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

which is detrimental to the society as a whole. It has
hence called for action against erring officers who do
not register an FIR if information received by him/her
discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. It may
be mentioned that Section 166A of Cr.P.C. prescribes a
penalty of imprisonment up to two years and also a fine
for non-registration of a FIR for an offence described u/s
166A. It may be also mentioned that if after investigation
the information given is found to be false, there is always
an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false
FIR under Chapter XI of the I.P.C.
3. The Supreme Court has provided for some exceptions
to the mandatory registration of FIR and for the conduct
of preliminary inquiry which are as follows:
(a) If the information received does not disclose the
commission of cognizable offence but indicates the
necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be
conducted only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is
disclosed or not. If the inquiry discloses the commission of
a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases
where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a
copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the
first informant within one week and it must also disclose
the reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not
proceeding further.
(b) The other categories of cases in which preliminary
inquiry may be made are:
(i) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(ii) Commercial offences
(iii) Medical negligence cases
(iv) Corruption cases
(v) Cases where there is an abnormal delay in
initiating criminal prosecution.
Example: over 3 months delay in reporting the matter
without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay
1638 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(vi) The Supreme Court has also insisted that all
preliminary inquiries should be completed within
7 days and any delay with the causes should be
reflected in the General Diary/Station House Diary/
Daily Diary.
4. The Supreme Court has, inter-alia, deprecated the
practice of first recording the information in the General
Diary and then conducting a preliminary inquiry and
thereafter registering the FIR. It has clarified that
registration of the FIR is to be done in the FIR Register/
Book (in the standard format prescribed) and in addition,
the gist or substance of the FIR is to be recorded in the
General Diary as mandated in the Police Act or Police
Regulations.
5. In addition, to ensure accountability in the functioning of
police, the Supreme Court emphasized that all actions of
the police should be reduced to writing and documented
through entries made in the General Diary of the Police
Station.
6. Home Departments of the States/UTs may direct the
DGPs/IGPs to issue necessary instructions in the light of
the above advisory so that ail police officers are made
aware of them and the contents are also incorporated in
the training curriculum of the police personnel.
7. The receipt of the same may kindly be acknowledged.”
(S. Suresh Kumar)
Joint Secretary (CS)”
46. The aforesaid advisory makes the following very clear:
i. Registration of an F.I.R. is mandatory under Section 154
of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a
cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible
in such a situation.
ii. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable
offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a
preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain
whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1639

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

iii. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence, the F.I.R. must be registered. In cases where
preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy
of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first
informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must
disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not
proceeding further.
iv. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering the
offence if a cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be
taken against erring officers who do not register an F.I.R. if
information received by them discloses a cognizable offence.
v. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity
or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain
whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
vi. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to
be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances
of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary
inquiry may be made are as under:
a. Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b. Commercial offences
c. Medical negligence cases
d. Corruption cases
e. Cases where there is an abnormal delay in initiating
criminal prosecution, for example, over three months
delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily
explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are
only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions
which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
vii. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused
and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be
made time bound and in any case it should not exceed
7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must
be reflected in the General Diary entry.
viii. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the
record of all information received in a police station, we
1640 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

direct that all information relating to cognizable offences,
whether resulting in registration of an F.I.R. or leading to
an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected
in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary
inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.

F. CONCLUSION
47. We are of the view that responsibility of maintaining the safety and
well-being of students rests heavily on the administration of every
educational institution. Therefore, in the event of any unfortunate
incident, such as a suicide occurring on campus, it becomes their
unequivocal duty to promptly lodge an F.I.R. with the appropriate
authorities. Such action is not only a legal obligation but also a moral
imperative to ensure transparency, accountability, and the pursuit of
justice. Simultaneously, it is incumbent upon the police authorities
to act with diligence and responsibility by registering the FIR without
refusal or delay. This ensures that due process of law is upheld, and
a thorough investigation can be conducted to uncover the truth and
address any underlying causes. The harmonious discharge of these
duties by both educational institutions and law enforcement agencies is
essential to prevent the recurrence of such tragedies and to preserve
trust in societal institutions. In a given case, failure on part of the
administration of any educational institution may be viewed strictly.
48. For all the foregoing reasons we direct the DCP (South-West District,
New Delhi) to register the First Information Report in line with two
respective complaints lodged in writing by the kith and kin of the two
students who committed suicide and depute any responsible officer,
not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, to undertake
the investigation in accordance with law. We need not say anything
further as investigation of any crime is within the domain of the police.

