Author(s): Farzeen Salam
Paper Details: Volume 4, Issue 5
Citation: IJLSSS 4(5) 26
Page No: 329 – 337
People belonging to the marginalised communities like the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes have been historically known for enduring the atrocities and injustice committed against them. For centuries, they have been at the receiving end of caste-based discrimination and exclusion. The Indian Constitution mandates the right to equality and right against discrimination to each and every citizen, yet, even 78 years after independence, a major population of our country is still fighting for their basic fundamental rights. Numerous legislations have been implemented post- independence to safeguard the rights of the marginalised communities; however, substantial equality still remains a dream for many. People from such vulnerable communities face discrimination in almost all facets of their lives. Caste-based discrimination in higher educational spaces is one of the many. Despite the breakthrough reservation policy that supposedly expanded accessibility to higher education for the marginalised communities, the question of how fruitious it has been is a question that needs to be studied. Even though the reservation was brought exclusively with the aim of the social and economic upliftment of marginalised communities, in effect, it is the privileged groups that have been reaping its benefits. Even then, there is a significant discourse happening against the reservation policy and how it is causing “reverse casteism”, which is an absurd idea, if one truly understands how casteism actually works in India.[1]
Reservation only helps the underprivileged to acquire admission in a university; it has no control over what happens to students once they are there, but it is one of the major factors for which the students are harassed. Most universities boast of inclusivity and progress but fail to acknowledge the blatant casteism that happens right in front of their eyes. In fact, there have been instances where lives were lost to suicide because those in power refused to take accountability and necessary actions at the right time. Students from marginalised communities often face caste-based discrimination and harassment from their peers, faculties and administrative staffs. Such harassment can have a detrimental effect on their mental health, which in worst cases, forces them to commit suicide. Trauma from such harassment can have long term impact on their mental health which has the capability to even affect their quality of life and work productivity. Even though the statutes call for the creation of grievance redressal committees and equity cells, the effectiveness of such committees is questionable. The lack of effective implementation of policies and the absence of proper supervision and accountability have made the lives of students, who come to prestigious institutions with dreams and hopes of making a better life for themselves and their families, unbearable.
Therefore, it is crucial to examine the shortcomings of the existing legal frameworks and put forth measures to solve the ineffective implementation of policies. Every individual has the right to live with dignity and is entitled to a decent standard of living. As much as it is the duty of the State to ensure and safeguard this fundamental right, each and every citizen, regardless of their class or caste, has a moral obligation to stand with the vulnerable and fight against inequality and oppose discrimination based on any grounds.
THE IMPACT ON THE STUDENT’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
In India, caste is not merely an individual’s social identity but a hierarchical system that has been in existence for centuries and is used to systematically discriminate and humiliate people belonging to the “lower castes”. In recent years, caste-based discrimination has transcended from a rural-agrarian phenomenon and has crept into urban higher educational institutions. It is intersectional and manifests itself in various forms, from ostracization and humiliation from peers to differential treatment by the faculty and apathy from the administration. Ironically, the reservation policy, which was meant to ensure social equality, is often the ground on which the students are discriminated against, questioning their merit and deservingness.
Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has made several interpretations of Art. 21[2] of the Constitution to bring a wide range of rights under the ambit of the right to life and dignity. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India[3] is a landmark judgment that reiterates the importance of living a life with dignity and not just merely existing. The 86th Amendment of 2002 made the right to education a fundamental right under Art. 21 A[4], providing a gateway for students from marginalised communities to pursue higher education without being subjected to discrimination. Depriving a student belonging to the SC/ ST category from accessing education is a grave violation of their fundamental right to life.[5]
As per the fundamental rights enshrined under Arts. 14[6], 15[7], 16[8] and 17[9] along with Art. 46 of the Directive Principles of the State Policy[10], the State not only has the duty to ensure that every citizen has a right to equality and is not discriminated against on any grounds but also has the obligation to frame special provisions for the social and economic upliftment of marginalised communities as well as abolish untouchability.[11]
EFFECT ON MENTAL HEALTH
Caste-based discrimination in higher educational institutions has a crippling effect on the mental health of the victim, and the death of Rohit Vemula painfully stands out as a testament to this reality. He belonged to the SC community and was a research scholar at the University of Hyderabad. He committed suicide in January 2016 as a result of continuous harassment and discrimination based on his caste identity. His suicide note revealed the alienation he faced due to his caste and the victimisation and apathy from faculty members and the administration which were the precursors to his death. This led to a widespread political movement against the institution and the State, calling for more stringent laws for the protection of marginalised communities and to hold the perpetrators accountable.[12]
Similarly, the case of Payal Tadvi exposed the caste-based discrimination that exists in medical colleges. She succumbed to suicide after facing relentless ragging and harassment from three senior resident doctors. She belonged to the tribal community and was subjected to casteist abuse and denied clinical opportunities.[13]
Suicides due to caste-based discrimination are severely underreported in the National Crime Records Bureau as a result of institutional cover-up. This is done by the educational institutions to protect their image and avoid taking any responsibility for enabling the crimes and the grave violation of fundamental rights. Forcing students to tolerate caste-based discrimination can adversely affect their mental health. It could result in poor academic performance, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and self-worth issues. This slow but gradual degradation of the quality of mental health undermines the right to life of the affected student.
