17.04.2026.Untouchability News.(News of Dalits,Adivasi,atrocity,buddhist,Dr Ambedkar,Employement,Education news details from various sources)by Sivaji.Ayyayiram UTNews.9444917060.
Eliminating Caste Discrimination in India’s Higher Education: A Constitutional Dilemma under the 2026 Regulations
—Atul Kumar Dubey, Research Scholar at the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal, India, and Uday Shankar, Professor of Law at the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal, India.
—Atul Kumar Dubey, Research Scholar at the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal, India, and Uday Shankar, Professor of Law at the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal, India.
1. Introduction
Caste-based discrimination constitutes an enduring structural feature of Indian society and continues to shape access to, power, and vulnerability within the higher educational institutions (hereinafter “HEIs”) in the country. Far from being confined to isolated incidents, such discrimination manifests in the everyday experience of campus life through exclusion and humiliation. In response to this entrenched pattern of discrimination, the Supreme Court in Abeda Salim Tadvi v. Union of India directed the University Grants Commission (hereinafter “UGC”) to enact new regulations to address these systematic educational fault lines. Against this backdrop, the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education) Regulations 2026 (hereinafter “Regulations”) seek to address systemic prejudice in HEIs and advance the ideals of “full equity and inclusion”, in alignment with the objective of India’s National Education Policy 2020. To address entrenched hierarchies through an interventionist framework, the Regulations define “caste-based discrimination” and “discrimination”. The Regulations also impose mandatory obligations to establish institution-wide Equal Opportunity Centres, helplines, and grievance redressal mechanisms. The Regulations require formal undertakings of non-discrimination from faculty, staff, and students, while also introducing UGC-monitored sanctions for institutional non-compliance. Almost immediately, the Regulations attracted constitutional contestation, culminating in an interim stay thereof by the Supreme Court in Mritunjay Tiwari v. Union of India. The Court flagged the “possibility of misuse” and the Regulations’ susceptibility to “ambiguities”. Taken together, the promulgation of the Regulations and the subsequent order staying their operation have ignited a dense cluster of constitutional questions. The analysis in this post will therefore interrogate whether the definitional choices embedded in the Regulations withstand constitutional scrutiny, including challenges grounded in under-inclusiveness.
2. Concern of Equality and Non-Discrimination
We suggest that the Regulations’ asymmetrical focus on historically disadvantaged groups can be defended against formalistic critiques, situating these within Sandra Fredman’s four-dimensional model of substantive equality. Further, we contend that the Regulations however suffer from under-inclusiveness under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, as they narrow the scope of protected groups and exclude similarly situated vulnerabilities.
2.1 Four-Dimensional Model of Substantive Equality
The core legal controversy surrounding the Regulations lies in their definition of caste-based discrimination under clause 3(1)(c). That clause defines such discrimination narrowly, especially as an act committed “only on the basis of” caste or tribe against the members of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes. Critics have argued that the definition creates an “asymmetrical unidirectional approach” and “hierarchy of victimhood” based on an “constitutionally impermissible bias” by excluding the non-reserved category – those who do not fall within groups recognised for affirmative action under the Indian Constitution such as scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes – within its protective ambit. However, this critique proceeds on a formalistic conception that is inconsistent with settled understandings of equality. In this regard, professor Sandra Fredman’s influential formulation of a four-dimensional substantive framework provides an appropriate lens. The four-dimensional model requires redressing socio-economic disadvantages, addressing stigma and stereotyping, enhancing the voice and participation of excluded groups, accommodating differences, and achieving structural change. She emphasised that substantive equality is “expressly asymmetric” as it legitimately prioritises and focuses on those who have been disadvantaged and excluded, and not on preserving symmetry with historically privileged groups:
The four-dimensional conception of substantive equality is helpful in addressing these difficulties. As a start, it is expressly asymmetric. The right to equality aims to redress disadvantage, not simply to remove racial or gender ascriptions. This asymmetry means that equality is not necessarily breached by measures which specifically use race or gender as a means of distributing benefits and burdens. Indeed, provided that they aim to benefit the subordinated group, specific measures based on race or gender may be necessary to achieve substantive equality. Thus, whereas formal equality would regard affirmative action as a breach of equality, substantive equality sees such programmes as a means to achieve equality. At the same time, affirmative action should also aim to achieve the other dimensions of substantive equality.