G. NATIONAL TASK FORCE TO ADDRESS THE MENTAL
HEALTH CONCERNS OF STUDENTS AND PREVENT THE
COMMISSION OF SUICIDES IN HIGHER EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS
49. However, we do not intend to close the matter just with a direction
to register the F.I.R. We deem it absolutely necessary to discuss the
disturbing pattern of student suicides being reported from various
educational institutes across the country.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1641

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

50. On 19th March, 2025, a third-year law student, aged 21 years, at
the Gujarat National Law University (GNLU) was found dead in
his dorm room. The deceased student was a native of Patiala in
Punjab. He had apparently hanged himself from the latch and was
found on the floor.1
51. On 25th February, 2025, a third-year student at the Indian Institute
of Technology, Patna took his life by allegedly jumping from the
seventh floor of his hostel premises situated within the campus itself
allegedly owing to excessive academic pressure.2
52. On 15th February, 2025, a third-year student pursuing a Bachelors
in Technology from Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT)
campus in Bhubaneswar, Odisha, was found hanging from the ceiling
fan in her hostel room on account of alleged sexual harassment and
blackmailing by a fellow student.3
53. On 18 February, 2024, a second-year student at the College of
Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Wayanad, Kerala, was found hanging
in the bathroom of his hostel, after allegedly being tortured by his
seniors and batchmates days before his death.4
54. What disturbs us even more is that the abovementioned incidents
are not isolated one-off occurrences but are only a few out of the
many which have taken place over a period of time owing to a
multitude of reasons like ragging, academic pressure, caste-based
discrimination, sexual harassment, etc. As per the data provided by
the Union Minister of State for Education to the Rajya Sabha in 2023,
98 students died by suicide in higher educational institutes since
2018, out of which 39 were from IITs, 25 from NITs, 25 from central
universities, four from IIMs, three from IISERs and two from IIITs.5
55. Each suicide is a personal tragedy that prematurely takes the life of
an individual and has a continuing ripple effect, affecting the lives of

1 Gujarat National Law University student ends life on campus, The Times of India, March 19, 2025.
2 IIT Patna student dies by ‘suicide’ on campus, The Indian Express, February 27, 2025.
3 Why suicide of Nepali student at Odisha’s KIIT campus forced Nepal PM to intervene, Firstpost, February
18, 2025.
4 Wayanad student suicide: Six arrested for college student’s suicide, The New Indian Express, February
29, 2024.
5 98 students died by suicide in higher educational institutes since 2018: Centre, Hindustan Times, July
27, 2023.
1642 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

families, friends and communities. According to the 210th Report of
the Law Commission of India, suicide has been identified as one of
the most significant factors contributing to the premature and unnatural
cessation of human life.6 The statistics contained in the Report of the
National Crime Records Bureau (for short, “the NCRB”) for the year
2021 highlight the grim reality of over 13,000 students having lost
their lives by committing suicide in the country which is almost twice
the already disturbing number a decade ago. The number of student
suicides has now surpassed suicides committed by farmers due to
agrarian distress, with a four percent rise in 2024 alone.7 According to
the NCRB Report titled “Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India, 2022”
student suicides accounted for 7.6% of the total number of suicides
committed in India in 2022 with 1.2% of total suicides attributable
to professional/career problems and 1.2% to failure in examination.
56. In the backdrop of the rising incidence of student suicides on college
campuses and in higher educational institutions, including the Indian
Institutes of Technology (IITs), National Institutes of Technology
(NITs) and Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), we believe that it
is high time we take cognizance of this serious issue and formulate
comprehensive and effective guidelines to address and mitigate the
underlying causes contributing to such distress among students.
57. We believe from our little understanding that the suicide epidemic in
educational institutions can be attributed to a plethora of factors including
but not limited to academic pressure, caste-based discrimination,
financial stress, and sexual harassment, with eminent institutions like
the IITs and NITs reporting high rates linked to exam failures8.
58. A number of news reports point out that caste-based discrimination is
rampant and pervasive, even in prestigious educational institutions,
aggravating the sense of alienation among students from marginalised
communities. Caste-based discrimination on college campuses is in
clear violation of Article 15 of the Constitution which inter alia prohibits
discrimination on the ground of caste. In response to a question put
up in the Rajya Sabha in 2021, the Ministry of Education submitted