INSTITUTIONAL COMPLICITY
An educational institution automatically becomes complicit in propagating caste- based discrimination when it forces a student to live in an environment where they are constantly subjected to casteism and does not pay heed and take necessary actions when a complaint is filed by the affected student. In most cases, when a case of caste-based abuse is reported, the victim is silenced and does not even take any effective action against the perpetrator, which amounts to institutional negligence. Many educational institutions are hesitant to follow the guidelines that safeguard the rights of students from marginalised communities and often act on the behest of politically motivated pressures. This makes them explicitly complicit in violating the student’s fundamental rights rather than merely passive bystanders. Higher educational institutions, especially the ones regulated and funded by the State, are directly bound by Articles 14, 15, 17 and 21. They can be held liable through the writ jurisdictions under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution if they fail to prevent or effectively redress caste-based discrimination.
Faculties in higher educational institutions show caste bias by awarding lower grades to reserved category students and denying them research opportunities. Universities have a positive obligation to create an environment that prevents harm to students from marginalised and vulnerable communities[14] and ensure that no caste-based discrimination or harassment happens under their watch. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Court in State of Karnataka v Appa Balu Ingale[15], any form of untouchability, whether specifically listed in the statute or not, is encompassed under the purview of Art. 17 of the Constitution and the Protection of Civil Rights Act. [16]Students from marginalised communities are often excluded from accessing social spaces like dining halls, study areas and housing facilities. Several instances of inhumane treatment of marginalised students at the hands of privileged class students have been reported. SC/ ST students are called casteist slurs, made to clean the toilets and rooms of “upper caste” students and are subjected to extreme and violent ragging.[17] All these can be categorised as modern untouchability and a direct attack of the constitutional right under Article 17.
EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORKS AND ITS EFFECTIVENESS
Numerous legislations are implemented for the prevention and redressal of caste-based discrimination, yet they fail to effectively achieve their constitutional mandate owing to inadequate implementation, institutional inertia and mischaracterisation of the issue by the authorities. Despite having a strong constitutional framework and reservation policies against caste discrimination, it is only the privileged classes that are still getting the fruits of it. Reservation into educational institutions were made possible through the Supreme Court’s decision in Indra Sawhney v Union of India[18], wherein the Court acknowledged the need for reservation to achieve substantive equality. However, reservation is restricted to the admission stage; they do not deal with what happens inside the institution once a student from the marginalised community gets admission.
GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989[19]
When it comes to the protection against the atrocities against the marginalised communities, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PoA Act’) is the most powerful statute. Multiple amendments were made to bring a wide range of abuse and discrimination faced by the SC/ ST under the scope of the PoA Act. In the Payal Tadvi case, the Act was applied in the context of educational institutions and the perpetrators were booked under this statute. The Court held that the atrocities committed against the victim were covered under the PoA Act. The PoA Act faces several hindrances in its application, especially in higher educational institutions. It does not mandate any preventive measures, rather it provides relief after an act is committed. The power imbalance that exists between an SC/ST student and his teacher, administrators or even a “higher” caste student gives unfair advantage to the latter and this deters the affected student from coming forward and filing an FIR or even a formal complaint. Moreover, it is always the privileged class person who gets to control the narrative, and it often results in institutional hostility and academic retaliation towards the affected student. Students belonging to Other Backward Classes and other marginalised groups are not even covered under the scope of the PoA Act.
