SC Directs UGC to Consider 10-Point Framework on Caste Bias in Higher Education, Sets 8-Week Timeline

The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, who died by suicide in 2016 because of alleged caste discrimination. The 2019 petition urged the court to enforce robust anti-discrimination mechanisms across higher education institutions, citing the failure to implement UGC’s 2012 equity regulations.

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi recorded that the UGC had published draft regulations and received 391 suggestions, some of which were already endorsed by an expert committee.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union of India.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing the petitioners, stressed that while earlier Supreme Court rulings have addressed student suicides generally, this case targets caste-specific discrimination, which remains inadequately addressed despite draft regulations.

Justice Kant noted the petitioners’ 10-point proposal, which includes prohibiting discriminatory practices, ensuring grievance redressal, protecting complainants, holding institutions accountable for negligence, providing mental health counselling, conducting audits, disbursing scholarships fairly, and supporting marginalised students through special courses.

The Court ordered that the UGC consider these recommendations within eight weeks, emphasizing that timely action is critical to prevent further tragedies. “The UGC is expected to take a final decision after examining these suggestions alongside the expert committee report,” the Bench said.

In April, the Court had allowed the University Grants Commission (UGC) to notify regulations for combating caste-based discrimination and suicides in higher education institutions. The Bench had witnessed an exchange between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing the petitioner(s).

While Jaising was making her submissions opposing the finalization of UGC’s draft anti-discrimination regulations, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had attempted to politiely interject and inform the Court that the UGC was still in the process of finalizing the rules.

Amid the intervention, Mehta had sought to point out that UGC is still in the process of preparing rules.

Jaising, in return had shouted and asked the Solicitor General not to intervene in her arguments. However, Mehta maintained silence. Further, a query was raised by the Court to Solicitor General and as he rose to answer, in view of the earlier shout-down by Ms. Jaising, he politely asked her whether he has her permission to answer the court’s question.

The remark triggered a fiery reaction from Jaising, who accused Mehta of a “male chauvinist attitude” and asserted that he would not have made such a remark to a male colleague. She urged the Court to “protect her from male chauvinism” during the proceedings.

Despite the escalating tone, the Solicitor General had answered the Court’s question with restraint and, in a moment of quiet irony, remarked, “My Lord, I understand it is very difficult to be a Judge.”

The hearing continued thereafter, and the matter was adjourned. Before proceedings concluded, Jaising had apologized to the Court for raising her voice. The Apex Court had also pointed out that its recent decision to set up a National Task Force (NTF) for tackling the discrimination will not hinder progress already made.

The Bench did not comment on the exchange but proceeded with passing its order, allowing the UGC to finalize and notify its draft regulations. “Pending recommendations of NTF and/or implementation of such recommendations and its consequential implementation, petitioner or any public-spirited person shall be at liberty to move appropriate application in these proceedings to suggest suitable addition, deletion or modifications to the regulations notified by the UGC,” the Bench had said.

Case Title: Abeda Salim Tadvi and Anr. v. Union of India

Hearing Date: September 15, 2025

Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi