Limits of neutrality in addressing caste, Pg9

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court has issued an interim stay on the UGC Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulation, 2026.
• These regulations arose from the case of Abeda Salim Tadvi v Union of India, which concerns caste-based discrimination and student suicides.
• The regulations define caste-based discrimination as discrimination against Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
• Critics have suggested a caste-neutral definition, but the article argues this would dilute the law's ability to address systemic power imbalances.

Detailed Insights:

• The Constitution allows for special provisions for SCs, STs, and OBCs to ensure substantive equality, as per Article 15.
• Formal equality assumes symmetrical discrimination, but caste discrimination is structural and embedded in hierarchies.
• Including "general category" groups in a caste-neutral definition risks equating systemic oppression with isolated bias.
• SC and ST students have historically faced social exclusion, unequal treatment, and institutional bias in higher education.
• The focus should be on strengthening the UGC regulations through independent complaint mechanisms and institutional accountability.
• The effectiveness of the regulations hinges on strong implementation, monitoring, and regular audits to prevent caste-based harm.
• Shifting the debate to abstract neutrality risks missing the core issue of ensuring a responsive system when discrimination occurs.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Substantive Equality: Achieving equality by addressing historical and social disadvantages.
• Formal Equality: Treating all individuals the same, regardless of their background or circumstances.
• Caste-based Discrimination: Discrimination based on caste or tribe against members of SCs, STs, and OBCs.