In Critique of Draft Rohith Vemula Bill, UN Experts Urge Stronger Safeguards for SC, ST Students
New Delhi: Two United Nations special rapporteurs have issued a detailed statement raising concerns and offering recommendations on the draft Rohith Vemula (Prevention of Exclusion or Injustice) (Right to Education and Dignity) Bill proposed by the Karnataka government and urged the government to consider them.
Ashwini K.P., special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, and Nicolas Levrat, special rapporteur on minority issues, noted that while the Bill aims to combat caste-based discrimination in higher education, it lacks key human rights protections and clarity in legal definitions.
The draft legislation of the law, named after Rohith Vemula, seeks to criminalise discrimination against students from Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and religious minorities in educational institutions.
The special rapporteurs come under the purview of the 'special procedures' of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC); they are 'independent human rights experts' who are mandated by the UN to report and advise on 'human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective'.
Under their special mandate from the UNHRC, they have highlighted 'several human rights considerations that should be considered during the ongoing development of the legislation'.
UN concerns on the draft Bill
The special rapporteurs stated that the draft Bill does not mention 'specific protection for Dalits and Adivasis against disproportionate discrimination in various areas' and urged the drafting committee to 'explicitly' include provisions for their protection.
Ashwini K.P., replying to an email questionnaire by The Wire, said: 'The current draft clubs OBCs, SC, ST and minority communities together. All of them face marginalisation, but it's crucial to understand and recognise the heterogeneous nature of their experiences. The persistent and systematic forms of discrimination that Dalit and Adivasi students face require explicit acknowledgement.'
They also claimed that there is a lack of definition for 'direct or indirect discrimination', which could result in the law failing to provide 'comprehensive protection' to those affected. It could also lead to misuse of the law and oppression of activities unrelated to the law, including those in the 'defence of human rights'.
The draft includes provisions to imprison a person convicted of discriminating against SC, ST, OBC and minority students for up to one year or impose a fine of Rs 10,000.
Heads of higher education institutions will also be held liable, and the institutions may lose government aid or grants in case of such convictions.
The punitive nature of the draft law was also criticised. They warned that it may 'undermine the promotion of understanding, tolerance and friendship among racial or ethnic groups'.
Focusing on addressing the social roots of caste-based discrimination, the rapporteurs recommended placing greater emphasis on effective 'preventive measures' such as orientation programmes and educational awareness campaigns.
To ensure effective implementation, they also recommended setting up a grievance redressal mechanism, ensuring 'protection for whistleblowers' and introducing 'accountability measures' for educational institutions that fail to comply.
The special rapporteurs also claimed that the Bill's drafting process has not been sufficiently deliberative and has not included the 'voices of those who may experience caste-based discrimination and harassment, including Dalit and Adivasi students, scholars and activists'.
They called upon the committee to introduce provisions that make the process more transparent, consultative and participatory.
Finally, the rapporteurs noted the need for diversity and proportional representation in the drafting committee itself and urged that there be 'proportionate caste, gender and geographical representation from the state of Karnataka in the committee'.
The political equation
The move to draft this law comes after leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, wrote a letter to the three Congress-led state governments in April urging them to enact the law that was promised in the party's 2024 Lok Sabha election manifesto.
Following this, Karnataka chief minister Siddaramaiah instructed his legal adviser to prepare a draft of the Bill.
'The Union government brushed the incident under the carpet although it was clear that Rohith Vemula was targeted because of his [Dalit] caste,' said minister Priyank Kharge confirming that he provided inputs for drafting the Bill.
However, Ashwini claimed that the Indian government 'has not approached the UNHRC or any other international bodies for recommendations'.
Meanwhile, the BJP's leader of opposition in the Karnataka legislative council, Chalavadi Narayanaswamy, agreed that caste-based discrimination should be banned but questioned whether such discrimination can be addressed solely through legislation.
This is not the first time that such a demand has been raised. In 2019, Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi – the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi – filed a petition in the Supreme Court demanding that the government enforce the 2012 University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations that aim to protect vulnerable students from discrimination in educational institutions.
The UGC guidelines also have a specific definition of 'discrimination' and various kinds of discriminatory behaviour, but in January 2025, after the case was heard only for the second time, the UGC released new draft regulations intended to replace the 2012 ones.
