Caste Discrimination In Colleges: Supreme Court Gives UGC 8 Weeks' Time To Consider Suggestions And Notify Regulations

In the PIL assailing caste discrimination in higher educational institutions (HEIs), the Supreme Court today gave 8 weeks' time to the University Grants Commission to consider the suggestions received from different stakeholders and take a final decision regarding notification of the Regulations.

 A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and indicated that the petitioners' suggestions on the following aspects may also be considered by the UGC:

- Prohibiting discriminatory practices - that is, a clear ban on all known forms of discrimination and enforce disciplinary consequences;

- Non-segregation - that is, allocating hostels, classrooms, or practical batches based on entrance rank or academic performance;

- Scholarship disbursal - that is, to digitize the scholarship process to allow for tracking of complaints and prevent institutions from harassing students for delayed payments from the government;

- Grievance redressal - that a committee having atleast 50% members from SC/ST/OBC communities with a Chairman from that very community ought to be constituted; the order of such committee shall be appealable before the National Commission for SCs/STs;

- Protection of complainants - that a pattern like witness protection needs to be applied for ensuring that complainants are not harassed or humiliated or threatened and are permitted to pursue their complaints;

- Personal liability for negligence - namely, to hold the staff members, including the head of the institutions, personally liable for negligence;

- Mental health counselling - which should mandate having counsellors specially trained to assist students who belong to marginalized communities;

- Accreditation and audits - that NAAC should impute specific criteria for implementing anti-discrimination policies and require to conduct social audits to collect and publish anonymized data on gender and other social groups;

- Action for non-compliance - that UGC should implement strong measures like withdrawing grants and accreditations for institutions that do not comply; and

- Equitable learning support - conduct courses to aid students of marginalized sections.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that 391 suggestions were received after publishing of the draft regulations and the same were considered by an Expert Committee, which recommended them for examination by the UGC (the competent authority to notify the regulations) and the matter is pending at that level. Among these suggestions, Justice Kant noted that some were "very good", while 1-2 were "problematic".

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising (for petitioners) highlighted that the case was filed in 2019 and many students have committed suicide in the interregnum. The draft regulations were published and even the petitioners gave their suggestions. The senior counsel pointed out that two coordinate benches of the Supreme Court have tried to address the issues and the petitioners are interested in "preventing" student suicides. "We came to Court with a simple grievance that regulations were not being implemented...", she said, while beseeching the Court to hear the petitioners before anything is finalized.

In response, Justice Kant noted that the petitioners have outlined 10 issues in their note, including protection of complainants, mental health counselling, personal liability for negligence, audits, action for non-compliance, etc. "Our proposal is - now that matter is pending with UGC, we direct today that these points be also considered for incorporation in the proposed regulations...Let them apply their mind and see how they revert" the judge said to Jaising.

Agreeing to what was falling from the bench, Jaising added that a time limit may be imposed for the exercise. "We are looking forward to a judgment which addresses discrimination based on caste. Please leave it open for me to address you on these issues before anything is finalized, that's my only request. We have been waiting for a patient hearing since 2019" she said.

Accordingly, the Court passed its order, stating, "Since a copy of the brief note has been handed over to ld. SG, let the same be forwarded to UGC alongwith this order for consideration of the suggestions that have come from the petitioners. We have no reason to doubt that UGC, upon consideration of the above suggestions, as also those incorporated in the report of the Expert Committee, or such suggestions that may have been received from different stakeholders, shall take a final decision to notify the regulations as early as possible."

Background

Rohit Vemula, a PhD scholar at Hyderabad Central University, died by suicide on January 17, 2016, reportedly due to caste-discrimination. Three years later, Payal Tadvi, an Adivasi student at TN Topiwala National Medical College in Mumbai also died by suicide (on May 22, 2019). As per claims, she was subjected to caste-based discrimination by her upper-caste peers.

In 2019, Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, mothers of the two Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi respectively filed the present PIL, seeking a mechanism to end caste-based discrimination in campuses. In July 2023, the top Court issued notice on the plea and sought response of the UGC. “Ultimately it is in the interest of the students and the parents whose children have lost their lives. In the future, atleast some care should be taken that this doesn't happen”, the Court told UGC then.

The petitioners submit that there is a rampant prevalence of caste discrimination against members of the SC/ST community alongside institutional apathy to caste-based discrimination and flagrant non-compliance with the existing norms and regulations in place. Furthermore, the norms are inadequate insofar as they do not properly address the occurrence of caste-based discrimination on campus against both teachers and students, fail to provide an independent, unbiased complaint redressal mechanism and do not provide for any punitive sanction on HEIs for failure to take positive steps to prevent discrimination on the basis of caste on campus.

Among other reliefs, the petitioners seek a direction to all Universities and HEIs to establish Equal Opportunity Cells on the lines of such other existing anti-discrimination internal complaints mechanisms and to include members from the SC/ST communities and independent representatives from NGO's or social activists to ensure objectivity and impartiality in the process.

In March this year, the Union told the Court that UGC has prepared draft regulations to inter-alia address the issues raised. The Court, on its part, expressed that it is looking to create a "very strong and robust mechanism" for "really" tackling the unfortunate issues.

In April, the Court clarified that the UGC may proceed with finalization of the draft regulations and notify the same. At the same time, liberty was given to the petitioners and other stakeholders to give suggestions for incorporation in the draft regulations.

Case Title: Abeda Salim Tadvi and Anr. v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1149/2019