Cart is empty 
Facts of the Case:
Table of Contents
A PIL was filed by behavioural coach, a member of a family of lawyers, was brought before the Supreme Court of India. Petitioner sought the establishment of a platform to address the growing mental health concerns of lawyers in the profession. The petition highlighted the pressures of the legal profession, pointing out how stress, work-life imbalance, long working hours, and intense work environments have led to mental health issues and even suicides among lawyers. The petitioner argued that the profession urgently needed a mental health framework based on targeted research to prevent distress and physical ailments caused by mental health issues. The petitioners’ concern was that, without proper preventive care, stress could manifest in physical conditions like headaches, gastrointestinal issues, fatigue, and even lead to suicides, citing the instance of at least 20 lawyers who had committed suicide in the past year due to these stressors.
The petition sought two primary reliefs:
- The creation of a platform to address mental health issues specifically for the legal fraternity.
- The constitution of a Committee or Commission to assess the mental health status of lawyers in the country with input from stakeholders and expert bodies.
Contentions of the Parties:
The petitioner contended that the legal profession is facing a mental health crisis, which manifests as both psychological and physical ailments among lawyers. The petitioner emphasized that mental stress often leads to conditions like tension headaches, gastrointestinal issues, insomnia, and other health problems, many of which go unaddressed until they reach critical levels. The petition also pointed out that suicides within the legal community were a significant concern, with at least 20 lawyers having committed suicide in the past year alone, likely due to the intense pressures of the profession. Petitioner argued that there is a glaring gap in mental health support for legal professionals, urging the creation of a platform to address these concerns.
Court’s Observations:
The Supreme Court, led by CJI Chandrachud, observed that while the concern about the mental health of legal professionals was valid, the petition was not something that could be addressed through judicial intervention. The bench remarked, “Bar associations must take the lead and address the issue of mental health,” signalling that the solution lies with the legal community itself. CJI Chandrachud further noted that issues of mental wellness are prevalent across various professions, and the government would likely need to consider multiple stakeholders, not just lawyers, when addressing mental health concerns across sectors.
When the Senior Advocate for the petitioner pointed to the Indian Medical Association’s role in addressing mental health for doctors, the Chief Justice commented that such concerns should be addressed within the legal profession by those involved directly in the field, such as Bar associations.
While dismissing the PIL, the Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition with the liberty to make representations before the Bar Council of India to initiate discussions on the matter.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court refused to entertain the PIL, stating that the issue of mental health among legal professionals requires policy consideration and is not amenable to judicial review. The Court made it clear that Bar Associations must take the initiative in addressing the issue of mental health within the profession, noting that such matters are more appropriately handled through professional bodies rather than through the judiciary. The bench granted the petitioner the liberty to make representations before the Bar Council of India, which could potentially lead to the formulation of a framework to address these concerns.