Apex Court Urges UGC to Address Caste-Based Discrimination In Educational Institutions, Seeks Binding Guidelines

The Supreme Court today 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. 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 Bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh while granting time to the UGC to file the reply adjourned the matter for 4 weeks. The Court found the matter to be of a serious nature and said "Tell them, it is a sensitive matter and you will have to take some action and since it is not adversarial. You can even discuss it with Counsel for the Petitioner for any suggestion. Because, ultimately it is in the interest of students and parents and some care should be taken that this doesn't happen."

The Court also orally observed that "As pointed out by the Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, this matter is non-adversarial. Rather than replying in the nature of objections, UGC will have to look into whatever concern is raised in the Petition." The Court also directed the UGC to tell how they will address and rectify the situation, "What steps have been taken and what do you propose to do?" asked the Bench.

At the outset, appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising submitted "This is a Public Interest Petition 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."

Jaising submitted that "Under the statute, UGC bears the primary responsibility to frame binding regulations to create enabling and non-discriminatory environment in institutions of higher learning. What they have done is in the year 2012 they framed what they call 'the Promotion of Equity Regulations, 2012' and it is unfortunate that these regulations don't have binding nature because they don't have any sanction for the violation of the regulation."

Further commenting on the non-enforceability of the 2012 regulations, she said "When these regulations are compared with regulations under statutes such as POSH and Anti Ragging regulations they fall short." Highlighting the recent suicides which took place, Jaising further said "It is unfortunate that in the year 2023, three more suicides have taken place. One of them occurred in a National Law school, another in a Medical college, and one at Bombay IIT. Therefore, there is a sense of urgency in this petition, and it would be appropriate if the UGC could be persuaded in a non-adversarial manner to frame binding guidelines that will apply to all institutions of higher education."

The Counsel appearing for the UGC apprised the Bench that the 2012 regulations are still in force.

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