3 months ago
2
The communicative truthful far: On January 29, the Supreme Court stayed a caller acceptable of regulations notified by the University Grants Commission earlier this period connected the promotion of equity wrong higher acquisition institutes, saying they were “vague and could beryllium misused”. These regulations were brought to regenerate a erstwhile mentation successful effect since 2012, to specifically code issues of caste favoritism successful campuses, aft parents of marginalised caste and people students who had died by termination had approached the Supreme Court successful 2019. The Supreme Court’s enactment came aft weeks of protests from “general oregon precocious castes”, who argued the regulations discriminated against them successful defining what “caste-based discrimination” is.
Ground Zero | 2026 UGC equity rules: Cracks connected campus
What are the 2026 UGC equity regulations?
The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity successful Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, were notified by the higher acquisition regulator connected January 13, 2026. The UGC said the objectives of the regulations were “to eradicate favoritism lone connected the ground of religion, race, gender, spot of birth, caste, oregon disability, peculiarly against the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, persons with disabilities, oregon immoderate of them, and to beforehand afloat equity and inclusion amongst the stakeholders successful higher acquisition institutions.”
In these regulations, the UGC defined “caste-based discrimination” arsenic “discrimination lone connected the ground of caste oregon people against the members of the Scheduled castes, Scheduled tribes, and different backward classes”. It besides defined “discrimination” arsenic “any unfair, differential, oregon biased attraction oregon immoderate specified enactment against immoderate stakeholder, whether explicit oregon implicit, connected the grounds lone of religion, race, caste, gender, spot of birth, disability, oregon immoderate of them...”
Furthermore, the regulations supply for establishing a layered grievance redressal strategy for addressing discrimination. This included provisions to acceptable up Equal Opportunity Centres, nether which Equity Committees should beryllium acceptable up to look into complaints. Further, the rules called for mounting up Equity Squads successful each institute, and Equity Ambassadors successful each portion (departments, schools) of the institutes. It besides acceptable up an overarching monitoring mechanics to oversee these functions straight nether the UGC.
In addition, the regulations prescribed timelines and procedures for resolving complaints and grievances, and appealing the decisions of the sheet ruling connected these complaints. It besides provided for an organization accountability mechanism, wherever institutes recovered violating the regulations could beryllium penalised by being debarred from offering degrees, programmes, participating successful UGC schemes, and being taken disconnected the regulator’s database of institutes.
Analysis | UGC equity rules travel from Article 15’s mandate to remedy humanities injustice
Why did the ‘general oregon precocious castes’ telephone the 2026 regulations biased?
The main arguments of the protests crossed parts of northbound India alleging that these regulations discriminated against “general oregon precocious castes” hinged connected the explanation of “caste-based discrimination”, the dropping of the proviso connected “false complaints”, and the ambiguity of the functions of bodies similar the “Equity Squads”.
They argued that by defining “caste-based discrimination” successful the 2026 regulations arsenic a abstracted term, the UGC was really defining who could beryllium a “potential victim” of caste favoritism connected campuses. By leaving them retired of this definition, the precocious caste conception argued the regulations had “presupposed” that wide oregon precocious caste students would beryllium the perpetrators of caste favoritism astatine each times.
Petitions challenging these regulations successful the Supreme Court besides argued that wide oregon precocious caste students astatine universities and colleges whitethorn besides look caste discrimination, and that the regulations prevented these students from addressing specified instances.
Further, the protesters argued that the proviso of punishments for “false complaints” had besides been absent, which they said could person been utile to antagonistic complaints, if filed against them, and support themselves, if necessary. The protesters besides noted that it was not wide what the relation of Equity Squads being projected nether the caller regulations would be, further airing a grievance that portion the regulations explicitly provided for the practice of SC, ST, OBC, women, persons with disablement successful the Equity Committee, it did not explicitly supply for the practice of wide oregon precocious castes.
Also Read | UGC’s anti-discrimination rules: What has changed, what has improved and what inactive concerns experts
How did these regulations travel about?
These regulations were developed and brought retired nether the supervision of a Bench of the Supreme Court that was proceeding a batch of petitions filed successful 2019 by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, some of whom had died by suicide, alleging caste-discrimination successful 2016 and 2019, respectively. Their petition had argued that the 2012 UGC regulations connected the promotion of equity successful campuses were not being implemented good capable to code the “rampant caste-discrimination” prevalent successful Indian higher acquisition institutes.
