Why suicide reporting matters
India recorded 1,70,746 suicide deaths in 2024, a national rate of 12.2 per 1,00,000 people. Published by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), this data shows that deaths cut across the population: 1,25,449 were men, 45,245 were women, and 52 were transgender individuals. Additionally, young and middle-aged adults between 18 and 45 made up close to two-thirds of the total. Behind every one of those numbers is a story that a journalist, at some point, had to decide how to tell.
That choice carries more weight than it might seem. Decades of research on media and suicide have repeatedly found that the same death, covered in different ways, can produce very different outcomes. When a news report about a suicide gives it prominent and repeated coverage or lingers on the details of how and where the person died, it can trigger imitative suicidal behaviour in people who are already vulnerable, a pattern known as the Werther effect. When a report instead focuses on how someone got through a crisis, without dwelling on the death itself, it tends to have the opposite result: suicide rates in the population going down rather than up, a pattern known as the Papageno effect. This happens because stories that show how someone navigated a crisis, including where they turned for help, give readers in similar situations a sense that recovery is possible, and a concrete idea of what to do next.
Sensational coverage could also entrench harmful myths around suicide and mental health. Responsible reporting is how journalists can push back against that.
What responsible reporting of suicide means
Responsible reporting does not mean avoiding the subject of suicide entirely. It means reporting it in a way that informs the public without causing harm. The World Health Organization’s Preventing Suicide: A Resource for Media Professionals, 2023, lays out what this looks like in practice: steering clear of sensational or dramatic headlines; never describing exactly how or where a death took place, and never publishing photos of the scene, the person, or a suicide note; presenting suicide as the result of varying interacting pressures rather than one single trigger; and including accurate information on warning signs and where to find support, drawn from mental health experts and credible evidence rather than speculation.
India has its own guidance. In 2019, the Press Council of India adopted similar norms based on the WHO Report on Suicide released in 2014, directing newspapers and news agencies not to give suicide stories undue prominence or repeat them unduly, and not to sensationalise, glamorise, or explicitly describe the method used. These different bodies have the same underlying reason: certain details do not inform the reader. Instead, they have the potential of endangering someone else in crisis.
How balanced reporting can encourage help-seeking
Responsible reporting can also encourage hope and help-seeking. This is the principle behind the Papageno effect. Research suggests that stories that depict people who have overcome a suicidal crisis, avoid graphic details, and include information about available support are associated with a lower risk of suicide and a greater willingness among readers to seek help.
Right now, Indian media coverage skews the other way heavily. Reviews of Project SIREN's monitoring have found that a large majority of English-language reports use sensational headlines and mention the method used, while stories of people who reached out for support and recovered remain comparatively rare. That imbalance leaves the public with a distorted picture, where suicide looks sudden and inevitable, rather than something that, with the right support at the right moment, is often preventable. Journalists who choose to tell stories of hope, recovery, and support act as active allies in suicide prevention.
About the Project SIREN award
Project SIREN was launched by the Keshav Desiraju India Mental Health Observatory (IMHO) on World Suicide Prevention Day, 10 September 2020, to study and improve how Indian media reports on suicide, through monitoring, research, and advocacy. The SIREN award followed in 2021, extending that work to recognise individual journalists whose reporting reflects these principles.
The award looks for journalism that explores the wider picture, integrating the social, economic, cultural, and systemic dimensions of suicide, while staying sensitive, accurate, and solution-oriented. Past recipients have reported on youth suicide, gaps in mental health systems, and how caste, gender, and media practice itself shape the suicide crisis in India. Last year's award went to Sudipta Das (they/them), a contributing writer for Queerbeat, recognised for their article ‘How Chronic Illness and Neurodivergence Shaped a Queer Love Story’. It was praised for writing on suicide with sensitivity within a much larger, more human story.
Apply for the Project SIREN award 2026
The award is based on submissions. If you are a journalist who has covered suicide with sensitivity, accuracy, and care over the past year, we would like to receive your work.
This is the sixth edition of the Project SIREN award. Submissions are open to individual journalists for reports, commentary, or opinion pieces published in English in Indian newspapers or online publications. Mental health professionals are not eligible. Eligible work must have been published between 1 July 2025 and 30 June 2026. Entries are judged on their adherence to World Health Organization (WHO) reporting guidelines, sensitivity, balance, and accuracy. Submissions close on 31 August 2026.
Find the full details for submissions and the application form here: Project SIREN Award 2026
