Context and Background
- The case was filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, two students from marginalised communities who died by suicide allegedly due to caste-based discrimination.
- The plea sought to stall the notification of the UGC’s 2025 Regulations until the National Task Force (headed by former SC judge Ravindra Bhat) submits its recommendations.
Relevance : GS 2(Social Justice)
Supreme Court’s Position
- Did not stall the notification of the 2025 UGC Regulations.
- Took a “middle path”:
- Allowed the 2025 Regulations to be notified.
- Directed that the Task Force’s work would continue independently.
- Any gaps (“lacunae”) in the 2025 rules could later be amended based on the Task Force’s findings.
- Petitioners granted liberty to approach the court again once the Task Force report is ready.
Arguments Presented
- For petitioners (Indira Jaising):
- Pointed out “grey areas” in the draft 2025 Regulations, especially around caste discrimination.
- Requested that existing 2012 Regulations remain in force until the Task Force submits its report.
- For the government (Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta):
- Objected to any delay; said the process of finalising the Regulations was already under way.
- Stressed that the new Regulations would be more stringent and would empower UGC to penalise non-compliant institutions.
Role of the National Task Force
- Set up in March 2025 by the SC to address:
- Mental health issues of students.
- Caste/religion-based discrimination.
- Suicides and systemic biases in higher educational institutions.
- Tasked with submitting comprehensive recommendations.
- Its findings will be used to revise or augment the 2025 Regulations if necessary.
Key Provisions of Draft UGC Regulations (2025)
- Aimed at promoting equity in higher education institutions.
- Empower UGC with disciplinary authority, including:
- De-recognition of institutions failing to curb discrimination.
- Intended to strengthen anti-discrimination frameworks, particularly for SC/ST/OBC and minority students.
Significance
- The case represents an important intersection of legal, educational, and social justice issues.
- Marks judicial backing for regulatory reforms while keeping room for future policy improvements.
- Acknowledges the persistence of caste-based bias in academia and the need for structural change.
