By – Akshara Gupta
Abstract
The Indian Higher Education system is currently facing a profound paradox. In recent years, the Indian Universities as per the UGC guidelines, have formalised mechanisms to address the caste discrimination through Equal Opportunity Cells, SC/ST Cells, anti-discrimination officers, and internal grievance redressal committees. On one hand, the emergence of Internal Complaint Systems (ICS) and “Equity Committees” indicates an unprecedented institutionalisation of grievance redressal. This institutionalisation seems to mark progress on paper. It acknowledges discrimination as a main institutional concern rather than just personal grievance. Beneath the sheets lies a deeper transformation, the gradual Judicialisation of campus life. This article argues that while the internal complaint system provides accountability, it simultaneously shifts the university from spaces of social reform to Quasi – legal adjudication. By doing this, they create a risk of giving procedure importance over a structural change.
Introduction
It was informed by the University Grants Commission to the Supreme Court recently that in the past five years, there has been more than 118% increase in the number of reports of caste-based discrimination. This tension poses a fundamental question: Are these internal processes aiding a meaningful social revolution, or are they merely “judicialising” on the campus—replacing substantive justice with procedural box-ticking?
At first glance this institutionalization appears to be progressive; it can recognize caste discrimination as a structural problem rather than a personal grievance. However, an important question emerges would this bring about a succesive social reform or whether it will result in the judicialization of campus life?
This article argued that while the mechanisms produced by the Supreme Court promise, redressals simultaneously transform the university into a Quasi- courtroom where procedural compliance often outweighs social transformation.
Judicalization in University Context
Judicialization mainly refers to expansion of legal logic, procedures and certain formalities in a system which was entirely governed by social dialogue or political negotiation. As a result, due to the development of the recent system there has been dismissal of many complaints, but how many of them were rectified remains a question.
On the surface, this looks progressive, but it creates a “paper trail” and a set of rules that apply to everyone. However, it can be argued that this shift transforms deeply, social and political problems, casteism, into a very narrow technical one.
A Shift from Social Truth to Legal Evidence
Discrimination within universities is rarely very clear or in the form of isolated incidents; it is often seen to be operating through subtle and diffused patterns which are mostly seen in the institutional culture. It is camouflaged behind patterns like persistent grading, bias, subtle humiliation, exclusion from academic groups, isolation in hostels or even classrooms, constant cases of bullying through micro aggressions and coded language. The data from Parliament releases that about 13500 students have dropped out of the top education, educational institutions, including IITs, NITs and IIMs. It is mostly lived as an atmosphere rather than an incident. These experiences constitute what can be called social truth, which cannot be addressed to the internal complaint system as it operates within a framework that demands legal evidence, identifiable and accused persons and documented proofs.
The burden of proof shifts to the complainant who must demonstrate not merely the discomfort or exclusion that he must have faced, but also actionable discrimination. In this translation, most of the cases subtly become illegible.
Grievance Redressal as a Professional Act
The institutionalisation of the complaint system transforms grievance into bureaucratic performance. Filing a complaint with an institutional mechanism requires a certain degree of procedural literacy. Students are required to draft a formal complaint, understand the regulatory framework which becomes an arduous task. The act of seeking justice becomes bureaucratically structured and requires similarity with the legal procedures. For many students which are already marginalised by cast hierarchy, these procedures create a strict boundary. N.Sukumar in his book, ‘Caste Discrimination and Exclusion in Indian Universities: A Critical Reflection’ argues that universities often treat caste discrimination for a procedural compliance that places the burden of proof on marginalised students.
In this sense, grievance then transforms into a professional act rather than emerging through a collective protest or mobilisation. Complaints must be expressed through institutional formats, and the incident then becomes a case, and university becomes the adjudicating authority. What was once articulated through debates or collective action becomes translated into administrative practice and inquiry reports.
Individualization of the Caste System
Caste is historically embedded in collective patterns of exclusion and power. Anti-caste movements, student mobilization, and Ambedkarite assertions have framed discrimination in collective injustice, which aims at bringing social transformation. But the internal complaint systems have individualised a collective experience as it slowly becomes a singular case file. And something which requires a political demand becomes an administrative Inquiry. This individualisation translates systemic inequality into manageable disputes. It might be possible that committees address the specific allegations, but the broad culture of caste discrimination will remain intact.
This also creates a paradox of visibility. If the case related to caste is formally written and complaint mechanisms make cast visible within institutional discourse, it might be named and codified official documents, yet the visibility will only be seen if there is a complaint about it. And something which is not formally reported will remain outside the institutional gaze. In this way judicialization might produce an appearance of solving problems, but at a deeper Cultural level, they remain active.
Is Judicialization Completely Negative?
My argument does not suggest that internal complaint systems are completely unnecessary. On the contrary, in the absence of these formal mechanisms, universities have historically denied or minimized caste-based grievances. These procedures safeguard and prevent arbitrary dismissal of complaints. The issue, therefore, is not whether such systems should exist, but whether they should dominate the institutional response to caste. Procedure is necessary, but it is not completely sufficient and should not remain the primary mode of response.
When procedure becomes the dominant method, social reform is risked to regulation only. Universities only focus on whether rules have been followed rather than on whether cast hierarchies have been meaningfully changed. This method of transformation does not bring any changes at grassroot levels.
The 2026 Regulation: A Double-Edged sword
The rise of internal complain systems for caste discrimination presents a double-edge sword for development. It showcases formal recognition of cases and ways of redressal, but it shifts the main idea from political contestation to a procedural compliance.
The challenge, therefore, is to bring about a broader institution of change and to resist reduction of caste reform to institutional framework. The complaint systems should remain only a part of broader commitment, other than a substitute for structural change. Universities should go beyond Pure Judicalization and to also reclaim reform. Universities are not courts. Their primary function is educational and transformative. When legal logic overshadows social introspection, the space of learning might become an area of adjudication.
Conclusion
The 2026 Regulation, although signal recognitions and creates accountability, still shows failures in many domains. The regulation fails to address discrimination with the same gravity as that of ragging. It has failed to address the hidden ways in which discrimination operates in higher universities through curricular choices and behaviour of faculties.
The challenge for universities is that the internal complaint system not only addresses the caste discrimination on the formal level but also manages to dismantle caste completely in the Indian Education System.
About the Author:
Akshara, is a third-year law Student at the Jindal Global Law School. She poses an avid interest in financial law, Social Justice and emerging technology. Passionate about researching and diving into untold stories.
NICKELED AND DIMED 