Back
Lady Lawyers Association plea: directs Centre to file on counselling regulation
The has directed the to file an regarding the of the Act, 2021 (NCAHP Act), in a seeking a comprehensive for mental health counselling services in India. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. issued the direction on Wednesday () while hearing a petition filed by the . The matter has been posted for further hearing after three weeks.
The PIL highlights the absence of a dedicated to govern general counsellors, psychotherapists, mental health coaches, and other allied mental health professionals, leaving vulnerable individuals exposed to practitioners. The petitioners have argued that while psychiatrists and clinical psychologists are regulated under existing laws, a vast and growing segment of the counselling profession operates without any , , or .
Background: The Regulatory Gap
The petition draws attention to what it describes as an “alarming proliferation of and self-proclaimed counsellors, psychologists, therapists and mental health influencers” who offer services through social media and digital platforms without possessing the requisite educational qualifications, , or statutory recognition. The unchecked dissemination of psychological advice by such persons, the petitioners submit, “poses a serious threat to public mental health and has the potential to cause irreparable harm.”
The rise of short-term online certification courses has compounded the problem. The petition alleges that these courses are sometimes represented as sufficient credentials for providing mental health counselling, even though they are not recognised qualifications under any law. This, in turn, creates a false sense of legitimacy and exposes clients to potential harm.
The petition also raises systemic concerns regarding , , , , , , and . In the absence of a dedicated regulatory mechanism, persons who suffer harm from or counselling are left to seek remedies under consumer or criminal law. The petitioners argue that neither of these avenues provides a professional disciplinary mechanism capable of suspending or revoking credentials, thereby allowing errant practitioners to continue operating.
The Legal Framework: Existing Laws Not Enough
To underscore the , the petitioners referred to the Act, 2019 and the Act, 1992. They argued that the safeguards under those laws apply only to recognised medical and rehabilitation professions and do not extend to the broader category of persons providing counselling services. The NCAHP Act, enacted to regulate and maintain standards of education and services by allied and healthcare professionals, does include categories such as psychologists other than clinical psychologists, behaviour analysts, and integrated behavioural health counsellors in its Schedule. However, the petition contends that the regulatory position concerning counselling remains uncertain and that the Act has not been fully operationalised.
The Scale of the Mental Health Crisis
The petition cites data from the National Mental Health Survey 2015-16, the Global Burden of Disease Study, and other sources to highlight the magnitude of the mental health needs in India. According to the survey, approximately 10.6% of India’s adult population suffers from a diagnosable mental disorder, with treatment gaps ranging between 70% and 92% across different categories of mental illness. The petitioners argue that the acute shortage of qualified mental health professionals has created a demand-supply gap that is being exploited by persons offering counselling services to vulnerable individuals.
Supreme Court Proceedings on NCAHP Act
The petition also draws attention to a pending proceeding before the concerning the implementation of the NCAHP Act. According to the petitioners, the Supreme Court has already directed the Union and State Governments to take effective steps for the implementation of the statute and to place a roadmap before it. The ’s direction for an on the of the Act is thus part of a broader judicial effort to ensure that the for allied healthcare professionals, including counsellors, is put into effect.
The Relief Sought
The PIL seeks a that access to qualified, regulated, and accountable mental health counselling services is a under . It further prays for directions to the Union Government to introduce a comprehensive legislative framework—either through amendments to the or the NCAHP Act, or through standalone legislation—to legally define and protect professional titles such as “Counsellor,” “Therapist,” and “Psychotherapist.”
Additionally, the petition seeks the prescription of minimum educational qualifications; establishment of and ; creation of a publicly accessible national register of licensed counsellors; framing of pending comprehensive legislation; and and digital counselling platforms.
Court’s Direction and Next Steps
The Division Bench, after hearing counsel for the petitioners—, , , , , , , and —and Assistant Solicitor General of India , directed the to file an on the of the NCAHP Act. The matter has been adjourned to for further hearing.
Implications for the Legal and Mental Health Communities
This PIL marks a significant step towards closing the regulatory void in the mental health counselling space. For legal professionals, the case raises important questions about the interplay between existing healthcare regulations and the need for a cohesive framework to govern emerging professions. The outcome could set a for how other unregulated allied health services are brought under .
If the court grants the reliefs sought, it would not only standardise the qualifications and of counsellors but also provide a robust mechanism for , thereby enhancing public trust in mental health services. The direction to the Centre to report on the of the NCAHP Act suggests that the judiciary is closely monitoring the implementation of existing legislation even as it considers the need for further reforms.
Conclusion
The ’s intervention in this PIL underscores the urgent need to regulate mental health counselling in India. By requiring the Union Government to demonstrate progress on the NCAHP Act, the court is pushing for concrete action rather than allowing the regulatory vacuum to persist. As the mental health crisis deepens and practitioners proliferate online, the demand for a statutory framework that safeguards both professionals and the public has never been more pressing. The next hearing in October will be closely watched by stakeholders across the legal and healthcare sectors.
