Two Key Issues with UGC’s Draft Rules on Caste Discrimination

Vague Discrimination Criteria and Penalties for ‘False’ Complaints

March 3, 2025

The University Grants Commission’s (UGC) newly proposed regulations on caste discrimination in higher education have drawn criticism on two main fronts: first, for not providing clear, specific descriptions of discriminatory actions; and second, for introducing penalties for “false” claims.

The draft, called the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations 2025, has been prepared to replace the 2012 guidelines, following a Supreme Court directive linked to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). It was filed by the mothers of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi, students who tragically died by suicide. The court’s directive sought to compel the UGC to enhance its policies, ensuring educational environments are safe and equitable to prevent such tragedies in the future.

The UGC has recommended establishing an Equal Opportunity Centre in each institution and forming an “equity committee” that includes women and members from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities. This committee would evaluate any reported incident of bias, decide on appropriate action and forward its findings for institutional measures. An online portal or helpline would also be created to assist students and faculty in lodging complaints. These are some good proposals.

Here are the two problematic provisions.

One, the 2025 version offers a generalised description of discrimination and inexplicably omits disability as a factor, as noted by The Telegraph. The draft defines “caste-based discrimination” specifically as discrimination occurring solely against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, based on their caste or tribe. Further, it categorises “discrimination” more broadly as any act of unfair, differential, or biased treatment directed at any stakeholder, based exclusively on factors such as religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or a combination of these.

In contrast, the 2012 guidelines delineated specific forms of discrimination; for instance, they banned the labelling or public announcement of a student’s caste, religion, or region and cautioned institutions against making remarks that targeted academic performance based on these identifiers.

The vague definition, which does not detail the various forms discrimination can take, leaves much to interpretation by the institutions themselves, potentially leading to inconsistencies in how discrimination is identified, reported and addressed.

Two, the new regulations also propose fines and potential disciplinary actions for individuals who make a “false complaint,” yet they fail to define what constitutes a “false complaint.” For instance, the regulations do not clarify whether a complaint will be considered “false” if no action is taken because the alleged offense could not be proven.

Imagine a student from a Scheduled Caste faces subtle but consistent exclusion from group activities, which impacts their educational experience. They decide to file a complaint under the new regulation. However, because the regulations do not specify what constitutes exclusion as a form of discrimination, the equity committee might dismiss the complaint as unfounded, interpreting the student’s experiences as personal conflicts rather than discrimination. This could leave discriminatory practices unaddressed.

The inclusion of a penalty for false complaints could lead to a chilling effect where students and faculty may hesitate to report genuine instances of discrimination for fear of being unable to prove their case and thus being penalised themselves.

Imagine a faculty member who witnesses a student of a minority religion being frequently sidelined in classroom discussions by peers, possibly due to bias. The faculty member contemplates reporting this but is unsure if their observations meet the broad, undefined criteria of discrimination under the new rules. Concerned about the risk of being fined if the complaint is deemed false, the faculty member decides against filing the report.

In another case, two universities might interpret and apply the broad definition of discrimination differently. One university may take a stricter stance and investigate most complaints thoroughly, while another may dismiss similar complaints as too ambiguous under the vague guidelines. This inconsistency can lead to unequal treatment of similar cases, depending on where they occur, rather than a uniform standard of justice and equity.

The discussion around caste-based discrimination in higher education has intensified following several reported cases over the past decade. In 2016, Vemula, a PhD scholar at Hyderabad Central University, died by suicide. A police complaint mentioned caste bias as a potential factor. A similar incident occurred in 2019 when Payal Tadvi, an Adivasi/tribal student at a Mumbai medical college, died by suicide amid allegations of caste-based harassment from peers.

While the UGC has not formally commented on the apprehensions raised by stakeholders, the draft regulations remain open for input until March 28.