New Delhi, April 24, 2025 – In a landmark move to address caste-based discrimination in higher education, the Supreme Court of India has permitted the University Grants Commission (UGC) to finalize and notify its Draft UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2025. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, responds to a 2019 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, whose suicides in 2016 and 2019 highlighted systemic casteism in colleges.
The court emphasized the urgency of protecting marginalized communities, with Justice Surya Kant stating, “There are voiceless people waiting for these regulations to ensure their safety and respect.” The UGC has been directed to consider stakeholder suggestions, including those from the petitioners, to refine the regulations before enforcement.
Key Provisions of the Draft Regulations
The draft, released on February 27, 2025, aims to curb discrimination in higher education institutions (HEIs). It defines “caste-based discrimination” as unfair treatment against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, while “discrimination” broadly includes bias based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Key features include:
Equity Committees: Each institution will establish committees under Equal Opportunity Centres, comprising faculty, civil society representatives, and students to address complaints.
Stringent Enforcement: The UGC can de-recognize non-compliant institutions, ensuring accountability.
Penalties for False Complaints: The draft proposes fines for “false complaints,” though the lack of a clear definition has sparked concerns about deterring genuine reports.
Compared to the 2012 regulations, which focused primarily on students, the 2025 draft extends protections to all stakeholders, including faculty and staff. However, critics argue that its narrow focus on Scheduled Castes and Tribes may exclude other marginalized groups, and the absence of specific examples of discriminatory acts could weaken enforcement.
Context and Criticisms
The PIL was triggered by the tragic deaths of Rohith Vemula, a Dalit PhD scholar at the University of Hyderabad, and Payal Tadvi, an Adivasi medical student at TN Topiwala National Medical College, both driven to suicide amid alleged caste-based harassment. These cases exposed institutional failures in addressing casteism, prompting calls for stronger regulations.
While the Supreme Court’s directive has been hailed as a step toward equity, legal experts and activists have raised concerns. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising cautioned against merging regulations on ragging, caste discrimination, and sexual harassment, which could lead to administrative overlaps. Others, including an NDTV opinion piece, criticized the draft’s non-intersectional approach and vague provisions, warning that it might “worsen the disease” by failing to address systemic issues comprehensively.
Broader Implications
Caste discrimination remains pervasive in Indian HEIs, particularly in technical fields like medicine and engineering, with studies highlighting its structural entrenchment. The issue has also gained international attention, with U.S. institutions like California State University adding caste as a protected category. The success of the UGC’s regulations will hinge on robust implementation, stakeholder input, and addressing criticisms to ensure inclusive campuses.
The court has also linked the regulations to a National Task Force, formed in Amit Kumar v. Union of India, to address mental health and suicides in colleges, signaling a holistic approach. As the UGC moves to notify the regulations, continued advocacy and public feedback will be crucial to shaping an effective framework.
For more updates on this developing story, stay tuned to our blog.
Sources: LiveLaw, The Hindu, NDTV, Hindustan Times
