Higher education institutions in India have, over the past decade, become increasingly sensitive to questions of caste-based discrimination, particularly in the aftermath of sustained civil society mobilisation and public debate following the institutional murder of Dalit student Rohith Vemula. Campuses today are sites of heightened scrutiny, policy experimentation and contestation, even as denial and resistance persist. This heightened visibility, however, has not translated into structural transformation.While affirmative action and expanding enrolment have enabled more Dalit and Adivasi students to enter universities and elite institutions, entry is often just the beginning of a far more precarious journey.Recent policy developments highlight both the urgency of the problem and the possibility of reform. At the state level, Karnataka has moved towards enacting legislation addressing discrimination in educational institutions. While the proposed Rohith Vemula (Prevention of Exclusion or Injustice) (Right to Education and Dignity) Bill, 2025 framework has not yet been enacted into law, it represents a significant normative shift. It explicitly recognises caste-based discrimination in higher education as a structural and institutional problem rather than an individual failing. And it sets an important precedent in a landscape otherwise dominated by non-binding guidelines.History of anti-caste discourse and legislative engagementThe Thorat Committee, an inquiry committee chaired by economist Sukhadeo Thorat, formally acknowledged these systematic patterns of caste-based discrimination as early as 2007. Constituted by the University Grants Commission to investigate allegations of caste discrimination at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi, the committee documented social segregation in hostels and messes, exclusion from informal academic networks, contemptuous behaviour by peers and faculty and caste-based questioning during academic evaluations. Its significance lay in demonstrating how caste hierarchies operate even within elite institutions.Any contemporary discussion on higher education policies must reckon with the institutional killing of Rohith Vemula. Vemula was driven to suicide in January 2016 after a prolonged suspension and the withdrawal of his fellowship, all of which was accompanied by social ostracism. Political interference in campus processes was a key concern in the case.His suicide letter articulated caste not as an abstract identity but as a lived experience of humiliation, isolation and disposability. His death triggered nationwide protests and the long-standing demand for a central anti-discrimination law for students in institutions of higher education – “the Rohith Act” – a demand that remains unfulfilled at the national level.Students at a march demanding justice for Hyderabad University student Rohith Vemula.Rohith’s case was not an isolated one. Universities across the country have long reflected a pattern of systemic exclusion and discrimination against Dalit and Adivasi students. In 2016, Senthil Kumar, a Dalit research scholar at the University of Hyderabad, died by suicide after being constantly subjected to academic harassment and caste-based isolation, reinforcing concerns about institutional responses remaining unchanged even after public outcry.Also read: A Legal Remedy Is Required to Stop Caste Discrimination in Academic InstitutionsIn 2023, Darshan Solanki, an 18-year-old Dalit student, died by suicide at IIT Bombay within months of joining. While internal inquiries attributed his death to academic stress, student surveys revealed fear of caste disclosure, discomfort with caste-indicative questioning, and deep mistrust in grievance mechanisms – patterns echoed across elite campuses.Medical education has been no exception. In 2019, Payal Tadvi, an Adivasi postgraduate doctor, died by suicide in Mumbai following sustained harassment by senior colleagues. Criminal proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were initiated, though the case highlighted the limits of criminal law in addressing entrenched institutional cultures rather than isolated acts.In cases of caste-based discrimination, courts have at times exposed these institutional shortcomings. In the 2007 Delhi High Court case of Amritashva Kamal v. Jawaharlal Nehru University, the bench scrutinised caste-based harassment on campus and the university’s response to it. The court invalidated a university directive that barred the petitioner from the premises and from future admissions after he supported his brother, who had faced casteist aggression. Emphasising principles of natural justice and constitutional protections, the court observed that such institutional reactions often deepen exclusion rather than resolve it.Background of Rohith ActDespite the enrolment of marginalised students in higher education institutions, overall access remains largely unchanged. And this access has not translated into dignity, safety or equal treatment. Students do not only face routine discrimination in everyday campus life. In extreme cases, this has led to far more tragic repercussions.Between 2014 and 2021, as many as 122 students enrolled in centrally