N. Sukumar, a professor at Delhi University, noted in an interview to Scroll that in the new draft, 'these terms are loosely defined'. When the various aspects of the problem are not properly defined, 'there is hardly any scope to address the issues of caste on the campus.'
Rohith Vemula and a legacy of institutional violence
Vemula, a PhD scholar belonging to Dalit community at the University of Hyderabad, was among five students suspended in September 2015 following a complaint filed by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the BJP's ideological fountainhead.
His monthly research fellowship of Rs 25,000 was also discontinued, reportedly due to his activities in the Ambedkar Students' Association.
The ABVP's complaint was forwarded by then-Union minister Bandaru Dattatreya to then-human resource development minister Smriti Irani, who subsequently asked the university to take appropriate action.
Following their suspension and removal from university housing, the students began a relay hunger strike and stayed in a temporary tent on campus.
On January 17, 2016, Vemula died by suicide, leaving behind a note in which he expressed a deep sense of disillusionment and described his birth as a 'fatal accident'.
His death was one amongst numerous such incidents in the past two decades where a Dalit student was allegedly pushed over the edge and died by suicide. Activists consider these to be 'institutional murders', since every part of the education institution – including the student body, the faculty and the administration – are said to work in tandem to make sure that caste hierarchies are upheld and no voices can be raised against it. This leaves the student completely cornered.
Some say that caste-based discrimination, humiliating abuse and alienation by peers have pushed students like Payal Tadvi, Darshan Solanki, Ayush Ashna and Varad Sanjay Nerkar over the edge. They were allegedly targeted for belonging to a certain caste and viewed as not fit to be in such institutions.
There are no avenues for redressal of complaints as well, since the administration too engages in suppressing their voices, activists say.
While a few of these cases received media attention, many others were recorded through an independent study by the Delhi-based Insight Foundation, led by educationist Anoop Kumar.
Path ahead
Ashwini claims that 'currently there is no specific legislation in India which addresses caste-based discrimination in higher education for Dalit and Adivasi students. While some mechanisms such as grievance redressal cells exist in colleges and universities, there is no exclusive framework to protect students from marginalised backgrounds in academic spaces.'
Therefore, although some critics believe that the draft Rohith Vemula (Prevention of Exclusion or Injustice) (Right to Education and Dignity) Bill is a politically motivated move by the Congress, Ashwini believes that 'the intention behind the Rohith Vemula Act is to fill this gap and ensure a safe space for students coming from marginalised backgrounds'.
Such a law becomes crucial in an education system where, according to her, 'student suicides among marginalised communities highlight the disproportionate discrimination faced by them'. She claims that there is a pattern of structural exclusion and systematic discrimination against Dalit and Adivasi students, and that this legislation is important to create a 'safer academic environment' for them.
But critics also raise questions of political motivation and appropriation of the long-fought struggles of activists like Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi in creating an equitable and safe educational space by Rahul Gandhi and the Congress.
According to the UNHRC special rapporteurs, the draft law has the potential to make effective changes – but this can only be realised if such expert criticism and recommendations are taken into account and the drafting process becomes more publicly participatory.
Tamoghna Chakraborty is an intern at The Wire.