UGC (PROMOTION OF EQUITY IN HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS) REGULATIONS, 2012[20]
The UGC (Promotion of equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UGC Regulations’) was an attempt by the government to address the caste-based discrimination in educational institutions. As per the UGC Regulations, an Equal Opportunity Cell (EOC) is to be established as a redressal mechanism for complaints of caste discrimination against students belonging to SC, ST, OBC, minorities and persons with disabilities. The institution is given the power to monitor any caste-based abuse or harassment and they are to periodically report to the UGC. In the paper, these regulations provide an effective solution to the issue of caste discrimination, however, it has been proven to be comprehensively ineffective. Many a time, institutions try to underplay the significance of caste behind such atrocities and bring it under harassment or ragging. Because of this grave mischaracterisation, perpetrators are not given adequate punishment or worse, walk scot-free. The EOCs are not an independent investigatory body and is subordinate to the administration of the university. It is the administration’s discretion to implement the recommendations of the EOC. This gives the administration arbitrary powers over the working of EOC, which nullifies the whole purpose of establishing an EOC in the first place. Furthermore, there is no legal penalty if an institution fails to adhere to the UGC Regulations, thereby no accountability either.
University of Kerala v Councils, Principals, Colleges, Kerala[21] and the UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009 have laid down comprehensive guidelines to curb ragging and have established committees, helplines and sensitisation programmes within the institution. However, clubbing caste-based ragging under the umbrella of other forms of ragging will underplay the ideological and systemic facets attached to caste-based abuse. By doing so, the perpetrators are only charged with the penalty for hazing and not for violating the fundamental rights of an individual.
Arts. 338[22] and 338 A of the Constitution[23] mandate the creation of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. Although this body is empowered to investigate complaints against discrimination, its reach into the internal matters of the university is limited and its recommendations are not binding on the institutions.
UGC (PROMOTION OF EQUITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS) REGULATIONS, 2026[24]
It was formulated in the backdrop of the deaths of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi. Significant shortcomings in the existing anti-discrimination laws were exposed during the adjudication of Abeda Salim Tadvi v Union of India[25], which led to the formulation of UGC Rules 2026 in accordance with the Supreme Court’s direct instructions. The UGC was reprimanded by the Court for its non-adherence of the guidelines. The 2026 Regulations aim to combat the deficiencies in the earlier statutes and regulations.
As per the UGC Rules 2026, caste-based discrimination includes unfair treatment of students belonging to SC, ST, and OBC communities. EOCs are to be established in all universities and an investigation period of 90 days have been stipulated with bi-annual reporting and gradual penalties, which could ultimately lead to derecognition, in case of continued non-adherence. For the first time, calling out the caste of a student and isolating students in classrooms, labs and hostels have been recognised as a human rights violation. The internal complaint systems of all higher education institutions are to be connected to the MANAS-SETU portal, which tracks the pendency of complaints in real time, and the portal automatically notifies the institution to upload an FIR within 24 hours in case a potential crime is detected in a complaint. “The 2026 Regulations also provides debarment powers, anti-segregation clauses, diverse representation in the Equity Committee, confidentiality and safeguards against retaliation, mandatory counselling and proactive equity Squads and Ambassadors.”[26]
However, the UGC Rules 2026 came with its share of controversies and is yet to be implemented. The Regulations are stayed by the Supreme Court as they are allegedly unfair to the general category students and encroach on the State’s education sovereignty.
THE WAY FORWARD
The 2026 Regulations is the closest our country has come to establishing a framework that is equivalent to POSH for addressing caste-based discrimination in higher educational institutions. The State’s indifference, even on a pressing issue like caste-based discrimination, is clear from the fact that the 2026 Regulations were a product of judicial compulsion and not a legislative action. The main criticism faced by the 2026 Regulations is leaving out the general category students in the definition clause, which could enable harassment against them with no room for recourse. This stay is paradoxical as it was the Apex Court that called for stronger regulations and guidelines and deemed the earlier regulations insufficient. Passing a stay order on the 2026 Regulations without even providing the minimal protections enumerated in those Regulations will not act in the best interests of the students from marginalised communities. Differently treating groups of people who are not similarly situated is not discrimination, rather it is giving due constitutional recognition to historically vulnerable and marginalised communities. There was a provision for a penalty for false complaints in the 2025 Draft; however, it was deleted in the 2026 Regulations. Bringing back that provision in the revised draft would be reasonable. All universities, irrespective of whether they are centrally funded or private, must be brought under the ambit of the 2026 Regulations.
