Law against caste bias waits while 'campuses remain unequal

Bengaluru

What does a university owe a student when caste discrimination is not merely an insult, but a system embedded within the institution and beyond? That question has followed Karnataka’s pro- posed Rohith Vemula Bill through a year of delays. On August 24, the State’s monsoon session ended three days early without the Bill being enacted, despite Cabinet approval in April.

Why it is need of the hour

For Mrudula Vanangamudi, a legal practitioner and member of the drafting committee, the need for such civil legislation is clear. “A right against discrimination is a civil right. You cannot assert a civil right through criminal trials,” she said. The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act primarily addresses criminal offences, leaving subtler forms out side its reach.

In universities, these surface through marks, vivas, hostel decisions, research supervision and administrative discretion. The Bill seeks to recognise direct, indirect and institutional discrimination and provide civil remedies. “Casteist behaviour should have social and economic costs if it really has to change,” she added. Ashna Singh, Assistant Professor of Law at NL SIU Bengaluru, said the Bill could address the power imbalance between stu dents and universities. “The law will provide that kind of minimum standard and recognition of these wrongs,” she said, giving students “a negotiating tool” with administrations.

In 2021, former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan cited 122 student suicides in IITs, IIMs, NITs and other central universities between 2014 and 2021, 68 from reserved categories. Parliament data from 2023 recorded more than 13,500 SC, ST and OBC students dropping out of Central Universities, IITs and IIMs over five years. Between 2019 and 2024, the UGC received 1,160 caste-discrimination com plaints from 74 universities and 1,553 colleges; 1,052 were resolved while pending cases rose from 18 to 108.

Need for solidarity

Legislation alone cannot transform campus culture. For Rahul C.R. of the Ambed kar Students Association, the Rohith Act must be ac companied by student soli darity: a law can provide a complaint mechanism, but collective spaces are needed so students from oppressed communities can resist discrimination together. Lekha Adavi of AISA said the 2012 UGC Equity Regu lations remained largely “legal compliance” without meaningful implementation. The proposed Equity Committees could strengthen accountability. “There is a larger need for students to come together on various kinds of issues, caste being one of them,” she said, stressing stronger student organisations and campus democracy.

The other side

TV Mohandas Pai, condemning the bill as draco nian, said: “If there is a law, the law must protect everyone irrespective of who you are.” He argued that no one should be presumed guilty before wrongdoing is established in court and raised concerns about due process and false com plaints by people from reserved categories. Pai’s emphasis on protecting everyone and preventing misuse mat ters for due process. But treating the Bill primarily as a question of false complaints risks obscuring the unequal reality it seeks to address. Caste discrimination is reproduced through institutions, caste pride and everyday decisions pre sented as neutral. The Rohith Vemula Bill cannot annihilate caste from Indian universities. But it can force institutions to confront the casteism embedded within them and give those who have his torically been asked to en dure it a collective means to resist.