funded higher education institutions – including the Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management, Indian Institute of Science, Indian Institutes of Information Technology and central universities – died by suicide, the Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan informed the Lok Sabha in a written reply in 2021.A significant proportion of these students belonged to marginalised communities. Official arguments have typically framed these deaths in terms of academic stress or mental health challenges, but sections of student and faculty groups have repeatedly pointed out that such explanations obscure the role of systemic caste-based exclusion and institutional hostility.Recent data show that a substantial proportion of reserved faculty positions across central higher education institutions remain unfilled, with a significantly higher number of vacancies in Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) categories compared with the general category. As of June 30, 2025, general category posts showed relatively lower vacancy rates, while reserved category positions continued to experience disproportionately high vacancy rates.Also read: 80% OBC, 64% Dalit and 83% Tribal Professor-level Posts Vacant: Govt DataFor instance, only a fraction of the sanctioned faculty posts for Dalit and Adivasi candidates were filled, leaving many reserved positions vacant. This trend underscores the continued dominance of general category faculty in teaching and decision-making roles, with many reserved posts remaining unoccupied, often due to claims of non-availability of suitable candidates.Legislative and regulatory responsesIn 2016, then Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament Bhalchandra Mungekar introduced the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Caste-Based Discrimination in Educational Institutions) Bill. Introduced against the backdrop of Vemula’s death and mounting student protests, the Bill sought to prohibit discrimination in admissions, hostels, evaluations and scholarships, proposing enforceable safeguards beyond advisory guidelines. It lapsed without discussion. Moreover, as of today, the Bill appears lost from public memory and debate.More recently, the University Grants Commission (UGC) issued new regulations referred to as the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, new rules applicable to all higher education institutions across India. The regulations aim to prevent caste-based discrimination on campuses and promote equal treatment and inclusion within the higher education system.In contrast to other nominal attempts, the Karnataka Rohith Vemula Bill seeks to recognise caste-based discrimination, harassment and exclusion as cognisable institutional harms. Though still under legislative consideration, it marks a departure from advisory and ineffective mechanisms by attempting to impose strict and legally enforceable regulations.The debate in Karnataka has also engaged international human rights entities such as the United Nations. In June 2025, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, together with the Special Rapporteur on minority issues, issued a formal communication in response to Karnataka’s proposed Rohith Vemula Bill. While welcoming the state’s initiative to acknowledge caste-based discrimination within educational institutions, the communication emphasised the need for clearer definitions, stronger procedural safeguards and independent monitoring mechanisms for the law to be effective in practice. International human rights law has long recognised caste-based discrimination as a form of descent-based discrimination.Need of the hourFor many Dalit and Adivasi students, admission into higher education does not signal equality but a reconfiguration of struggle. Evaluation systems, delayed fellowships, hostile campus cultures and ineffective grievance mechanisms continue to shape unequal outcomes.If higher education is to function as an engine of social mobility rather than a mechanism for reproducing hierarchy, reforms must move beyond symbolic inclusion. Disaggregated data on enrolment, retention, and representation of faculty and students must be collected and publicly documented by both central and state governments. The government must ensure effective implementation of reservations in both faculty appointments and student admissions. Future legislation must centre the lived experiences of marginalised students, recognising discrimination as structural rather than episodic.Most importantly, it is essential to have national legislation that explicitly addresses caste-based discrimination in higher education, and this is where the importance of the proposed Bill to be enacted into law at the earliest lies. Until such changes are undertaken, higher education in India will continue to reproduce the very hierarchies it claims to dismantle, where admission paves a way for marginalised students, but equality, dignity and safety remain firmly out of reach.Ashwini K.P. is the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism and Mariya Salim is a human rights activist. They are both co-founders of Zariya, an initiative focused on Dalit and Muslim issues.