The Indian equality jurisprudence has also long rejected the notion of abstract or arithmetical equality and allows differential measures aimed at addressing systemic and structural disadvantages. In his seminal work, scholar Gautam Bhatia demonstrates that the Indian approach has moved away from colour-blind equality towards a group-subordination view of equality. This situates the Indian approach to equality within a broader constitutional commitment to redress historical injustice through corrective and affirmative measures, as systemic barriers do not operate symmetrically across social groups.
Situating the Regulations within Fredman’s model, we suggest that they operate as a transformative, asymmetrical framework. Fredman’s first dimension requires measures to redress disadvantage. The Regulations seek to “eradicate discrimination only on the basis of entrenched hierarchies and promote “full equity and inclusion”. It identifies scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, and persons with disabilities as groups facing systemic exclusion. As Fredman argues, substantive equality cannot be achieved merely by removing barriers; it requires positive measures that compensate for historically accumulated disadvantage. However, the Regulations exhibit a procedural reorientation, in that they shift the anti-discrimination framework to an institutional grievance redressal mechanism such as Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees and time bound complaint processes. However, they stop short of institutionalising material redress such as compensation, restitution or enforceable individual relief. The second dimension focuses on the recognition of harm, stigma, stereotype and prejudice. In this respect, the Regulations adopt a broad definition of discrimination and include acts that perpetuate prejudice. By mandating structural tools such as helplines, equity squads, mandatory anti-discrimination undertakings, and by recognising caste-based discrimination, gender bias, and disability bias, the Regulation aligns with Fredman’s concept of equality that actively engages with “social meaning”. Fredman’s third dimension demands that voice is enhanced as well as participation of marginalised groups in political and other processes to foster agency and inclusion. The Regulations advance this through mandatory representation of disadvantaged groups in Equal Opportunity Centres under clause 5 and the appointment of Equity Ambassadors under clause 5(12). The fourth dimension requires accommodating difference and achieving structural change, in Fredman’s account, “the structural and institutional cause of exclusion needs to be changed”. The Regulations are ambitiously structured, most notably in their creation of a multi-tiered institutional architecture comprising Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees, helplines, and monitoring mechanisms. However, as Fredman puts it, the fourth dimension should include a “broad-based and radical strategy” that refashions institutions rather than just redistributive positions. In large part, the Regulations are complaint-driven and compliance-oriented, as the preference scheme alters the composition of the existing structure without transforming it. With HEIs lacking staff, funds, and expertise, the fourth dimension cannot be achieved solely through legal rules, without shifts in organisational structures.
In conclusion, we submit that the Regulations represent an attempt to realise the four-dimensional substantive equality framework; however, they remain a procedural and compliance-focused effort.
2.2 Under-inclusiveness and Regulatory Disjunction
Under-inclusive classification arises when a law or policy includes within its scope some persons or situations that are linked to the legislative objective, but excludes other persons who are similarly situated in relation to that objective. In equality terms, the State furthers a legitimate aim for some, while denying the same benefit to others who are subject to experiencing the same mischief. In State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills, the Indian Supreme Court discussed under-inclusiveness in the following terms:
A classification is under-inclusive when all who are included in the class are tainted with the mischief but there are others also tainted whom the classification does not include. In other words, a classification is bad as underinclusive when a State benefits or burdens persons in a manner that furthers a legitimate purpose but does not confer the same benefit or place the same burden on others who are similarly situated. [para 55]
Building on this, the objective of the Regulations is to eradicate discrimination and promote equity in the HEIs for historically disadvantaged groups. However, the operative clauses, particularly the definition of discrimination and regulatory design, do not extend protection to all. Clause 3(e) defines discrimination as unfair, differential, or biased treatment or any such act on the grounds of religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, disability, or any of them. From an under-inclusiveness perspective, the phrase “only of” provides an exhaustive list and singles out broader categories of structural disadvantages. The Regulations exclude economic vulnerability, language and ethnic classification from their substantive ambit. Consequently, the classification between protected grounds (religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, disability) and unprotected grounds (language, ethnicity and economic vulnerability) renders the Regulations under-inclusive. Each of the groups bears a direct and intelligible nexus to the stated goal of eradicating discrimination in HEIs. Therefore, under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, there is a law whose object is to address discrimination in HEIs but fails to acknowledge other forms of discrimination.