If you know someone – a friend or a family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation maintains a list of telephone numbers they can call to speak in confidence. The TeleManas helpline, a government helpline, functions 24×7, its numbers are 1-800 891-4416 or 14416. You could also take them to the nearest hospital.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Bombing Iran might do the opposite of what the west wants, Medvedev warns against forcing Tehran into a corner
Reuters Medvedev predicted that any attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure, whether by Israel or the United States, could provoke a severe response, and it would prompt Iran to cement its nuclear aspirations. (File Photo) Dmitry Medvedev, the outspoken former President of Russia, has shared a post with a warning over the possibility of military strikes targeting Iran's nuclear program by Israel. In a strongly worded post on X, Medvedev questioned the global double standards on nuclear weapons and cautioned against the consequences of trying to eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities by force.'Why is it OK for Tel Aviv but not OK for Tehran?' Medvedev asked, suggesting that Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal remains untouched and never questioned, while Iran is routinely targeted, but it is not known if they have any nuclear weapons. He proposed what was once called the 'zero option', a mutual disarmament of nuclear capabilities under the supervision of the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).'Let them both abandon such programs,' Medvedev wrote. 'They will refuse, of course. And no strikes will help, 100%,' he added, arguing that Iran sees its nuclear program as essential to its survival, which the west thinks is a threat. The former Russian leader, who is also the current Deputy Chair of the Russian Security Council, also suggested that any attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure, whether by Israel or the United States, could provoke a severe response. 'If it does have nuclear weapons, [Iran] will definitely use them. And if not, it will rebuild this program at any cost,' he warned. Medvedev's current stance stands in contrast to actions taken during his own presidency (2008–2012), when Russia aligned itself with international efforts to pressure and sanction Iran over its nuclear ambitions. In June 2010, following the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, Medvedev signed a decree that banned Iranian investments in Russia's uranium production and nuclear sectors. The measure was part of a package of sanctions intended to push Iran toward compliance with international nuclear also suspended selling S-300 surface-to-air missile systems to Iran as part of that decree. This advanced defense platform had been part of a previous agreement between the two nations. The move was seen as a significant gesture of Russia's support for the UN-led sanctions regime at the time.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
For the sake of peace, at the cost of war
Through history, Iran's relationship with nuclear weapons has had four phases. In the first, it was a model state. When the UN opened the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) for signatures on July 1, 1968, Shah Reza Pahlavi signed it on the first day and ratified it two years later as part of his efforts to increase access to nuclear power in Iran under the White Revolution. Also Read: Data | 50 years of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty: will disarmament be achieved? Until the late 1970s, Iran enjoyed a good reputation under the NPT by furthering its goals to restrict the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Then the Islamic Revolution toppled the Shah in 1979, and the Ayatollah assumed supreme power in the new Islamic Republic. This launched the second phase, more like several phases of ambiguity, lasting from 1979 until 2002. The driving concern in these periods was whether Iran would build nuclear weapons. Will it? Won't it? While Ayatollah Khomeini had been ambivalent towards nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war spurred him to reconsider his deterrence strategy. Thus, until the early 2000s, there were indications that Iran was amassing technical know-how of nuclear weapons but no overt signs that it was actually building one. But then in 2002, a group of dissidents called the National Council of Resistance revealed to the world that Iran had been secretly pursuing a nuclear weapons programme for at least two decades in the form of a nuclear enrichment facility in Natanz and a facility to produce heavy water in Arak. Since Iran had not declared the existence of these facilities under the NPT, it became persona non grata under the treaty. Also Read | U.S. spies said Iran wasn't building nuclear weapon; Trump dismisses that assessment The incident effectively launched the third phase in 2005, when inspectors of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran was not complying with its obligations to report evidence of past weapons-related activities. This was also a diplomatic failure since Iran had signed its Additional Protocol with France, Germany, and the U.K. in 2003 to allow more intrusive inspections of its facilities in exchange for diplomatic support and cooperation in multilateral fora. But in 2006, Iran said it would stop implementing the Protocol over frustration that its assurances were not being taken seriously. The IAEA's conclusion invited the UN Security Council to launch punishing sanctions from 2006 to 2014. This period also coincided with the rule of Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who doubled down on what he called Iran's right to enrich uranium for civilian use even as he contended with a national economy significantly weakened by the sanctions. It was not until Hassan Rouhani succeeded him in 2013 that Iran indicated its willingness to return to the negotiating table in return for sanctions relief. The result was the historic Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement between Iran and the P5+1 group in 2015. Although it imposed a slew of restrictions on Iran that took the