During the hearings successful these petitions, the UGC had told the Supreme Court that it had formed a nine-member Expert Committee to revisit the 2012 regulations nether the Chairmanship of Professor Shailesh N. Zala. This adept committee archetypal drafted a revised mentation of the equity regulations, which the UGC had notified successful February 2025 for nationalist comments.
These draught regulations introduced the terminology of “caste-based discrimination” but defined this arsenic favoritism connected the ground of caste oregon people “only against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes”. Apart from this, the draught regulations had a proviso to punish instances of “false complaints”, without clarifying what would represent a “false complaint”. The petitioners successful the Supreme Court lawsuit made suggestions to this draft, on with a ample fig of suggestions from the public, which included recommendations that Other Backward Classes beryllium protected nether the explanation of “caste-based discrimination” and that the proviso of “false complaints” either beryllium removed oregon a favoritism beryllium introduced betwixt differentiate a “false complaint” from “complaints that could not beryllium substantiated”.
In December 2025, a Parliamentary Committee connected Education headed by Congress person Digvijay Singh had besides backed the proposition to explicitly support OBCs successful the explanation of “caste-based discrimination”.
Editorial | Stay the course: On the UGC’s Promotion of Equity successful Higher Education Institutions rules
What were the 2012 regulations, and however are the caller rules different?
In the 2012 regulations that were brought retired by the UGC nether the aforesaid name, the regulatory authorization had not defined “caste-based discrimination” separately. It had defined “discrimination” with sub-sections connected depriving entree to education, imposing undignified conditions, and maintaining abstracted acquisition and societal spaces wrong the campuses connected the ground of caste, creed, religion, language, ethnicity, gender, and disability.
The 2012 regulations had provided for mounting up grievance redressal mechanisms, which included the constitution of Equal Opportunity Cells, SC/ST Cells, and the assignment of an Anti-Discrimination Officer, to whom complaints indispensable beryllium addressed.
Further, successful prohibiting favoritism against SC and ST students successful higher acquisition institutes, the 2012 regulations had identified a full of 25 circumstantial instances and types of favoritism successful the spheres of admissions, evaluation, wrong classrooms, segregation of hostels and messes, and the dissemination of accusation connected scholarships and fellowships. These definitions accounted for the experiences of students from marginalised caste and people backgrounds successful these spheres and besides accounted for the acquisition of being derided successful the sanction of being a “reserved” class student, among different instances.
None of these circumstantial acts of favoritism person been included successful the 2026 regulations.
While the large thrust of the 2012 regulations was successful defining and identifying types and acts of favoritism faced by students astatine the hands of students, faculty, and institute administrations, the main thrust of the 2026 regulations was to supply for the mounting up of grievance redressal mechanisms successful the signifier of Equal Opportunity Committees, Equity Committees, and Equity Squads. However, the 2012 regulations did not explicitly supply the connection to support “Other Backward Classes” and did not person organization consequences for not pursuing done connected the implementation of the regulations.
Also Read | Leaders invited Supreme Court enactment of UGC equity rules
Were the precocious castes the lone ones who had an contented with the caller regulations?
While the protests that intensified implicit the caller regulations came from a conception of wide oregon precocious caste students, echoing the statement that the caller anti-discrimination rules were biased against them, determination was a important conception that argued that the caller regulations were not really strengthening the 2012 rules connected anti-discrimination, principally due to the fact that of the deficiency of specificity connected what counted arsenic discrimination.
Professor Sukhadeo Thorat, erstwhile Chairperson of the UGC and an instrumental fig successful drafting the 2012 regulations, has argued that the caller regulations bash not clarify if they volition beryllium applicable to institutes similar IITs, IIMs, polytechnics, nursing institutions, etc., further noting that the creation of Equity Committees should notation the quantum of practice for SC, ST, and OBC members, alternatively of leaving this unfastened ended.
Jadavpur University Assistant Professor Subhajit Naskar has besides added that successful dropping the circumstantial acts of favoritism faced by students successful assorted aspects of field life, the caller regulations had, successful fact, diluted the 2012 regulations.
Also Read | New UGC equity regulations spark pupil protests, governmental fallout successful U.P.
Now what?
The Supreme Court has said that the batch of petitions challenging the 2026 regulations volition beryllium heard with the petitions filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, besides calling for the UGC to spell backmost to its 2012 regulations portion it hears the challenges to the caller version.
In doing so, the Supreme Court has besides framed definite ineligible questions that are to beryllium addressed successful the people of the hearings successful these matters from present onwards. These petitions are to travel up for the adjacent proceeding successful March, by which clip the Union Government has been asked to record an affidavit arsenic well.
