In a pivotal move to combat caste-based discrimination and rising suicides in educational institutions, the Supreme Court on Thursday authorized the University Grants Commission (UGC) to notify new regulations specifically designed to foster equity and safety in colleges and universities across India.
The decision emerged from a public interest litigation (PIL) initiated by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, the bereaved mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi. Both students tragically ended their lives in 2016, with allegations of severe caste-based discrimination at their respective universities. This lawsuit pressed for stringent enforcement of anti-discrimination measures under UGC’s 2012 equity regulations, aiming to prevent similar tragedies.
Addressing concerns about a potential clash with the National Task Force (NTF)—formed to delve into discriminatory practices leading to student suicides—the bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, firmly supported the UGC’s initiative. “Numerous sections of society, often voiceless, await these regulations for protection and security,” Justice Kant remarked, underscoring the urgency of implementing these measures.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the court that the UGC was finalizing the Draft Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2025. The court clarified that these regulations would serve in addition to any future recommendations by the NTF, which includes notable figures such as former Supreme Court Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.
This announcement came alongside a directive for a police investigation into the 2023 suicides of two IIT Delhi students, emphasizing the judiciary’s proactive stance on this pressing social issue.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing the petitioners, voiced apprehensions about the draft’s approach to consolidating various forms of discrimination—such as caste bias, sexual harassment, and disability discrimination—under a single administrative framework. She argued that each form of discrimination manifests differently and requires distinct handling.
The court responded by allowing Jaising and other concerned parties to suggest modifications to the UGC regulations or to challenge them upon notification. This flexibility aims to refine the regulations to effectively address the unique challenges posed by different forms of discrimination within educational settings.
