The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi. Both these students died by suicide, allegedly due to caste-based discrimination faced at their respective institutions.
NEW DELHI: Today, 24th April: The Supreme Court of India has permitted petitioner or any other concerned person to submit suggestions regarding the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations in a case highlighting caste-based discrimination in higher education.
The Court clarified that these suggestions will be carefully reviewed to assist in fulfilling the responsibility entrusted to the National Task Force in connection with the Amit Kumar case.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi. Both these students died by suicide, allegedly due to caste-based discrimination faced at their respective institutions.
This PIL requests the Supreme Court to take necessary steps to address ongoing caste bias, negligence by college authorities, and the failure to implement rules and regulations meant to protect students.
Today’s Hearing
The petitioners are being represented by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising. She told the court:
“I want to repeat a few important points. I have submitted an application asking the court to issue certain directions.”
On the other side, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court:
“The meeting is in progress. We are still working to reach a final decision.”
While Jaising was presenting her arguments, she was interrupted. She immediately responded:
“Please don’t interrupt me. I would like to complete what I’m saying.”
She also informed the court:
“We have come to know that another bench of this Court has set up a task force to look into suicide cases. My concern is for those who are still alive—what steps can we take now to stop such incidents in the future?”
Justice Surya Kant responded:
“The task force will give some suggestions, but it may take a few months, around six months, to do so.”
Jaising then emphasized that proper rules already exist:
“The issue is this—we have regulations in place, and we’ve been following them since 2012.”
Justice Kant acknowledged her point but added:
“You gave a short argument, but you clearly showed that these regulations are now outdated.”
ALSO READ: Caste Discrimination in Jails|| 10 Highlights from SC Verdict
Indira Jaising highlighted that the earlier guidelines were more specific:
“The earlier rules clearly explained what caste discrimination means, but the new rules have removed all those explanations.”
To this, Justice Kant replied:
“We must fully support the task force so they can create systems to handle both current and future problems effectively.”
Solicitor General Mehta asked to speak:
“If I may speak, with her permission.”
This led to a heated argument in the courtroom. Indira Jaising strongly objected to Mehta’s behaviour:
“Please protect women lawyers in this Court from male chauvinist behavior. He never behaves like this with male lawyers!”
She then attempted to leave the courtroom and said:
“I’m stepping aside. Let my junior lawyer argue now.”
Jaising further added:
“This is not acceptable. He can’t speak to me like that. I won’t tolerate it anymore. He keeps trying to interrupt me.”
Justice Surya Kant stepped in to calm the situation:
“Alright, alright. We don’t allow anyone to behave like that,” and asked Jaising to stay calm.
Indira Jaising then said:
“I’m sorry, My Lords, for raising my voice.”
SG Mehta also made a remark on the pressure judges face:
“My Lords, being a judge is not easy.”
Returning to the legal discussion, Indira Jaising clarified:
“Regarding the request made, we have reviewed the judgment passed by a bench of equal authority. That bench carefully examined the issues and was also informed that the matter concerning UGC regulations is still under consideration by this bench.”
She also confirmed:
“The court has set up a task force, led by a Supreme Court judge and other experts, to make recommendations on the issues identified. In this context, we clarify the following:”
“The UGC can move forward with finalizing and notifying the draft regulations.”
“These regulations will apply alongside any recommendations made by the task force.”
The Supreme Court concluded by stating that:
“The petitioner or any concerned person can submit an application in these ongoing proceedings to propose changes, additions, or deletions to the UGC regulations. It is understood that these suggestions will be reviewed to help fulfill the responsibility given by this Court to the National Task Force in Amit Kumar’s case.”
The Vemula-Tadvi Petition:
Originally filed in 2019, the petition urged the Supreme Court to uphold fundamental rights—particularly protection from caste-based discrimination, as well as the rights to equality and life. The petition highlighted the “widespread prevalence” of caste discrimination in higher educational institutions across the country.
ALSO READ: [BREAKING] Supreme Court Strikes Down Rules Enabling Caste Discrimination in Prisons
It also criticised the existing 2012 UGC regulations as being insufficient, noting that they “lack enforcement mechanisms or penalties for violations.”
Senior advocate Indira Jaising had argued, “There should be clear-cut rules—like the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act or the anti-ragging law—that prescribe punitive measures for breaches.”
Earlier, a bench comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh directed the UGC to detail both the measures already taken and those planned to ensure a safe, discrimination-free environment for all students.
Case Title: Abeda Salim Tadvi and Anr. v. Union of India| W.P.(C) No. 1149/2019