The under-inclusive definition is further exposed by reading the duties of HEIs to promote equity under clause 4 and the measures to promote equity under clause 7. Both clauses refer to the broad, open-textured phrase “discrimination” or “any form of discrimination”; however, the definitional clause adopts a narrow, closed enumeration of protected groups, making it under-inclusive of unprotected groups. Therefore, this creates a regulatory disjunction where many forms of discrimination are justiciable without a formal definitional framework.
3. Conclusion
The post has argued that the recently adopted Regulations, insofar as these adopt an asymmetrical focus on historically marginalised groups, are consistent with the Constitution’s substantive equality framework. The Regulations can be understood as a legitimate regulatory intervention aimed at redressing structural disadvantage, recognising stigma and enhancing participatory inclusion. However, the Regulations suffer from a constitutionally significant defect of under-inclusiveness. By relying on an exhaustive enumeration of protected grounds while simultaneously imposing broad obligations on HEIs to eliminate “any form of discrimination”, the framework generates an internal inconsistency and disjunction. The exclusion of language, ethnicity, and economic vulnerability from the definitional ambit weakens the Regulations on equality grounds. However, this under-inclusiveness does not undermine the legitimacy of caste-centered protections.
Suggested citation: Atul Kumar Dubey and Uday Shankar, Eliminating Caste Discrimination in India’s Higher Education: A Constitutional Dilemma under the 2026 Regulations, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Apr. 16, 2026, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/eliminating-caste-discrimination-in-indias-higher-education-a-constitutional-dilemma-under-the-2026-regulations/
3️⃣🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅🍅
Telangana: SCs, STs three times more backward than General Castes, finds government survey
The study found that 135 of the 242 castes in the state are more backward than the average backwardness index.
A caste and socio-economic survey conducted by the Telangana government has found that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are three times more backward than General Castes, The Indian Express quoted Backward Classes Welfare Minister Ponnam Prabhakar as saying.
The survey was conducted in 2024-’25 by the state’s Congress government. Its findings were released on Wednesday.
The survey found that Backward Classes are 2.7 times more backward than General Castes, The Indian Express reported.
According to the study, 135 of the 242 castes in Telangana are more backward than the Composite Backwardness Index, PTI quoted an Independent Expert Working Group set up by the government to analyse the survey as saying. The 135 castes account for close to 67% of the state’s population.
Sixty-nine of the 135 groups are Backward Classes, 41 are Scheduled Castes and 25 are Scheduled Tribes.
“Expectedly, all the 18 castes within the more privileged ‘General Caste’ category that account for 12% of the total population fall well below the state CBI [Comprehensive Backwardness Index] average,” PTI quoted the expert working group as saying.
The study found that “every backward caste is not equally backward”. It found 107 castes were less backward than the state average.
The survey covered more than 3.5 crore households. It used 42 indicators, including income, employment, education levels, land and property ownership and access to medical and civic infrastructure, according to The Indian Express.
Those facing backwardness have been left behind in education and job opportunities, lack access to proper housing, clean drinking water, functional toilets and are economically unstable, the study said.
Telangana Deputy Chief Minister Bhatti Vikramarka Mallu said that based on the findings, specialised benefits, including financial support, will be extended to the 135 groups who face backwardness, The Indian Express reported.
Comments
Post a Comment