In response to a PIL challenging caste discrimination in higher educational institutions (HEIs), the Union recently informed the Supreme Court that the University Grants Commission (UGC) has drafted regulations to address the concerns raised.

The Court, in turn, emphasized its intent to establish a "very strong and robust mechanism" to effectively combat these pressing issues.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh adjourned the case to May 2025 after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union, apprised the Court of the draft regulations.

"We have, in a non-adversarial manner, taken up this petition and based upon some of the issues flagged, we have prepared draft regulations further strengthening the regime. They are published for inviting suggestions...after that, we will be publishing this...", SG told the Court.

During the hearing, it was also revealed that the draft regulations have been published on the UGC website, inviting feedback from stakeholders. Accordingly, the Court noted in its order that "the petitioners, intervenor(s), or any other person(s) may submit their suggestions to the UGC, which shall be duly considered."

Earlier, the Supreme Court had directed the UGC to compile and submit data from central, state, private, and deemed universities regarding the establishment of Equal Opportunity Cells and the total number of complaints received under the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, along with action taken reports. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing the petitioners, pointed out that 40% of universities and 80% of colleges had not provided the required information.

Based on the affidavit filed by UGC, she stressed that many IITs and even some national law universities had not responded to UGC. On this, Justice Kant said, "if they don't submit any proposal, we will take it they have no objection".

"The violations are there...the non-compliance is there and probably, it is mostly because of the reason that for want of sufficient power and teeth with UGC...so once probably UGC's hands are strengthened with the power to cancel the affiliation...we think that will be a power that can be used in the right direction", the judge added.

Speaking on the issue of suicides in HEIs, Justice Kant also said, "what's happening is extremely unfortunate...each one of us feels like that...and therefore we are only looking for creating a very strong and robust mechanism through which we can really tackle this issue".

While Senior Advocate Indira Jaising requested a physical hearing in addition to submitting written suggestions to the competent authority, the Court did not issue any order on the matter. During the proceedings, she also reiterated her plea for data on student suicides, highlighting that 18 such deaths—particularly in IITs and IIMs—had occurred in the past 14 months.

However, Justice Surya Kant, at this stage, only assured that once the action-taking body is formally established as a statutory authority, the Court is considering assigning it certain responsibilities.

Rohit Vemula, a PhD scholar at Hyderabad Central University, died by suicide on January 17, 2016, allegedly due to caste-based discrimination. Three years later, on May 22, 2019, Payal Tadvi, an Adivasi student at TN Topiwala National Medical College in Mumbai, also died by suicide, reportedly after facing caste-based harassment from her upper-caste peers. In 2019, their mothers, Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, filed the present PIL, seeking the establishment of a robust mechanism to address caste discrimination in educational institutions.  

In July 2023, the Supreme Court took cognizance of the plea and sought a response from the UGC. At that time, the Court emphasized the importance of preventing such tragedies in the future, stating, “Ultimately, it is in the interest of the students and the parents whose children have lost their lives. In the future, at least some care should be taken that this doesn't happen.”  

The petitioners argue that caste discrimination remains rampant on campuses, particularly against SC/ST students, compounded by institutional apathy and non-compliance with existing anti-discrimination regulations. They contend that current norms are inadequate, as they fail to effectively address caste-based discrimination against both students and faculty, lack an independent and impartial grievance redressal mechanism, and do not impose punitive measures on institutions that fail to take preventive action.  

Among other reliefs, the petitioners seek a directive requiring all universities and HEIs to establish Equal Opportunity Cells, modeled on other internal anti-discrimination complaint mechanisms. They also advocate for the inclusion of SC/ST community members and independent representatives from NGOs or social activist groups to ensure fairness and impartiality in addressing complaints.