Mental Health Care at Ashoka Starts Looking Like a Punishment: Students Afraid to Seek Help

In recent weeks, Ashoka University has asked several students to vacate the campus until they are evaluated and deemed “fit” to return by a registered medical professional. Some students were not permitted to enrol in the Summer 2025 semester, while others were sent home midway through the term, which runs from 7th July to 15th August, leading to a loss of academic opportunity. While intended as a response to mental health concerns from the administrative side, the procedures in place offer limited clarity on both student reintegration and long-term support.

A student, who was sent back home earlier this summer, shared his experience with The Edict about the university’s crisis response. Akshit Kothari* recounted that after his first counselling session with YourDost (Student Care Office’s third-party counselling partner) on 3rd May 2025, he was quickly referred to a campus psychiatrist and prescribed medication. "I took the first dose on 5th May. Within half an hour, my heartbeat was racing, my breath got fast, I completely panicked." Despite raising concerns about the treatment he was being given, he was placed under observation in the infirmary and assigned a 24-hour guard even though he did not report any instances of self-harm. "Even to go to the washroom, the guard would follow. It was like they had kept me on suicide watch," he explained.

He said he had repeatedly requested that the university not inform his family, but was not consulted when his brother was contacted on 11th May. "They just called my brother without telling me, and said I had depression and that my mental health wasn’t fine." He added, "I had told everyone, from the psychiatrist to the infirmary staff, that I didn’t want my family to know. That was the only thing I asked."

After being discharged, he was told that he could no longer stay on campus. "I’m on exceptional  [financial] aid. My family can’t afford last-minute travel. My brother had to take a loan to come pick me up. Four of us had to fly back the same day, me, my brother, a friend, and his sister. It was extremely difficult." He said, "I’m on aid for a reason. I can’t just leave campus whenever asked."

When he planned to return , he was informed by the Young Scholars Programme (YSP) team, where he was supposed to be interning, that he would not be allowed back. "I had booked my flight for 19th May. On 17th May, I found out I was blocked from campus." When he contacted the Residence Life Office, he said that he was refused any explanation. "Thompson Sir [the warden] just said, 'You cannot enter campus. We cannot tell you the reason.'"

Just two days before his scheduled return, he received an email listing requirements for re-entry, including a medical fitness certificate and university permission. "No one told me I’d been deemed medically unfit. Suddenly, I had to get documents, clearance, all without help or time. It felt impossible." That same day, his YSP offer was formally withdrawn. The YSP team later stated that the decision had been communicated to them by the Residence Life Office, and that they had no further information about the withdrawal. 

Under the Resident Life Policy (2022)**, a student may be removed from campus if they exhibit active self-harm, suicidal ideation, threats to others, or severe disorientation. The immediate response includes referral to the on-campus infirmary, followed by one or more of the following actions, as advised by the duty doctor:

• Admission to the infirmary,

• Referral to an external hospital,

• Sending the student home to their guardian.

The  Resident Life policy also distinguishes between a mental health emergency and a mental health crisis: the former being life-threatening, and the latter involving severe emotional or behavioural distress. In both cases, the Residence Life Helpline or Warden is contacted, and in some instances, the student is escorted to the infirmary by peers.

Following this, The Edict spoke to Dheeraj Sanghi, the Dean of Student Affairs, about the authority behind these decisions. “It is completely left to the psychiatrist. He has to say that parental guidance or parental care is needed, that is when we tell the student,” he said. This centralisation of authority leaves little room for checks, balances, or appeals, and reinforces how mental health-related decisions remain personalised rather than standardised.

Ahana Walanju (UG’ 26), Vice President of the Ashoka University Student Government (AUSG), raised concerns about a lack of policy guiding decisions such as parental involvement or student removal from campus. “Each case is different, but there are no defined criteria. Actions are taken without clear guidelines, which is deeply problematic”.

Some students, unable to remain in campus housing, have been relocated to off-campus residences like TDI, which is managed by Residence Life and Team Operations at Ashoka University. These decisions are made by the Residence Life Office, often without involving those previously supporting the student, such as counsellors or AUSG representatives, said Walanju.

Walanju also outlined the fragmented nature of mental health support on campus, citing the absence of a clear, centralised protocol. “There are multiple chains of command,” she said. Students may approach the Ashoka Centre for Well-being (ACWB), the on-campus psychiatrist, the Student Government, or even individual staff members. However, in emergencies, the process eventually leads to the Residence Life office, currently headed by Sahana Majumdar.

While the Student Government acts as a support system, it is not involved in official decisions. “We redirect concerns to ACWB or the Student Care Office and coordinate where possible. But once Residence Life takes over, they often act independently,” Walanju explained.

The Disaster Recovery Plan also outlines immediate responses to suicide or attempted suicide: medical intervention, scene management, and family notification. Confidential communication is emphasised, and post-incident care includes counselling, peer/faculty support, and wellness checks. However, there is no standard framework for reintegration, and students are expected to provide documentation or undertakings before returning, without clear criteria for evaluation.

