ON JANUARY 15, 2026, TWO DAYS BEFORE the decadal anniversary of the passing of Rohith Vemula, and only two weeks before it stayed the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations 2026, which rectified various lacunae of its preceding regulation, the Supreme Court had delivered a crucial order in Amit Kumar v. Union of India, a case arising from the alleged suicide of two Dalit students at IIT Delhi. The order, delivered by a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, was based on the interim report submitted by the National Task Force (‘NTF’), which seeks to address mental health concerns and prevent suicide incidents in Higher Education Institutions (‘HEI’), constituted by the same bench in a judgment delivered in March, 2025.
Using its powers under Article 142, the Court gave effect to various critical recommendations of the NTF interim report regarding suicide prevention and mental health support for students, such as maintenance of a Sample Registration System data on student suicides, and differentiation of school and college students in the Natinal Crime Record Bureau’s (‘NCRB’) data on student suicides. The Court also directed the NTF to formulate a model Standard Operating Procedure (‘SOP’) on implementing these recommendations.
However, while the Amit Kumar order reflected a clear picture on the broader reasons for suicide in educational institutions, its lack of engagement with causes, such as caste-based discrimination, the dehumanized corporate model of education and the shrinking of democratic spaces in India’s universities was glaring.
Even as it missed critically engaging with caste in Amit Kumar, intervention in a separate batch of challenges brought to the Court by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, specifically on the issue of caste discrimination in HEIs, did result in the Union government notifying the fresh UGC Regulations 2026 earlier this month, which rectified various lacunae of its preceding regulation.
Yet, another new set of petitions, in the wake of a hate campaign and protests against the new Regulations (resulting in the Supreme Court staying the Regulations today), has set off yet another stream of litigation on the same question: how, and to what extent, can the Supreme Court confront the ‘caste’ issue head on when it comes to the life, education and aspirations of millions of students from marginalised communities in India’s universities and colleges?
How the Amit Kumar case had come about: Two suicides and no FIR
First on July 8, 2023, and then on September 1, 2023, Ayush Ashna and Anil Kumar, both Dalit students admitted in IIT Delhi, were found dead in their respective hostel rooms. Soon after, parents of both students filed written complaints to the police, alleging murder and caste discrimination by faculty members at IIT Delhi, and for registration of a case under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The police refused to file an FIR. Advocate Mehmood Pracha, representing one of the parent couples, then sent a legal notice to the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi to take action against the police. According to the submissions made by the petitioners in the Court, the police had only conducted an inquiry under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and reached a conclusion that both the students committed suicide due to depression and closed the case.
The appellants of this case filed a petition in the High Court under Article 226 to issue a writ of mandamus to the police to register an FIR and undertake the investigation. The Delhi High Court rejected the petition. Aggrieved by this order, they filed a criminal appeal in front of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s National Task Force innovation
On March 24, 2025, considering the disturbing pattern of the suicide cases, the Supreme Court not only ordered the registration of FIR and the constitution of an NTF, led by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, a former judge of the Supreme Court, to address the mental health concerns of the students and prevent the commission of suicides in HEIs.
The Court directed that the report by NTF shall include the following matters:
1) Identification of the predominant causes which lead to commission of suicides by students,
2) Analysis of the existing regulations, and,
3) Recommendations for strengthening protections.
The NTF was given power to make surprise inspections in HEIs and also take into account the views and concerns of all stakeholders, including student union representatives. The NTF was given liberty to approach the Court through the amicus curiae, in case of any delay, reluctance or neglect by the institutions, or government bodies. The Court directed NTF to submit an interim report in four months and final report in eight months.
‘Ragging, academic pressure, no redressal bodies’: What the NTF’s interim report found
The NTF report threw light into some realities, including identification of suicide as one of the primary causes of death of youth in India, the lack of institutional support framework, the myopic focus on quantitative expansion ignoring the qualitative aspects, and structural and social inequalities.