6 Law Commission of India, Report No. 210 on the Humanisation and Decriminalisation of Attempt to
Suicide, Para 1.5 (October 2008).
7 More Students Dying by Suicide Than Farmers Reveals Another Deadly Crisis, The Quint, October 23,
2024.
8 Id.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1643

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

that 60% of the students who dropped-out from seven reputed IITs
belonged to the reserved categories.
59. We are aware that a coordinate Bench of this Court is in seisin of
the issue pertaining to caste-based discrimination in educational
institutions in the case of Abeda Salim Tadvi & Anr. v. Union of
India & Ors., (W.P. (C) No. 1149/2019). Pursuant to the directions
of this Court in the said matter, the University Grants Commission
(for short, “the UGC”) has published the draft University Grants
Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions)
Regulations, 2025. The avowed object of the said Regulations is
to ensure a safe, inclusive, and equitable learning environment for
all students, faculty members, and staff by preventing any form of
discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth
within Higher Educational Institutions.
60. The aforesaid draft Regulations published by the UGC also assume
importance as the phenomenon of “othering” of students belonging
to the marginalised communities, whether based on caste, gender
or ethnicity, is being reported with an increasing frequency and it is
only through sensitization of students and the faculty members that
it can be ensured that campuses become safe spaces which are
equal for students coming from the different walks of life.
61. While the steps taken by the UGC pursuant to the directions of this
Court in Abeda Salim Tadvi (supra) are in the right direction inasmuch
as they aim to prevent all forms of on-campus discrimination, we
intend to take a step further towards creating an institutionalised
mechanism for ensuring the mental well-being of students studying
in Higher Educational Institutions so as to mitigate the instances of
commission of suicides by students owing to discrimination, academic
pressure, harassment, or any other concern affecting the mental
well-being of students.
62. Based on a survey conducted by Seena Mary Thankachan, a
researcher at the Pune International Centre, it was reported that
70% of the faculty members across IITs felt ill-equipped to address
mental health issues, and 90% lacked proper training to support
students with such sensitive concerns.9 Implementing strict anti-

9 OPINION: The silent crisis in the IITs, The Week, July 27, 2024.
1644 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

discrimination policies, cultural sensitivity training, and support
groups for marginalised students is crucial to uproot institutional
and systemic discrimination against disadvantaged groups which
effectively undermines their full and equal social, economic, political,
and cultural participation in society.10
63. The relentless pressure to perform in a purely score-based education
system, coupled with the extreme competition for limited seats in
premier educational institutions, places a terrifying burden on the
students’ mental health. The inordinate burden on students to work
on multiple projects simultaneously exacerbates academic pressure.
Several students who come from competitive coaching centres bring
pre-existing mental health issues, which get further heightened when
they enter Higher Educational Institutions. Although it is difficult to
eradicate this distress yet it can be managed by introducing flexible
curricula, continuous assessment methods, structured support for
managing backlogs and on campus support for psychological issues
faced by the students.11
64. Another cause of student suicides remains brutality in the form
of ragging, which is often concealed by colleges and universities
to safeguard their reputation. This violates the right to dignity and
education of students. It has been clarified by this Court in Farzana
Batool v. Union of India, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 3433 that “while
the right to pursue higher (professional) education has not been spelt
out as a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution, it bears
emphasis that access to professional education is not a governmental
largesse. Instead, the State has an affirmative obligation to facilitate
access to education, at all levels.”
65. The R.K. Raghavan Committee was appointed to curb the menace of
ragging which detailed the causes and actionable remedies in its 2007
Report. It was pointed out by the Committee that most State laws only
seek to prohibit, and not prevent, ragging, and “while prevention must
lead to prohibition, the reverse need not be true.” There also exist
the UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher
Educational Institutions 2009, however, news reports have pointed out
that tangible actions have not been taken by the stakeholders other

10 Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3129.
11 Supra 8.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1645