Atharva Salve (UG’ 27), the newly constituted Student Grievance Redressal Cell’s (SGRC) undergraduate representative, raised concerns about a broader trend. "There seems to be a funnel, from counsellors to psychiatrists, flagging students who are struggling and sending them straight home. It’s like mental health is being pathologised and punished." According to Salve, the same templated email has been sent to multiple students, outlining identical procedures for return, which include a medical fitness certificate, university review, and approval. "It makes students feel disposable. People have told me they regret even asking for help."

Salve said that he was compelled to send an email to the student body after Kothari’s* internship offer was revoked and he was denied re-entry to campus. "The driving emotion was anger and frustration, towards the administration’s arbitrary handling of mental health," he said. Kothari, his friend and a student on exceptional financial aid, had visited the university psychiatrist, was prescribed SSRIs***, and shortly after, experienced a dip in mood. “That’s a known side effect," Salve explained. Additionally, Salve said that, instead of receiving support, Kothari* was told to go home.

Salve also questioned whether students could trust Ashoka’s mental health services at all. Despite being elected, he noted that the SGRC had no mandate yet. "I’ve received no communication from the chair. So, consider me not a rep, but just a concerned student."

In a related development, an AUSG member was suspended on 19th July 2025, and their AUSG membership was revoked by a special committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor. It made the decision on medical grounds, without consulting the AUSG or Election Commission. The process did not involve any formally qualified mental health professionals and was based on internal interviews. 

The AUSG, subsequently, raised concerns over the use of Clause 14 of the Disciplinary Guidelines, which allows the Vice-Chancellor to act on matters outside formal procedures. While acknowledging this discretionary power, they questioned the lack of transparency in its application and the absence of clarity around the “Special Committee” involved in the decision. This has drawn attention to how such decisions are made and whether there are clear institutional mechanisms for student reintegration and long-term support.

Walanju subsequently proposed the formation of an independent committee - including students, faculty, counselors, and administrators - to handle such situations. “The Student Government is inherently biased in favour of students. An independent body would allow for fairer, more transparent processes.”The core issue, she added, is systemic. “This isn’t just miscommunication-it’s a structural gap. The lack of formal policy is at the root of it all.”

The updated Residence Life Policy, released on 30 July, now mandates students to declare all prescribed mental health medication to the Office of Residence Life and submit a current prescription at the start of each semester. A new 7-day rule restricts students from storing more than a week's supply of medication at any time, and refills are to befacilitated through the infirmary or a designated pharmacy. The policy also introduces greater parental involvement, with families being notified in cases of recurring severe anxiety episodes. In such instances, students may be advised to seek off-campus care, in consultation with mental health professionals. Parents or guardians are required to co-sign an undertaking agreeing to these conditions.

However, off-campus care is now being recommended more frequently and, in several instances, for cases that appear less severe than those outlined in the official policy. Ajitesh Vishwanath (UG’27), the Minister for Community Well-being (MCWB), raised concerns about the policy’s adverse effects, calling it “deeply invasive.” He noted that treatment decisions are personal and legally private, especially for adult students. “We’ve seen parents being contacted without consent and declarations forced upon students,” he said. He also added, “If students are prescribed rare psychiatric medications, [from] where is the infirmary going to source them reliably every week?”, noting that delays in access could severely disrupt treatment and put students at risk. The new policies already appear to be discouraging students from seeking care, Vishwanath mentioned, with some students stating they would prefer to isolate themselves rather than risk surveillance or removal from campus.

The MCWB has argued that while well-intentioned, the new mental health policies risk eroding student trust in the long term and pose an immediate threat to the wellbeing of the most vulnerable students from the moment they arrive on campus. The ministry contends that existing care systems at Ashoka are widely perceived as inept, ineffective, or discriminatory, and are not equipped to provide the level of support these policies require.

Speaking on this new policy, Walanju told The Edict, “While the updated policies were intended to address the earlier lack of clarity in certain procedures, they appear instead to further disrupt student life on campus. Provisions relating to ‘seeking permission to access campus spaces for demonstrations’ and the procurement and storage of medical prescriptions grant the administration broad discretionary power in handling such matters, while imposing severe penalties for any violations.”

Several students also expressed concern over the broader implications of the university's recent actions. “I think the way that they have suspended the SG member is a horrible precedent for future political activism at Ashoka,” said Mohit Mukherji* (UG’27). “The fact that they experienced this as someone from a non-dominant community may have direct repercussions on how open people will be politically, especially if they are from non-savarna groups.”

Another student (UG ’27) anonymously shared with The Edict, “It’s pretty sad that instead of focusing on helping students, the admin wants to hide it. Essentially, it means they’re fine with us being in dangerous states, just not on campus. People, including me, are scared of approaching ACWB with their issues.”

Charvi Khullar (UG ’27) and a former AUSG Council member, said that the suspension “represents more than just the power of the Vice Chancellor—it represents the powerlessness of the student body.” She added, “The admin has offered nothing but specious rationales for their actions, almost like it’s their right to be repressive. It’s all very scary. I would not have run for student government last year if something like this had happened.”

*Pseudonyms have been provided to these individuals to preserve their anonymity. 

**The Residence Life Policy was recently updated on 30 July 2025.

***Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs), commonly prescribed as first-line medication for depression, anxiety disorders, and other mood-related conditions, are frequently used in treatment plans.

(Edited by Sahana Radhakrishnan, Madiha Tariq, and Tanush Guha)