The universities must face consequences for being complicit in propagating casteism by imposing financial penalties and loss of accreditation. The proposed Rohit Vemula (Prevention of Exclusion or Injustice) (Right to Education and Dignity) Bill, 2025 and the Telangana Education Commission have called for a national legislation specifically to address the caste-based discrimination faced by students from marginalised communities in higher educational institutions.
The findings of the inquiry committees must be binding on the institutions, and the committee should be comprised of diverse, external, and independent members, to ensure adequate representation. An independent Anti-Discrimination Authority for Higher Educational institutions must be established at the national level to directly receive complaints, to initiate suo motu proceedings and to hold the institutions accountable.
Curriculum must be reformed by incorporating Ambedkarite teachings and Dalit literature, and training must be given to all faculty members and staffs to ensure caste sensitisation and anti-bias. Alongside, more individuals from SC, ST, OBC and other marginalised communities must be recruited as faculty members and in administrative roles to ensure representation and control over institutional narratives.
Implementing these measures is a stepping stone in creating an environment free of caste-based discrimination and violence in higher educational institutions.
CONCLUSION
In our country, a student belonging to a marginalised community has to overcome several hurdles to get admission in a higher educational institution, which their general category counterparts do not have to experience. They have to fight centuries-old bias and stigma to get admission, and even after getting admission, despite the existence of the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment and opportunities. The loopholes and ineffective implementation of statutes and policies meant to protect the rights of marginalised communities have led to the decay of their fundamental right to education and dignity. The institutions, which are meant to be safe spaces for learning and growth, are also complicit in the grave violation of their students’ fundamental rights.
Caste-based discrimination in higher educational institutions is not merely a social issue but a violation of constitutional rights. Undergoing such discrimination can have a detrimental effect on a person’s mental health, and it is worsened by institutional apathy. The deaths of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi are not isolated incidents and it shows how systemic failures can often have grave consequences.
The existing legal frameworks have been proven insufficient and many marginalised students are still silently enduring atrocities based on their caste identity. The UGC Regulations 2026, a relatively efficient regulation was stayed just 16 days after the notification was released. It has been a common practice for the privileged classes to derail any policies or frameworks that address the violation of the rights of marginalised communities. They feel an existential threat when a law jeopardizes their status quo, built on oppression and caste bias. This shows how deep-rooted the political and institutional resistance is, even against basic structural safeguards for marginalised students.
[1] Tanika Godbole, Why India’s Top Tech Universities Can’s Shake off Caste Bias, Deutsche Welle, 2025. Available at https://www.dw.com/en/why-indias-top-tech-universities-cant-shake-off-caste-bias/a-72116876 last accessed in 15 Mar. 2026.
[2] India CONST. art 21.
[3] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
[4] India CONST. art 21 A
[5] Mohini Jain (Miss) v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666.
[6] India CONST. art 14.
[7] India CONST. art 15.
[8] India CONST. art 16.
[9] India CONST. art 17.
[10] India CONST. art 46.
[11] India CONST. arts 15(4), 16(4).
[12] Vemula Radhika v. Public Prosecutor, 2023 SCC OnLine TS 3769.
[13] Hema Suresh Ahuja v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1596.
[14] Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 14.
[15] State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 469.
[16] Protection of Civil Rights Act, No. 22 of 1955, INDIA CODE (1955).
[17] Hanan Zaffar and Shaheen Abdulla, Dalit Scholar’s Protest Exposes Casteism in India’s Higher Education, FAIR PLANET, 2024. Available at https://www.fairplanet.org/story/dalit-scholars-protest-exposes-casteism-in-indias-higher-education/ last accessed in 14 Mar, 2026.
[18] Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.
[19] Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, No. 33 of 1989, INDIA CODE (1989).
[20] UGC (Promotion of equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part III, § 4 (2012).
[21] University of Kerala v. Council of Principals of Colleges in Kerala, (2009) 15 SCC 301.
[22] India CONST. art 338.
[23] India CONST. art 338 A.
[24] UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part III, § 4 (2026).
[25] Abeda Salim Tadvi v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1280.
[26] UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, regs. 5-11, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part III, § 4 (2026).