Mumbai: The recently submitted draft of the University Grants Commission (UGC) (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2025, is expected to cause “administrative chaos,” according to the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, two students who died following alleged institutionalised caste discrimination.
The UGC submitted the new draft to the Supreme Court last month in a six-year-old petition filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi. In the petition, the two mothers, after losing their children, sought accountability and the establishment of adequate mechanisms by the UGC to address caste-based discrimination in university spaces.
The UGC, unprompted by the court or the petitioners, has submitted the Equity Regulations Draft, which undoes some of the crucial clauses from the 2012 regulations. The petitioners had moved the court to highlight the ineffectiveness and lack of government will to put its act together. Instead of addressing these issues, the UGC has further diluted the existing regulations.
‘New regulations will make redressal more difficult’
Vemula and Tadvi argue that the newly submitted draft regulations will make redressal more difficult, as the UGC has decided to group all forms of discrimination – including those based on gender, disabilities, religion and caste – under a single umbrella. In contrast, the 2012 Equity Regulations primarily focused on caste-based discrimination. Existing mechanisms already address other forms of discrimination, and expanding the scope of the Equity Regulations will only lead to more chaos in the dispensation of justice, the petitioners assert.
The petitioners, represented by lawyers Indira Jaisingh and Disha Wadekar, have pointed out the lack of adequate mechanisms to address the growing number of discrimination cases and suicides on campuses. They argue that the UGC’s proposal to dilute the existing regulations on caste discrimination and introduce other forms of discrimination will not only hamper the redressal of caste-based discrimination but also “risk undermining the effectiveness of current regulations related to gender and persons with disabilities (PwDs).”
In addition to filing an affidavit in the Supreme Court in response to the UGC’s draft regulations, the petitioners have submitted detailed suggestions to the UGC, comparing the 2012 regulations with the proposed ones. They have identified gaps and provided effective suggestions to the higher education governing statutory body.
One crucial suggestion is the need for a clear definition of what constitutes caste-based discrimination in higher education. Wadekar notes that the draft regulation fails to specify what constitutes caste-based discrimination. “Discriminatory practices in university spaces often get normalised, and without a clear definition, universities may exercise their discretionary powers and, more often than not, attempt to shirk responsibilities,” Wadekar said. Her observation is based on past data showing how universities have denied the existence of caste-based discrimination on campuses.
In the past decade, as caste-based discrimination and suicides rose, the UGC was compelled to notify the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations 2012, also known as the Equity Regulations. These regulations required all colleges and universities to establish an Equal Opportunity Cell to oversee the promotion of equality and appoint an anti-discrimination officer to investigate complaints regarding discrimination in violation of equity. However, the regulations were not fully implemented as intended.
The proposed regulations, besides lacking clear definitions of discrimination, also exclude the Other Backward Classes (OBC) community from their scope, applying only to students from the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). In 2012 regulations too, students from OBC communities were excluded. The petitioners argue that this will be unjust to OBC students, who are equally vulnerable to discrimination on campuses. Data shows that many students from the OBC community have resorted to suicide or dropped out of colleges because of caste-based discrimination in the past decade.
The proposed regulations do not include staff or faculty members. Wadekar argues that the suggestion to include staff members comes from numerous anecdotal instances where faculty members have reported discriminatory practices based on their caste identities.
The 2012 regulations lacked a monitoring mechanism to ensure that the equity measures were effectively implemented. Vemula and Tadvi have suggested that the UGC should expressly mandate that “all Universities and Colleges submit periodic reports to UGC on the working of the Equity Regulations.”
While the proposed regulation has several problems, it also contains some concrete measures, such as the registration of FIRs once a case under penal laws is established. To this, the petitioners have suggested that “the heads of institutions should be mandated to register FIRs within 24 hours for complaints where a case is made out under penal laws.”
2012 regulations’ failure
In January 2016, Rohith Vemula, a PhD scholar at the University of Hyderabad (UoH), along with five other Dalit students, was expelled from the university housing facility for an alleged attack on an ABVP member. As the expelled students intensified their protest against the university administration’s decision, a few days into the protest, on January 17, 2016, Rohith died by suicide. UoH Vice-Chancellor Appa Rao Podile, then BJP MLC N. Ramachandra Rao, and two ABVP members (Susheel Kumar and Rama Krishna) were accused of abetting Rohith’s suicide. An FIR was filed against them, but the police failed to take any action.
In Dr. Payal Tadvi’s case, her suicide notes and her mother Abeda Tadvi’s testimony ensured that her three harassers – senior doctors Hema Ahuja, Bhakti Mehare, and Ankita Khandelwal – were immediately arrested. A damning 1,200-page chargesheet was filed against them. They have been accused of torturing Payal for an entire year and hurling casteist slurs at her. The Tadvis belong to the Bhil (of the Tadvi sub-caste) tribal community, and Payal was perhaps the first woman from her community to become a doctor. Advocate Wadekar is representing Abeda Tadvi in the criminal proceedings as well.
If the 2012 regulation had worked effectively, both Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi would not have needed to take drastic steps. The existing regulation has made it difficult for students to report instances of discrimination. Most of these cases are known because of individual efforts undertaken by anti-caste activists or organisations, which have, from time to time, highlighted extreme cases of discrimination on Indian university campuses.
Besides Rohith and Payal’s deaths, numerous other suicides have occurred in Indian universities over the past two decades. While some of these deaths were covered by the media, many were documented in an independent study conducted by a Delhi-based organisation called the Insight Foundation, headed by educationist Anoop Kumar.
But instead of focusing on these cases and encouraging students to come forward and report incidents of discrimination, the draft regulations mention “false complaints.” Wadekar says the draft doesn’t differentiate between a false complaint and a mere inability to substantiate a complaint with adequate evidence. “This clause,” Wadekar said, “should be completely removed.” “Students already find it hard to approach the Equity Committee, and such clauses will only act as a deterrent,” she added.
UGC’s hasty actions
This is not the first time that the UGC has acted hastily in response to the petition. In 2024, the UGC had set up a nine-member committee to look into the concerns highlighted in the petition. The Wire, in February last year, had looked into the composition of the committee and highlighted the chequered past of several of its members, including allegations of caste discrimination levelled against them.
Even as the division bench of Justice Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh of the Supreme Court have been hearing this petition, another petition, Amit Kumar and Others versus Union of India, highlighting identical issues, is being heard before Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. On March 24, in a significant order, the apex court directed the formation of a National Task Force to address the mental health concerns of students and prevent the rising number of suicides in higher educational institutions (HEIs). This National Task Force is being constituted as a ten-member committee, with retired Supreme Court judge S. Ravindra Bhat as its chairperson. Other members include mental health experts, teaching professionals, among others. This order too refers to the ongoing petition filed by Vemula and Tadvi.
Courtesy: The Wire