The report also highlighted the tokenistic functioning or complete absence of support systems like Internal Complaints Committees, Equal Opportunity Cells, student unions, or infrastructure for people with disabilities (‘PwD’) in the HEIs. Other than that, it cites ragging, increased academic pressure, financial stress and failure to address mental health concerns as the major reasons for suicide. The report also underlines that several legislations and reports have already given recommendations and guidelines but no proper mechanism has been devised to implement them properly. On the other hand, there is no accountability on HEIs on their implementation.
Supreme Court’s greenlight on NTF’s findings
Based on the recommendations by NTF, the court in exercise of the plenary powers under Article 142, gave effect to the following recommendations:
i) A Sample Registration System data on student and youth suicides must be maintained.
ii) Differentiation between school and college students in the NCRB data on student suicides.
iii) HEIs must report the matter to police authorities as soon as they come to know about the incident.
iv) Submission of annual report to UGC/DHE, Ministry of Education, GoI
v) Qualified medical help within 1km radius.
vi) Fill all vacant faculty positions in 4 months, with priority to posts reserved for candidates from marginalized communities including PwDs.
vii) Fill the vacancies of Vice Chancellor, Registrar etc. in 4 months and ensure these positions don’t remain vacant for more than one month, in case these posts remain vacant in the future.
viii) All pending scholarships shall be disbursed in two months. It must be ensured that all scholarships are disbursed in clear timelines, without any delay.
ix) Strict compliance with the regulations issued by UGC on ragging, promotion of equity, sexual harassment, student grievances, EOC etc.
Other than this, some important NTF recommendations, reproduced by the Court are as follows:
Accessibility audits to ensure compliance with the inclusivity standards. The standards include accessibility measures for students and staff from marginalized groups including PwD and transgender candidates, across admission, reservation, hostel accommodation, campus facilities, and scholarships.
Mandatory faculty sensitization on matters like academic, financial, social, discrimination-related stressors.
Ensure the access to professional and standardized mental health support in place of the unprofessional “counsellors”, feedback mechanisms on student satisfaction, transparent operating procedures etc.
The Court directed the NTF to create and submit a model SOP as a mechanism for ensuring the implementation of these recommendations, along with the final report. Along with that, the court also requested the NTF to make a model ‘Universal Design Framework’ or a model ‘Suicide Prevention and Postvention Protocol’, which comprehensively includes all the guidelines and SOPs.
What the Supreme Court missed to address in Amit Kumar
Student suicide, as the order correctly points out, is just a tip of the iceberg of the student distresses of various forms. Various reasons for student suicides have been discussed in the NTF’s report. Commendably, the order points out that there is a serious lack of implementation and institutional apathy, prevalent in the HEIs, when it comes to student suicides. It also raises concerns on the non-professionalistic approach taken through "counsellors" appointed by institutions and recognises mental health as a serious issue of concern in HEIs.
On the other hand, when it comes to the directives and the recommendations, it could not make a qualitative departure from the past judgements, which emphasized on superficial reforms rather than a foundational change in the educational relations. The NTF’s interim report also failed to substantially engage with the need for structural changes in the education system For understanding the matter in simpler terms, three major aspects of the current educational scenario shall be taken into consideration.
The missing conversation on ‘caste’
While the judgement was on the suicide cases of two dalits, the question of caste as a contributory factor was not emphasized in the judgement. In fact, the Amit Kumar order refrains from mentioning the word “caste” or even “Scheduled Castes”. On the matter of appointment of faculties, preference has been given to a vague category called “marginalized and underrepresented communities”, which may include Economically Weaker Sections (‘EWS’), also, as per the current reservation policy.
While it may appear to be a minor omission, such refrain from using constitutionally accepted terms such as ‘Scheduled Caste’ denotes a systemic reluctance to confront caste hierarchies in HEIs. In a detailed statement, Ashwini K.P., a UN special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, noted, “The persistent and systematic forms of discrimination that Dalit and Adivasi students face require explicit acknowledgement.”
