In suspending the University Grants Commission’s new regulations to promote equity in higher education institutions, the Supreme Court has halted a reform initiated by itself. In February 2025, a month after the top court ordered UGC to revise the 2012 rules addressing caste-based discrimination, the education regulator released a draft for public consultation. The new regulations promulgated on January 13 incorporated several suggested changes, including recognising prejudice against other backward classes and removing penalty for false complaints, which might deter students from coming forward. The need for revision was felt because neither the earlier rules nor the laws meant to prevent atrocities against members of lower castes and tribes were effective in dealing with on-campus discrimination.
One of the main objections to the new rules—that anti-caste discrimination be broadened to include those against higher castes—has prima facie logic on its side despite the harsh lived reality of most of India. But experts have pointed out that the narrowness alleged is addressed in Clause 3(e) that includes discrimination on grounds of “religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, disability, or any of them”. It’s also true that in a country still smarting from the violence unleashed by the Mandal Commission reforms, it would have been more prudent to first make a strong case for such reforms rather than taking the lesson of reality for granted.
There are, however, other ways the rules can be sharpened. Expansion of the definition of discrimination to comprise “any distinction, exclusion, limitation, or preference” is welcome; but without offences specified it remains prone to misuse. HEIs must be defined in a broader manner to include IITs and IIMs as well as standalone institutes issuing diplomas. Clause 8(c) must be tightened so that an equity committee cannot pass on a case if it deems another panel can deal with it better—the kind of loophole that has weakened the work of committees addressing sexual harassment on campus.
It cannot be lost on policymakers that the seeds of prejudice are sown far before a student enters college. Sensitisation programmes of the sort the UGC rules mandate must also be made compulsory in schools, adapted with innovative design to attract and train impressionable minds. If it’s not taken up as a national mission aimed at a younger age, we would continue to need prohibitory regulations for the later years.