Dr. Sumit Sonkar*
Caste discrimination is a social malaise and continues to be persistent in Indian society. Although positive discrimination in the form of reservations has been provided for political participation, government jobs, and higher education to ensure adequate representation of the marginalised communities to fulfil the constitutional mandate of equality, by and large, it remains an aspirational goal rather than a reality.
Being aware of creeping discrimination plaguing society, after being nudged by the Supreme Court to address rising incidents of caste discrimination and to fulfil the idea of “full equity and inclusion” of the National Education Policy 2020, the government notified the UGC Promotion of Equity Regulations, 2026 (regulations) to tackle forms of discrimination in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs). As the regulations seek to prohibit and penalise caste-based discrimination in HEIs, there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the regulations and the object sought to be achieved: the eradication of caste-based discrimination in HEIs. However, it faced pushback from the people because these regulations could be used to harass General Category (GC) students and staff.
The protestors’ main grievance was against the non-inclusion of the GC within the definition of caste discrimination that only considers the Scheduled Castes (SCs), the Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) under its ambit. To address historical injustice related to caste-based discrimination, the remedial action of reservation aims to equalise the social order in terms of equality of opportunity and status, but the primary objective of the regulations is not meant to make society equal but to minimise, if not eradicate, incidents of caste-based discrimination in all its forms and manifestations to create an inclusive space for teaching and learning in HEIs.
Although caste-based discrimination primarily occurs against lower castes, a narrow definition of caste-based discrimination in the regulations and the presumption that GC can never be discriminated against seem erroneous and go against the constitutional framework of equality. On the other hand, to strengthen the inclusive aspect of the definition of caste-based discrimination, adopting a more open-ended form would quell the opposition against it. For instance, including a definition such as caste discrimination means all direct and indirect discrimination, particularly against SCs, STs, and OBCs, would be a more inclusive definition of caste-based discrimination.
Through regulations, UGC introduced a stronger framework to protect students and staff from caste discrimination and bias, but it was criticised for failing to establish a mechanism to address malicious or false complaints. However, the possibility that a complaint is fabricated or motivated by malice cannot be entirely ruled out. Although regulations can be potentially misused, it is not sufficient to warrant diluting their effects through preventive requirements. The mere possibility of abuse of the complaint mechanism does not make it legally infirm. Therefore, the argument on the issue of false complaints is misplaced. As such, the complaint mechanism under the regulations is vital for protecting vulnerable citizens from systemic abuse and exploitation in HEIs. Moreover, any person dissatisfied with the decision of the Equal Opportunity Centre (EOC) can seek redress by appealing to the ombudsperson and the courts.
The objective of the regulation appears to be to make HEIs the first responders in cases of caste-based discrimination and to actively promote diversity, inclusion, and equality through capacity-building, awareness-raising, and the resolution of such cases. However, requiring the EOC, which consists of Faculties, Staff, and Students, to coordinate with district administration, police, civil society, NGOs, and parents to achieve the goals of the regulations imposes a significant burden, which diverts them from performing their core functions of teaching, learning, and facilitating the functioning of the HEI. A better approach would have been to include a provision for a full-time Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion Officer who, in coordination with EOC, implements the regulations, raises awareness, and prepares reports required under it.
Although the composition of EOC seems good, the provisions for the Equity Squads and Ambassadors, requiring them to be vigilant and take proactive measures, are onerous and unrealistic. Such a composition overlooks the fact that discrimination can be indirect, which, on the face of it, may not appear discriminatory but, in practice, disadvantages one group over another, and is generally subtle and difficult to identify. Thus, such discrimination requires constant auditing of policies and practices by the EOC or external agencies and Equity Squads, and Ambassadors may not be equipped to address them. On the other hand, granting Equity Squads and Ambassadors the power to interfere in interactions among students and staff could result in harassment and the infringement of privacy.
The idea of lodging an internal grievance against discrimination through a helpline sounds good, but the obligation to act appropriately within 24 hours, submit the report within 15 days, dispose of the case within 7 days, and appeal within 30 days is very strict. Although discrimination cases require time sensitivity, such a timeline overlooks the difficulties of convening meetings with stakeholders, including witnesses, especially when, unlike courts, the EOC do not have the power to compel their appearance. A more reasonable timeline is necessary to ensure appropriate action and disposal of discrimination cases at HEIs.
Overall, given the rising complaints of caste discrimination, especially against the SCs, STs, and OBCs in the HEIs, regulations provided a much-needed and effective institutional mechanism to raise complaints and their redress, which were missing earlier.
* The author is an Assistant Professor of Law at Vidyashilp University. He may be contacted at sumitsonkar101@gmail.com.
This blog reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of The Policy Chronicle.