While scholars have argued that the rate of ragging has significantly reduced following the implementation of UGC Anti-Ragging Regulations in 2009. However, there has been no significant effect on caste discrimination in HEIs despite the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012. It has been argued that while anti-ragging regulations offered an effective framework and the implementation was also swift, the anti-discrimination regulations lacked both due to the institutional bias in framing regulations against caste discrimination.
Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi’s petition in the Supreme Court
Since the suicides of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, the latter a resident doctor in a Mumbai hospital who faced severe caste discrimination, which have been oftened termed ‘institutional murders’ many groups are vehemently demanding the enactment of the Rohith Act, a legislation to tackle the increasing caste-based discrimination faced by SC and ST students in HEIs.
The “suicides” by Dalit and Adivasi students like Payal Tadvi, Darshan Solanki, Muthukrishnan, Senthil Kumar, and Madari Venkatesh in IITs, Hyderabad University, Jawaharlal Nehru University and many other HEIs, imply that caste is a major factor that contributes to student suicides in HEIs.
In connection with this, Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi, the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, respectively, filed a petition before the Supreme Court in 2019. Represented by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising and Advocate Disha Wadekar, the petitioners sought reliefs that included strict implementation of Equity Regulations, 2012, sanctions on universities in failure to take strict action, Monitoring Cells to ensure strict adherence to the regulations, compulsory inclusion of SC-ST members and independent representatives from NGOs or social activists in EOCs.
In the Adeba Tadvi case, an interim order passed on April 24, 2025, dated 24.04.2025 referred to the first judgement in Amit Kumar case, and directed the NTF constituted in Amit Kumar case to take suggestions and recommendations. The NTF report does not categorically identify caste-discrimination as an important factor in student suicide cases. Along with that, there is no statistical data in the NTF report on the number of Dalit and Adivasi suicide cases in the total student suicide cases, rendering the caste angle behind the suicide to be completely overlooked. The apparent oversight of NTF and the Court in acknowledging these issues and developments can also adversely affect the pending Abeda Tadvi case, as the NTF report is relevant for both the cases.
UGC’s new Equity Regulations under the scanner
As a result of this legal struggle, on January 13, 2026, the UGC released the new Equity Regulations, 2026 which replaced the 2012 regulations. Despite having grave issues like inclusion of EWS students within its ambit, limited focus on student representation, based on the delusive “academic merit”, etc., it strengthens the resolution mechanism by replacing Equal Opportunity Cell with Equal Opportunity Centre, which includes Equity Committee, Equity Helpline, Equity Squads, etc. coupled with mandatory sensitization and counselling programmes, sanctions on institution on non-adherence, faster procedures, coordination with legal service authorities etc.
There have been a lot of hate campaigns being unleashed against this regulation, since the past few days, claiming that it immunises false complaints. This narrative, however, disregards a deeper systemic malaise: entrenched institutional biases, as evidenced in prior cases, heighten the risk of legitimate grievances being summarily dismissed as "false cases," thereby inverting accountability and exposing victims to retaliatory sanctions rather than holding perpetrators liable.
On January 28, 2026, after a number of petitions and applications were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the new Regulations, a plea was mentioned before CJI Surya Kant for urgent listing. The petitioners have argued that the new Regulations, by not providing for grievance redressal mechanisms and institutional protection for students not belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes communities, were exclusionary in nature, amounting to “impermissible State discrimination.” Noting that the Court was aware of “what was going on” - referring to the upsurge of criticism to the Regulations by upper-caste groups - CJI Kant agreed to list the matter. On January 29, 2026, the Court stayed the 2026 Regulations noting that they were “too sweeping”, and needed a closer look, even as Senior Advocate Jaising, intervening against the order, argued that the Regulations addressed a real issue of discrimination faced by students from Dalit and historically oppressed caste communities.
Beyond caste, the NTF report missed other broader issues
The NTF’s interim report also talked about the financial stress on the students. In the first judgement, the Court correctly held, “The relentless pressure to perform in a purely score-based education system, coupled with the extreme competition for limited seats in premier educational institutions, places a terrifying burden on the students’ mental health.”