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

than mere formalities such as mandating undertakings from students
and parents against indulging in ragging, and putting up no-ragging
notices on university premises.12 While the existing guidelines need to
be enforced, there is also a requirement of bringing in new measures
for providing psychological support to victims of ragging so as to stop
them from taking extreme steps like commission of suicide.
66. We are of the firm view that universities must acknowledge their role
not just as centres of learning but as institutions responsible for the
well-being and holistic development of their students. The failure to
do so would mean failing the very purpose of education – to uplift,
empower, and transform lives. Universities assume the role of a
parent when a student leaves his home and comes to study on the
campus of the university. As per the principle of ‘loco parentis’ when
a student at the adolescent age or childhood is sent to school by the
parents, it is also the duty of the school authorities to play the role
of parents in safeguarding the intertest and welfare of the students.
A person in loco parentis means a person taking upon himself the
duty of a father of a child to make a provision for that child. The duty
of the college authorities is not just to ensure academic excellence
of the students but also to ensure their mental well-being, and not
just exercise authority and control over students but also to provide
support in times of distress.
67. The nation has already suffered the tragic loss of numerous students –
young individuals with immense potential who could have gone on to
become successful professionals. However, due to the absence of
adequate institutional support, they were driven to take the extreme
step of ending their own lives. These distressing incidents not only
highlight systemic failures but also expose a severe lack of institutional
empathy and accountability on the part of educational institutions.
When academic environments fail to address discrimination,
harassment, and mental health concerns effectively, they contribute
to a culture of neglect that can have devastating consequences.
68. As a society, and as stakeholders in shaping the future of our youth,
we must take collective responsibility to ensure that no more lives
are lost due to apathy or indifference. It is imperative for institutions
to have a culture of sensitivity and proactive intervention so that

12 Unending ordeal: On continuing acts of ragging, The Hindu, November 27, 2023.
1646 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

every student feels safe, supported, and empowered to pursue their
aspirations without fear or discrimination.
69. The recurring instances of student suicides in Higher Educational
Institutions, including private educational institutions, serve as a grim
reminder of the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of the existing legal
and institutional framework in addressing mental health concerns of
students on campuses and to prevent the students from taking the
extreme step of committing suicides. These tragedies underscore
the urgent need for a more robust, comprehensive, and responsive
mechanism to address the various factors which compel certain
students to resort to taking their own lives. In light of the concerns
expressed above, a National Task Force to address the mental health
concerns of students and prevent the commission of suicides in Higher
Educational Institutions is being constituted and shall comprise of
the following members:
i. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Former Judge, Supreme Court of
India, as the Chairperson;
ii. Dr. Alok Sarin, Consultant Psychiatrist, Sitaram Bhartia Institute
of Science & Research, New Delhi;
iii. Prof. Mary E. John (retired), Former Director, Centre for Women’s
Development Studies, New Delhi;
iv. Mr. Arman Ali, Executive Director, National Centre for Promotion
of Employment for Disabled People;
v. Prof. Rajendar Kachroo, Founder, Aman Satya Kachroo Trust;
vi. Dr. Aqsa Shaikh, Professor of the Department of Community
Medicine in Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences and
Research, New Delhi;
vii. Dr. Seema Mehrotra, Professor of Clinical Psychology,
NIMHANS;
viii. Prof. Virginius Xaxa, Visiting Professor at the Institute for Human
Development (IHD), New Delhi;
ix. Dr. Nidhi S. Sabharwal, Associate Professor, Centre for Policy
Research in Higher Education, National University of Educational
Planning and Administration, New Delhi;
x. Ms. Aparna Bhat, Senior Advocate (as amicus curiae).
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1647

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

70. The following shall be the ex-officio members of this Task Force:
i. Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of
Education, Government of India;
ii. Secretary, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment,
Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India;
iii. Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development,
Government of India;
iv. Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and
Justice, Government of India.
71. We direct the Chief Secretaries of all the States/Union Territories to
nominate a high ranking officer, not below the rank of Joint Secretary
in the Department of Higher Education of the respective State/Union
Territory, to act as the nodal officer on behalf of the respective State/
Union Territory. We further direct all the concerned departments/
authorities of the respective State/Union Territory to cooperate with
the nodal officer concerned and furnish necessary information, data
and assistance as may be sought by such nodal officer.
72. The Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of
Education, Government of India shall act as the convener of the
Task Force.
73. The Task Force includes representatives from diverse fields to ensure
an interdisciplinary approach to tackling the issue of commission of
suicides in Higher Educational Institutions.
74. The remit of this Task Force is to prepare a comprehensive report
that includes:

i. Identification of the predominant causes which lead to
commission of suicides by students: An examination of
the various causes which lead to student suicides in Higher
Educational Institutions, including but not limited to ragging,
caste-based discrimination, gender-based discrimination, sexual
harassment, academic pressure, financial burden, mental health
related stigma, discrimination based on ethnicity, tribal identity,
disability, sexual orientation, political views, religious belief or
any other grounds.
1648 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

ii. Analysis of Existing Regulations: A thorough assessment
of the effectiveness of current laws, policies, and institutional
frameworks applicable to Higher Educational Institutions
concerning ragging, caste-based and gender-based
discrimination, sexual harassment, mental health support,
support for students facing academic challenges, financial
support to students in need of funds, etc. This analysis will
evaluate whether these frameworks adequately address the
challenges faced by students.

