The Supreme Court has asked the UGC to frame regulations to prevent caste-based discrimination in colleges and universities. The UGC must finalise the rules within eight weeks to ensure student safety and equal opportunities.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) to take steps to prevent caste-based discrimination while finalising new regulations aimed at curbing harassment and discrimination in higher educational institutions.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi ordered that the UGC must complete the process of finalising the regulations within eight weeks, roughly two months.
The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in 2019 by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, two students from marginalised communities who tragically died by suicide after facing caste-based harassment in universities.
The petition sought stronger enforcement of the UGC regulations introduced in 2012, along with specific measures to tackle caste discrimination on college campuses.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, informed the Court that the UGC had already published draft regulations addressing these issues and had received 391 suggestions.
Mehta said,
“An expert committee has been constituted to examine the inputs, and its report is under active consideration by the UGC,”
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioners, urged the Court to ensure that the matter did not drift indefinitely.
Jaising said,
“This was filed in 2019. Since then, we have had much water flowing under the bridge. Several people have committed suicide. We are already aware that draft regulations have been published. We made the suggestions. Two coordinate benches of this Court have attempted to address this issue as well,”
She emphasised that while previous judgments addressed discrimination in general, this case specifically concerns caste-based harassment.
She told the Bench,
“We are interested in preventing students from committing suicide. We came to court because the 2012 UGC regulations are not being implemented,”
Justice Kant acknowledged the petitioners’ concerns and noted that Jaising’s written note summarised ten core issues that required attention, including a clear ban on discriminatory practices, provision for mental health counselling, and social audits.
Justice Kant said,
“Our proposal is that now that the matter is pending with the UGC, we direct that these points may be considered by the UGC and the expert committee,”
Jaising requested the Court to impose a strict timeline for the completion of the process.
She urged,
“A timeline may be put on this eternal exercise,”
The Bench agreed to set a deadline and assured that the process would not remain open-ended.
Justice Kant said,
“We’ll put a timeline. Let them apply their mind and let us see how they revert back,”
Jaising further asked the Court to leave the issue of caste-based discrimination open for judicial consideration.
She submitted
“We are looking forward to a judgment that addresses the issue of discrimination based on caste. Please leave it open for me to address you before the UGC finalises anything,”
Recording the submissions, the Court directed that Jaising’s note be forwarded to the UGC along with the report from the expert committee for consideration.
Jaising’s note highlighted ten important suggestions:
- A ban on all known forms of discriminatory practices with disciplinary consequences.
- A prohibition on segregation in hostels, classrooms, or batches.
- A digitised scholarship system to prevent harassment caused by delayed disbursal of scholarship funds.
- Grievance committees with 50 per cent members from Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), and Other Backward Classes communities, with a chairperson from the same community, and appeals to the National Commission for SC/STs.
- Protection mechanisms for complainants, modelled on witness protection.
- Personal liability of staff for negligence.
- Specialised mental health counselling for students from marginalised communities.
- Social audits and NAAC reporting on the implementation of anti-discrimination policies
. - Strong enforcement, including withdrawal of grants for non-compliant institutions.
- Preparatory learning support for marginalised students.
The Supreme Court expressed confidence that the UGC would consider these suggestions along with those received from other stakeholders before taking a final decision.
The Court directed that the regulations be notified as soon as possible and firmly established an eight-week timeline for the UGC to complete the process.
This direction from the Supreme Court marks an important step in addressing caste-based discrimination in higher education and ensuring that students from marginalised communities can pursue education in a safe and supportive environment.
Case Title:
Abeda Salim Tadvi & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Anti-Caste Discrimination
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