But the court fell short in connecting the issue of cut-throat competition in education and employment with the neoliberally driven commercialisation of education spaces in India, which has resulted in, what can be described as a return to “social-darwinism”, where only the economically fittest survive. This oversight is particularly glaring in the judgment's neglect of how policies like the National Education Policy, 2020 (‘NEP 2020’) exacerbate educational stress through complex curricula and increased financial burdens due to privatization.
For instance, the NEP 2020 promotes "financial autonomy" for higher education institutions, a euphemism for privatization that encourages self-financing colleges, private universities, and public-private partnerships, leading to fee hikes and the exclusion of students from marginalized communities. The government has also echoed the notorious Birla-Ambani Report, which emphasised on increase in university fees and privatisation of education. These reforms have not only commodified education but also philosophically altered its purpose from a public good for societal advancement to a tool for individual economic gain.
This transition is a natural outcome of unemployment, alienation and cut-throat competition in the job market. Even the increasing mental distress in the youth can be attributed to alienation and dehumanization. Only the strengthening of free and accessible public education can solve this systemic issue. There was an attempt to address the mental health issues in students but still, the deeper reason for mental health issues was not addressed.
The judgement also failed to connect the question of shrinking democratic space in educational institutions with the current issue. While the Lyngdoh Committee guidelines provided for a student representative body in every HEI, the reality shows a different picture. Even if the report by the NTF underlines lack of student representative bodies in most HEIs, the link between student suicides and erosion of democratic spaces is ignored in the judgement.
One may ask, what is the link between both. Democratic spaces and collective bargaining power of students has a two-fold effect in reducing student suicides; 1) It helps the students in creating collective pressure on the institutions and thereby, putting checks on the institutional apathy towards these occurrences, 2) Developing a student-centric and autonomous decision making process by making students, an active stakeholder in the decision making process. But the institutional apathy is also reflected in ensuring the functioning of autonomous student-represented bodies, and student-represented ICCs and EOCs.
Conclusion
It is of no doubt that the Supreme Court judgement in the cases of Ayush Ashna and Anil Kumar, acknowledges the increasing student suicides in HEIs and the mental health reasons behind that. It also attempts to bring some positive reforms including the disbursement of scholarship and establishment of mental health services etc. Yet, it falls short in understanding the entrenched systemic issues that perpetuate this crisis. The framers of the Constitution of India, like Dr. B R Ambedkar had the courage to acknowledge that the caste system, exploitation and inequalities are deeply entrenched in our society. This courage was a reflection of the sincere determination and commitment in resolving these systemic problems. That made them place social justice, equality and democracy as cherished ideals of the constitutional vision of India. The explicit acknowledgement of reality is a necessary prerequisite for keeping these ideals still living. This judgement is not reflecting this attitude in it.
The UGC Regulations 2026, which emerged during the course of these litigations, provide a relatively strong mechanism to address caste discrimination. Backed by a loud political movement, it has now come under constitutional scrutiny before the Supreme Court. The Court, which itself, for so long has been meddling with the question of how marginality affects student mental health suicides has, rather disappointedly, not only stayed the Regulations, has passed adverse oral remarks, labelling the regulations as ‘too sweeaping’. Its observation that the Regulations may create segregation, overlooks that caste segregation widely prevails, in implicit and explicit manners, across India’s HEIs.
So far, the Court has evidenced a stark discomfort in tackling caste discrimination head on even as it has taken an interest in addressing the student suicide crisis. This, , despite sustained interventions by families of students who have lost their lives to discrimination and systemic exclusions in Indian universities to litigate before the top Court seeking broad policy transformations.
For the the Supreme Court, in the context of rising cases of student suicides and an emerging hate campaign led by upper-caste groups, these cases arrive as a critical test.
True progress demands a paradigm shift: enacting targeted legislation such as a Rohith Vemula Act to combat caste discrimination, reversing the privatization trends to restore education as a public good accessible to all, and revitalizing student unions and representative bodies to foster inclusive decision-making. Without addressing these foundational inequities, the cycle of student suicides will persist, reflecting a broader failure of the judiciary and society to uphold the dignity and rights of the most vulnerable.
