After SC pauses UGC rules, a closer look at caste discrimination on campus

On January 29, the Supreme Court stayed the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, calling them “prima facie vague” and “capable of misuse”.

The Regulations had been framed pursuant to the Court’s own directions in Abeda Salim Tadvi v. Union of India, on a petition by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi.

The state government of Karnataka, meanwhile, announced its intent to enact the Rohith Vemula (Prevention of Exclusion or Injustice) Act.

Together, these developments frame the central legal question: Does India possess an adequate statutory architecture to deal with caste discrimination in higher education?

The record before the Supreme Court itself demonstrates that it does not. An intervention application by a former UGC chairman who led the 2007 inquiry into the treatment of SC/ST students at the AIIMS draws on three official studies covering thousands of students.

The findings are consistent. Teachers mark SC/ST students down in internally evaluated practical examinations, while externally evaluated papers yield fair results.

Hostels are monopolised by dominant-caste groups. Administrations delay applications, harass students seeking scholarship attestation, and disclose confidential counselling records.

The SC/ST cells are either non-functional or have been merged into toothless Equal Opportunity Cells. Only 30.7% of surveyed students reported a functioning SC/ST cell. When faced with discrimination, 42% turned to friends, 27% relied on their own resources, and only 14% approached teachers. Over 90% agreed that a dedicated Anti-Discrimination Act was necessary.

Existing law cannot fill this gap. The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is a criminal statute designed for the justice system at large, not the ecology of a university campus.

The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, addresses untouchability but offers no campus-specific remedy. Article 15(1) prohibits caste discrimination, but constitutional rights operate vertically against the State and do not, without enabling legislation, reach individual teachers, students, or private university administrators.

The UGC’s 2012 Regulations were advisory and unenforceable; a decade on, compliance remained abysmal. The 2026 Regulations sought to change this by replacing an advisory framework with legally binding obligations: mandatory Equal Opportunity Centres, equity committees with investigative powers, equity squads, and compliance backed by financial penalties, including withdrawal of grants.

The UGC Act, 1956, under Sections 2(f) and 12(b), already empowers the Commission to withhold funding from non-compliant universities. These powers have never been used against institutions that tolerate discrimination. The 2026 Regulations attempted to operationalise them.

The stay order focused on Clause 3(c), which defined caste-based discrimination as discrimination against SC, ST, and OBC members. The petitioners argued this left general category students “completely remediless”. But Clause 3(e) of the same Regulations defines discrimination broadly enough to cover any stakeholder.

The separate mention in Clause 3(c) follows established legislative precedent: the PoA Act registers a case only where the perpetrator belongs to an upper caste, and the victim to an SC or an ST. The Court also flagged the omission of anti-ragging provisions and penalties for false complaints. These are remediable drafting deficiencies, not grounds for staying an entire framework born of the Court’s own directions.

Karnataka’s proposed Bill offers a parallel path through state legislation, with provisions for fines up to Rs 10 lakh on institutions, equity committees modelled on the POSH Act’s Internal Complaints Committees, and compensation for victims.

If enacted, it will be the first such law by any state. But what is ultimately needed is a comprehensive central enactment that deploys the UGC’s existing enforcement powers and does not leave over 90% of affected students with a framework they have found inadequate.

The writer is a senior advocate in the Supreme Court of India.

Sanjay Hegde

(The views are personal.)