Islamic nation far beyond its obligations under the NPT — which was still in effect — Iran complied in exchange for lifting the sanctions. In fact, in many respects, Iran returned to being a model state, serving a reminder that rational diplomacy à la the NPT during the Cold War could achieve non-proliferation. But all of this came to nought for reasons that are hard to understand, but increasingly tempting to guess at, when in 2018 the new U.S. President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA and restored 'maximum pressure' sanctions. Iran responded at first by resorting to what it said were mechanisms under the deal that allowed it to disobey enrichment limits when resolving disputes. But, by 2022, Iran had blown past its JCPOA safeguards when it became clear it had enriched uranium to within a hair's breadth from the level required to make an atomic weapon. Should Iran exit the NPT by coming in possession of such a warhead, it could spark a regional arms race and strike a profound blow to the treaty's credibility. West Asian states such as Saudi Arabia may be compelled to seek nuclear weapons of their own. Earlier this month, Israel launched air strikes against Iran's nuclear establishment as part of its insistence that Iran must never possess nuclear weapons while also touting its 'right to self-defence'. It had the U.S.'s backing under the returning Trump administration. Russia and China have demanded stronger sanctions while denouncing Israel. European nations have refused unilateral military action fearing the collapse of the non-proliferation regime itself. Their fear is not unwarranted: Article X of the NPT gives Iran the right to withdraw citing 'extraordinary events' that jeopardise its interests, grounds for which Israel's aggression has now created. Iran's twisting relationship with the NPT over the years has been a roller coaster of compliance and contention. While it long proclaimed adherence to the treaty's basic tenets and benefited from them vis-à-vis civilian nuclear technology, its covert activities in violation of the NPT's safeguards progressively undermined trust and led to an international crisis that is still unfolding. Evolving perspectives Both the IAEA's and the Security Council's evolving perspectives in this time echo the international community's split approaches towards Iran: pressure versus engagement. Nonetheless, the major powers agree on one point: Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. President Masoud Pezeshkian has also said Tehran is not seeking them but as long as Israel's campaign continues, Iran's path to diplomacy is blocked and it will keep one hand on the nuclear option. The situation today remains fluid and dangerous. Iran has advanced its nuclear capability to an unprecedented degree while still officially forswearing nuclear arms. The coming months will determine whether a new diplomatic understanding can be reached to bring Iran back into fuller compliance, and thus ease sanctions, or whether the NPT itself will be tested by a potential withdrawal. Since Iran has repeatedly asserted its right under the treaty to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, the U.S. had previously proposed in the Oman talks to set up a low-enrichment facility in a third country to supply just the reactor fuel to Iran. Israel's onslaught has left these talks in a limbo, however. International monitors have stressed that should Israel continue its bombing, which seems likely, the world may face either a nuclear-armed Iran or a war to prevent it. This is unfortunate because the NPT was created to prevent just these outcomes.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
HC sets aside govt order barring candidate from govt service
Cuttack: The Orissa high court has set aside the Odisha govt's 2017 order that permanently barred a SC candidate, Dibakar Patra, from all future govt employment for procedural lapses in a judicial recruitment process. The court, however, upheld the cancellation of his candidature for the post of civil judge. Patra, a non-judicial court employee, had applied for the post of civil judge pursuant to a notification issued by the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) in 2017. However, he failed to route his application through the proper channel — his employer — and did not obtain a mandatory 'No Objection Certificate' before entering the recruitment process. Citing this violation, the govt cancelled his candidature and permanently debarred him from future govt service via an order dated June 30, 2017. Aggrieved, Patra approached the high court the same year, seeking redress. Delivering the verdict on June 17, a division bench of Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and MS Sahoo noted that while Patra's actions were procedurally incorrect, the punishment meted out was "too harsh to be sustained." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Treatment That Might Help You Against Knee Pain Knee pain | search ads Find Now Undo "As a layman, what he has done is wrong and therefore, he cannot be crushed by a sledge hammer, when a mild pinch would do the rightful," the bench observed, invoking the principle of proportionality. The court noted that the impugned govt order was not a "speaking order" and lacked specific reasons to justify such a severe punishment. "No special reasons are assigned to justify a permanent embargo as if a heinous sin is committed by the candidate," the bench stated, adding that his mistake did not reflect a guilty mind or serious misconduct. While agreeing with the state counsel that Patra's entry into the recruitment process was vitiated by illegality and hence could not result in appointment, the court rejected the govt's decision to permanently debar him from all future public employment. The bench clarified that Patra is entitled to participate in future recruitment processes if otherwise eligible. "Errors do occur in any human transaction... His case is miles away from the precincts of penal provision," the judgment said. The high court thus quashed the June 30, 2017 govt order only to the extent it permanently barred Patra from public employment, offering the petitioner a fresh chance to pursue govt service.
