Supreme Court Greenlights UGC’s Anti-Discrimination Regulations for Higher Education
Introduction
New Delhi, April 26, 2025 — In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has authorized the University Grants Commission (UGC) to notify its 2025 draft regulations designed to combat ragging, sexual harassment, and discrimination based on caste, gender, disability, and other factors in higher education institutions. This move is seen as a significant step towards ensuring a safer and more equitable environment for students across the country, though concerns about the regulations’ scope and implementation persist.
The decision, delivered on April 24, 2025, responds to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in 2019 by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, respectively. Both students died by suicide in 2016, with their families alleging that caste-based discrimination played a pivotal role in their tragic deaths. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to addressing systemic issues in higher education, while also highlighting ongoing debates about how best to tackle discrimination.
Background of the Case
The PIL was initiated by Radhika Vemula, mother of Rohith Vemula, a PhD scholar at the University of Hyderabad, and Abeda Salim Tadvi, mother of Payal Tadvi, a resident doctor at BYL Nair Hospital in Mumbai. Both students faced severe discrimination, allegedly due to their caste identities, which their families claim led to their suicides in 2016. The litigation, filed in 2019, criticized the failure of existing regulations, particularly the UGC’s 2012 “Regulations on Promotion of Equity,” to prevent such tragedies. It called for stricter measures to ensure accountability and protection for marginalized students.
The Supreme Court’s involvement intensified in January 2025, when it directed the UGC to draft and notify robust anti-discrimination regulations within six weeks, emphasizing actionable solutions. The April 24, 2025, ruling builds on this directive, allowing the UGC to proceed with its 2025 draft regulations.
Details of the Supreme Court’s Decision
On April 24, 2025, a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh permitted the UGC to finalize and notify the “UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2025.” The decision came during a hearing where Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the UGC, argued that the notification process was already underway and should not be delayed.
The court rejected a plea by the petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising and advocates Prasanna S. and Disha Wadekar, to defer the notification until a National Task Force (NTF) submits its recommendations. The NTF, formed on March 24, 2025, is tasked with addressing mental health concerns and discrimination in educational institutions. The court emphasized the urgency of implementing the regulations to protect vulnerable students, stating, “Till the time the Task Force gives its recommendations, the Regulations will help the voiceless”.
The court also clarified that the regulations would complement any future NTF recommendations and allowed stakeholders to suggest modifications post-notification or provide input to the NTF. This flexibility aims to address concerns while ensuring immediate action.
Key Features of the 2025 Draft Regulations
The “UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2025,” drafted by an Expert Committee led by Prof. Shailesh N. Zala, introduce several measures to promote equity in higher education. The draft was released for public feedback on February 27, 2025, for 30 days. Key features include:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Definition of Caste-Based Discrimination | Limited to discrimination against Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), a narrower scope than the 2012 regulations. |
| General Discrimination | Encompasses unfair treatment based on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or other factors, applicable to all stakeholders (students, faculty, staff). |
| Equity Committees | To be established under Equal Opportunity Centres, including two civil society representatives, two student representatives, four faculty members, and the institution head as ex-officio chief. |
| Penalties for False Complaints | Proposes fines and disciplinary action, though the definition of “false complaint” lacks clarity, raising concerns about potential misuse. |
| UGC Powers | Empowers the UGC to derecognise non-compliant universities, enhancing enforcement capabilities. |
Compared to the 2012 regulations, which defined discrimination broadly as “any distinction, exclusion, limitation, or preference” impairing equality, the 2025 draft broadens the scope to “any stakeholder” but narrows caste-based discrimination to SCs/STs. This change has sparked debate about whether it adequately addresses all forms of caste bias.
Concerns and Criticisms
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising raised significant concerns about the draft regulations during the hearing. She argued that merging regulations for ragging, sexual harassment, caste discrimination, and other biases into a single framework could create administrative challenges. Each form of discrimination, she noted, requires distinct handling due to its unique nature. Jaising also criticized the removal of specific examples of caste discrimination from the 2012 regulations, such as denying caste certificates or reservations, which provided clarity for enforcement.
Additionally, the narrower definition of caste-based discrimination has drawn scrutiny. The 2012 regulations covered a wider range of grounds, including caste, creed, language, religion, ethnicity, gender, and disabilities, and focused on students. Critics argue that limiting caste-based discrimination to SCs/STs may exclude other marginalized groups facing similar biases.
The provision for penalizing false complaints has also raised concerns about potential misuse, as the draft does not clearly define what constitutes a false complaint. This ambiguity could deter genuine complaints, particularly from marginalized students.
National Task Force and Broader Context
The Supreme Court’s decision is part of a broader effort to address discrimination and mental health in higher education. On March 24, 2025, the court constituted an NTF, chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice S Ravindra Bhat, to propose comprehensive measures within four months. The NTF includes representatives from the ministries of higher education, social welfare, women and child development, and legal affairs. Its formation was prompted by a police probe into the 2023 suicides of two IIT Delhi students from SC/ST communities, highlighting ongoing issues.
The court’s ruling ensures that the UGC regulations will operate alongside NTF recommendations, creating a multi-pronged approach to campus equity. The regulations also align with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which emphasizes inclusivity and equity in education.
Implications for Higher Education
The notification of the 2025 regulations is expected to bring significant changes to how higher education institutions handle discrimination and harassment. Universities and colleges will be required to establish robust mechanisms, such as Equity Committees, to prevent and address ragging, sexual harassment, and discrimination. The UGC’s authority to derecognise non-compliant institutions adds a layer of accountability, potentially compelling institutions to prioritize compliance.
However, the effectiveness of these regulations will depend on their implementation and the resolution of concerns raised by stakeholders. The academic community, student bodies, and civil society are closely monitoring the process, hopeful that the measures will foster a more inclusive and supportive educational environment. The opportunity for stakeholders to suggest modifications post-notification provides a pathway for refining the regulations to better address diverse forms of discrimination.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the UGC to notify its 2025 anti-discrimination regulations marks a crucial step toward addressing systemic issues in Indian higher education. Driven by the tragic losses of students like Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, the ruling reflects a commitment to protecting vulnerable students and promoting equity. While the regulations introduce important measures, concerns about their scope and administrative feasibility highlight the need for ongoing dialogue and refinement. As the UGC prepares to notify the regulations, the focus now shifts to ensuring their effective implementation to create safer and more equitable campuses across India.