iii. Recommendations for Strengthening Protections: Proposing
necessary reforms to the existing legal and institutional
frameworks to ensure stronger enforcement, accountability,
and preventive measures. The Task Force shall also put forth
recommendations to address existing gaps, create a more
inclusive and supportive academic environment, and ensure
equal opportunities for members of marginalized communities.
75. In the process of preparing its report, the Task Force shall have the
authority to conduct surprise inspections of any Higher Educational
Institution. Additionally, the Task Force shall be at liberty to make
further recommendations beyond the specified mandate, wherever
necessary, to ensure a holistic and effective approach towards
addressing mental-health concerns of students and eliminating the
incidence of suicides in Higher Educational Institutions. The Task
Force is requested to take into account the views and concerns of
all stakeholders, including those of student unions, whether elected
or nominated and other student representative bodies, wherever they
exist. The Task Force is also requested to seek representation from
and consult the governments of all the States and Union Territories.
The Task Force may also consider obtaining the views of the different
stakeholders by way of circulating a questionnaire and seeking written
responses thereupon.
76. It is clarified that the term “Higher Educational Institution” is used
broadly to cover all higher educational institutions, including
government and private universities, deemed to be universities,
government and private colleges, etc.
77. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education;
the Secretary, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment,
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1649

Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment; the Secretary, Ministry
of Women and Child Development; and the Secretary, Department
of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India,
shall collaborate with the Task Force and extend full cooperation
by providing all necessary information, documents, and resources
required by the Task Force to effectively carry out its mandate.
78. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education,
Government of India shall serve as the Member-Secretary of the
Task Force. The Ministry of Education, Government of India shall
be responsible for providing all necessary logistical support to
facilitate the functioning of the Task Force. This shall include making
arrangements for travel, accommodation, and secretarial assistance,
as well as covering all related expenses of the Task Force members.
The Ministry shall provide a sufficiently large office space to the
Task Force for holding its meetings and also to enable the officials
to carry on its day-to-day activities. Additionally, the Ministry shall
provide an appropriate honorarium to the members in recognition
of their contributions.
79. We also direct that the Central Government, the Governments of all
the States/Union Territories and agencies thereof, and Universities
shall extend their full and active cooperation to the Task Force and
provide the requisite data, information and assistance, as may be
necessary. In the case of delay, reluctance or neglect on part of the
aforesaid bodies, the Task Force will be at liberty to approach this
Court through the amicus curiae seeking remedial actions.
80. The Chairperson of the Task Force shall be at liberty to engage
the services of any person for the purpose of providing secretarial
assistance in coordinating with the members of the Task Force,
preparation of the interim and final report and for the smooth and
effective discharge of any other responsibilities as may arise during
the course of carrying out the mandate of the Task Force. This
shall include the engagement of the services of Data Analysts and
Research Assistants as may be necessary for the effective discharge
of the mandate of the Task Force.
81. The Chairperson of the Task Force shall also be at liberty to constitute,
after due consultation with the members of the Task Force, committees
and sub-committees as may be required for the purpose of carrying
out specific functions.
1650 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

82. We direct the Union of India to deposit an amount of Rupees Twenty
Lacs (Rs 20,00,000/-) with the Registry within two weeks from the
date of this order as an outlay for the initial operations of the Task
Force. The amicus curiae shall be at liberty to move an appropriate
application seeking orders for disbursement of any additional funds,
whenever necessary. We clarify that this amount is in addition to the
financial and administrative responsibility of the Ministry of Education
as described aforesaid.
83. The Task Force is requested to present an interim report within four
months from the date of this order. The final report shall be submitted
preferably within eight months from the date of this order.
84. We treat this matter as part heard. The registry shall notify this matter
after four months alongwith the interim report of the Task Force before
this very Bench (J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.) after obtaining
appropriate orders from Honourable the Chief Justice of India.

Result of the case: Directions issued.

Headnotes prepared by: Swathi H. Prasad, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)