Supreme Court Asks UGC To Consider Issues Regarding Prohibiting Caste Based Discriminatory Practices Among Others To Include In Its Regulations

The Supreme Court, today, while hearing a case addressing caste discrimination in higher educational institutions (HEIs), asked the University Grants Commission to  consider including in its Regulations the submissions submitted by the Petitioners regarding the issues of prohibiting discriminatory practices, non-segregation, scholarship, grievance redressal, protection of the complainants, mental health counselling, personal liability for negligence, action for non-compliance, and equitable learning support.

The plea was filed by two mothers who lost their college-going students, Rohit Vermula and Payal Tadvi, belonging to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe who were allegedly victims of caste discrimination and committed suicide. The petition challenges caste discrimination on campuses and the alleged failure of UGC to implement the 2012 regulations effectively.

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter. 

At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of Union of India, tried to submit before the Petitioners that certain Draft Regulations were passed, however, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners interrupted and apprised the Court that the matter was filed in 2019 and since then, several students have committed suicide.

"I am of the fact that Draft Regulations has been published. Since then, there is operative order of this Court, saying that if we wish to make suggestions to them, we can make them. We made them. Now, there have been further developments", Jaising submitted.

Jaising continued to submit and informed the Court that two Coordinate Benches of the Supreme Court have addressed the similar issue and pronounced Judgment.

"Those Judgements have advanced the cause of students in institutions of Higher Education...The focus on our petition is on the issue of discrimination based specifically on caste", Jaising submitted. Further, she pointed out Article 15 of the Constitution of India and emphasised that the petitioner's plea was specifically based on discrimination based on caste.

Jaising argued, "My interest is prevention rather than cure. We are interested in preventing the students from committing suicide and it is for that purpose the Regulations, 2012 of UGC was passed. We came to the Court because the Regulations were not being implemented."

Upon which, Justice Kant referred to the brief note submitted by Petitioners, and highlighted issues including prohibiting discriminatory practices, non-segregation, scholarship, grievance redressal, protection of the complainants, mental health counselling, personal liability for negligence, action for non-compliance, and equitable learning support.

Subsequently, Justice Kant moots to direct the UGC or its Expert Committee to consider these issues in order to include in the Regulations. Jaising agreed to such suggestion and requested to fix a timeline for the same.

"Let the said brief note be forwarded to the UGC, along with this order, for consideration of the suggestions that has come forward", Justice Kant said.

Accordingly, the matter will be heard after eight weeks.

Background

As per the Petitioners, the PIL was filed to create an enabling environment for students belonging to schedule caste and schedule communities in institutions of higher learning. Notices have been issued in this matter as far back as September 2019. The Respondents in the petition are primarily the University Grant Commission, the Ministry of Education and the Accreditation Council.

Earlier in 2023, the Supreme Court directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) to file a reply and take necessary action in a Public Interest Litigation seeking statutory guidelines to prevent caste-based discrimination on educational premises.

In January, 2025, the Supreme Court directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) to gather and provide data from universities across the country regarding the establishment of Equal Opportunity Cells and complaints received under the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, along with action taken reports.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the Petitioners, had raised the following issues:

i) Out of total 820 universities (central/state/deemed) across the country, how many have setup Equal Opportunity Cells?

ii) If set up, what is the composition of these cells?

iii) What is the nature of monitoring being done by UGC towards implementation of the 2012 Regulations?

Cause Title: Abeda Salim Tadvi & Anr. v. Union Of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 001149/ 2019]