Addressing Caste Discrimination: Why Neutrality Fails and Substantive Equality Matters
The interim stay on the UGC Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulation, 2026, highlights the debate on caste-based discrimination. The regulation defines "caste-based discrimination" specifically for SC, ST, and OBCs, which is criticized for not being 'caste-neutral'. The article argues that formal neutrality misunderstands caste as a structural hierarchy, not isolated incidents. Constitutional Articles 14 and 15 support differential treatment for substantive equality, not abstract sameness. Effective enforcement mechanisms, independent complaint systems, and accountability are crucial for the UGC framework to fulfill its constitutional promise of equality.
Key Points
- The UGC regulations define caste-based discrimination specifically for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes.
- A 'caste-neutral' definition risks collapsing structural inequality into a universal grievance framework, diluting the law's effectiveness.
- Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution mandate substantive equality, allowing for differential treatment to remedy historical disadvantage.
- Strengthening enforcement, complaint mechanisms, and institutional accountability is more critical than debating definitional neutrality.
Exam Facts
- Regulation: UGC Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulation, 2026.
- Case: Abeda Salim Tadvi v Union of India.
- Constitutional Articles: Article 14 and Article 15.
- Author: Priya Chaudhary (Research Associate, CLPR).
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.