The University Grants Commission’s new rules to promote equity in higher education institutions—a reform of its 2012 rules—has stirred controversy, mostly in north India. This week, responding to a plea of those opposed, the Supreme Court has kept the new regulations in abeyance and retained the 2012 rules till a final decision is taken.
However, a careful look at the points raised by the agitators shows that the provisions they are opposed to do not justify their claims. Evidence does not support their arguments. To discuss the points, it is necessary to look back at the reasons for framing the 2012 regulations in the first place.
The origin of legal safeguards against caste- and untouchability-related discrimination goes back to the enactment of the Untouchability (Offences) Act in 1955, renamed as the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1979, and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Unfortunately, one major limitation of these laws is that they nearly ignore the discrimination in education institutions, except on admitting SC/ST candidates. Presumably, the reason is that those who enacted these Acts believed that, unlike other institutions, education campuses would be immune from caste discrimination, as they are managed by educated people. However, they did not realise the weak connection between literacy and discrimination, for it was learned Brahmanical scholars who authored the smritis that laid the moral principles underlying the caste system, which upheld inequality and social exclusion.
Shocked by the frequent deaths by suicide at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and other institutes of repute, the Union health ministry set up a committee in 2008 to enquire into the causes. The committee came up with empirical evidence of discrimination—not in all, but in some spheres of teaching, evaluation, use of laboratories, sports, social life, and in hostels and dining halls—towards SC/ST students by higher-caste students, teachers and administrators. This led to the framing of the 2012 regulations.
However, due to their ineffective implementation, the discrimination continued, only to shock the nation’s conscience after the tragic deaths by suicide of Rohith Vemula in 2016, Payal Tadvi in 2019 and Darshan Solanki in 2023, to note a few examples. The mothers of some of the victims approached the Supreme Court seeking direction to the UGC to reform and effectively implement the 2012 regulations. The UGC brought out the 2026 regulations on the top court’s advice.
However, some students in the general category opposed them on the ground that they would bring further division between the SC/ST and Other Backward Class students and the general students, lead to reverse discrimination of higher-caste students and induce false cases against them.
How valid are these arguments? In my view, they are not. Although the 2026 rules suffer from other limitations, they at least contain provisions to promote harmony and social inclusion among students. Studies show that Indian campuses are highly diversified—in 2018, of all the students in higher education, 5 percent were ST, 14.86 percent SC, 37 percent OBC, 27 percent high castes, 9.63 percent Muslim, 2.67 percent Christian, and about 3 percent Sikh, Buddhist or Jain. This diversity can result in a measure of division on the lines of caste, tribe and religion.
But this link between diversity and division is a universal phenomenon. In US universities, it’s found between white and black students, and between Muslim, Christian and Jewish ones. Recognising the problem, American institutions have introduced special courses on civic education to unlearn the undemocratic belief the students might have cultivated through socialisation in family and society. They attempted to prepare students to be better-informed citizens—to engage with the values of liberty, equality, individual worth, open-mindedness, and willingness to collaborate for a common good.
Indian campuses that are characterised by caste, race and religious diversity also require a conscious effort to build values that promote harmony. The 2016 regulations aim to eradicate discrimination, promote full equity and inclusion, and create a socially congenial atmosphere through sensitisation. It is only in incidences of discrimination that they provide for legal safeguards to protect affected students. Therefore, the allegation that the regulations themselves will promote division is unfounded and unmindful of these positive provisions.
Will it result in reverse discrimination of general students? This belief is also not borne out by facts. The way discrimination is defined in the regulation, it does not amount to reverse discrimination of general students. It says: “’Discrimination’ means any unfair, differential, or biased treatment or any such act against any stakeholder, whether explicit or implicit, on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, disability.” Thus, it applies to all students including general category ones.
Even when it mentions discrimination against SC, ST or OBC students, it does not point to any high caste as the discriminator. Discriminators can come from any category including SC, ST, OBC or general. In case of discrimination based on gender or disability, it again includes all categories. The presumption of reverse discrimination of general students is thus a false presumption, possibly motivated by political considerations.
Lastly, will high-caste students face the risk of false cases? This issue was also raised against the Prevention of Atrocities Act. Some have asked for a provision for punishment against false cases. For all the years that the 2012 regulations have been in place, there has been no evidence of false complaints. It’s difficult for students from an economically and socially weak background to show the gumption to file false cases against the powerful. Besides, one cannot have a provision to punish for false complaint under the same law that’s meant to protect a vulnerable group from discrimination. On the contrary, such a provision would act as a deterrent for SC, SC and OBC students to file complaints.
Thus, the arguments given by those opposed to the new UGC rules are presumptuous. There is a need to sharpen the 2026 regulations, but not on the line proposed. The Supreme Court should base its judgement not only on legal considerations, but also on insights from studies on discrimination. Otherwise, the regulations will become counter-protective for the very groups they seek to protect.
Sukhadeo Thorat | Former Chairman, UGC
(Views are personal)