Complaints of caste discrimination have increased by over 118 per cent, yet high disposal rates conceal a lack of transparency, corrective action and institutional change.
The UGC’s equity framework formalises committees but keeps grievance redressal within existing hierarchies, without oversight.
Without external accountability, graded penalties and public transparency, procedural compliance may normalise discrimination and undermine constitutional guarantees.
The University Grants Commission recently informed Parliament and the Supreme Court that complaints of caste discrimination in universities have risen by 118.4 per cent over the last five years, increasing to nearly 400 from fewer than 200 a year. On the surface, the UGC’s claim that most complaints have been disposed of appears reassuring: cases are being registered, processed and formally concluded. A closer reading, however, points to a deeper concern. Discrimination complaints may be acknowledged and closed, but they are rarely made consequential, with administrative efficiency outpacing genuine accountability.
The UGC’s Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026 is presented as a reformist intervention. It requires the creation of Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees, grievance redressal mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance. For the first time, the regulations explicitly recognise Other Backward Classes as vulnerable to caste discrimination, reflecting a broader understanding of constitutional protections. While this is notable on paper, it avoids a more fundamental issue: how power is structured to ensure grievances are resolved meaningfully rather than merely through procedural formality.
Committees, Transparency, and Accountability
The universities have had Equal Opportunity Cells and grievance committees, and these have been formalised. However, the existing administrative structure is retained, with Equity Committees chaired by senior institutional authorities. Complaints continue to move through the same channels that govern admissions, assessment, supervision, finance and discipline. There is no requirement for independent external members with decision-making authority, nor any appeal mechanism outside the university.
.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max&format=webp&w=768&dpr=1.0)
The UGC’s own statistics show the effect of this structure. Institutions show a disposal rate of over 90 per cent, but the number of complaints pending continues to increase. There is no information available about whether the charges are sustained, whether any action is taken, or whether the institution’s behaviour changes as a result. Disposal in this case is not resolution, it is closure. Cases are handled in a way that maintains institutional reputation, but does not address structural or systemic problems. For students, this is a clear message: a complaint may not result in meaningful change.
Discrimination in higher education institutions is neither common and nor dramatic. It happens in the form of grading, allocation of mentorship, or exclusion. The problem rarely leaves an evidence. The current regulatory framework does not in ensure that the behaviour is corrected. The rights of the students are left unprotected even when the procedural requirements are met.
The Public and Constitutional Implications
Caste discrimination is not merely an administrative concern; it is a constitutional one. Articles 14 and 15 guarantee equality and prohibit discrimination on the grounds of caste, while Article 21 protects the right to dignity. Public universities, as state-funded and state-run institutions, are constitutionally bound to uphold these principles. When complaints are handled through internal hierarchies, this duty is weakened, undermining the State’s positive obligation under Article 15(2) to ensure equality and non-discrimination.
Rohith Vemula’s death was not caused by the absence of rules, but by institutional power shielding itself from accountability. The new regulations risk repeating this pattern. Despite their progressive language, they rely on the same institutions to police themselves, even when their internal incentives may conflict with constitutional duties.
However, the consequences for non-compliance are poorly-designed. While de-recognition or withdrawal of funding is threatened, there is no graduated enforcement that distinguishes between isolated lapses, systemic failure or deliberate suppression of complaints. This centralised approach encourages procedural box-ticking rather than meaningful reform. A system that prioritises disposal figures over real outcomes risks normalising discrimination and eroding public trust in higher education.
Addressing this problem requires both structural and procedural reform. Committees should include independent external members with real decision-making power. Outcomes of complaints, disciplinary action and institutional reforms should be published in anonymised form. Accountability must be graded to distinguish individual misconduct from institutional failure, with clear consequences for repeated violations of personal freedoms.
However, the 118 per cent increase in complaints indicates that students are actively reporting discrimination, which indicates disparity between reporting and addressing the issue. Without transparency and independent enforcement, procedural compliance may become a substitute for equity. Universities can continue to brag about their high disposal rates while discriminatory practices continue to exist.
Aligning Law with Constitutional Duty
The now-stayed UGC guidelines promised strengthening anti-discrimination norms in Indian universities. They introduced mechanisms that address caste discrimination more comprehensively than before. However, these reforms will fail if their implementation remains shaped by institutional self-interest and internal hierarchies. Accountability must be independent, transparent and proportionate.
Caste-based discrimination in higher education is not a theoretical concern. It affects academic performance, career choices, and access to higher education by marginalised groups. The current regulatory system, despite being in conformity with the constitutional requirements, is poised to perpetuate institutional insulation and procedural closure without any actual change. The rise in complaints indicates that students are ready to voice their concerns, but the system is not listening.
For the regulations to succeed, enforcement must go beyond paperwork, and transparency must be acknowledged as a constitutional obligation. Otherwise, Indian universities will be able to keep up the facade of progress while maintaining status quo, and the marginalised students, along with the public, will pay the price for accountability that never materialises.
Akhil Yadav is law student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar. He writes on constitutional law, public institutions, and public policy
