New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken due cognizance of the rise in the students’ deaths in Kota, Rajasthan. On Friday, the bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan pointed to the 14 deaths reported from the city in 2025.
“What are you doing as a state? Why are these children dying by suicide and only in Kota? Have you not thought of it as a state?” Justice Pardiwala asked the counsel representing the state of Rajasthan. The lawyer said a Special investigation team (SIT) was formed in the state to examine the cases.
The Court was hearing a matter over the death of a 22-year-old IIT, Kharagpur student on May 4 this year and questioned the four-day delay in registering of the FIR. The FIR was registered on May 8.
“Why did you take four days to lodge an FIR?” the bench asked a police officer who was present in court. The officer said the FIR was lodged and the investigation in the case was underway. “You continue with the investigation in accordance with law,” the Bench told him.
“We could have taken a very strict view of the matter. We could have even proceeded for contempt against the police officer-in-charge concerned of the jurisdictional police station,” the bench observed.
The Court then turned its attention to Kota.
“How many young students have died so far in Kota?” the Bench asked the state counsel, to which he answered 14. “Why are these students dying?” the Bench retorted, adding that the Task Force constituted by the Court would take its time before giving a composite report to the court.
“You are in contempt of our judgment. Why have you not registered the FIR?” the bench asked Rajasthan’s counsel, regarding another case where a girl, who was a NEET aspirant, was found dead in her room in Kota where she lived with her parents.
The Bench noted the student was not residing in the accommodations provided by her institute, which she left in November 2024 and started living with her parents.
“However, in line with our decision, it was the duty of the police concerned to register the FIR and carry out the investigation. The officer in-charge of the concerned territorial police station has failed in his duty. He has not complied with the directions issued by this court,” the Bench said and summoned the police officer concerned to explain the situation.
