Answer

Introduction

The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, notified on January 13, mark a pivotal shift from advisory guidelines to a mandatory, enforcement-led framework. While aimed at dismantling “institutional casteism,” the regulations have ignited controversy due to their selective definition of victimhood, which critics argue creates a hierarchy of legal protection and risks undermining the constitutional promise of equal protection under the law.

Body

Constitutional Challenges in Framing Equity Regulations

The regulations face scrutiny for potentially conflicting with core fundamental rights and the principle of reasonable classification.

• Violation of Article 14: Critics argue that Regulation 3(c), which limits the definition of caste-based discrimination to SC, ST, and OBC groups, creates an under-inclusive classification.
  Eg: A PIL filed in the Supreme Court (2026) argues that excluding general category students from protection violates the “equal protection of law”.
• Erosion of Natural Justice: The removal of the penalty for false complaints (initially present in the 2025 draft) is seen as a breach of the “presumption of innocence.”
  Eg: Student unions at Kumaun University submitted that the regulations foster an “atmosphere of fear,” presuming guilt based on social identity rather than evidence.
• Right to Dignity (Article 21): While the rules protect the dignity of marginalized groups, opponents claim that the lack of neutral grievance redressal exposes non-reserved students to unchecked hostility. 
• Conflict with Article 15(1): The Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of “caste” in general; however, these rules are being challenged for translating a broad constitutional prohibition into a sectional grievance mechanism.

Governance Challenges in Implementation

The shift to a “compliance-driven” model introduces significant administrative and social friction within academic spaces.

• Institutional Accountability vs. Autonomy: The regulations make Vice-Chancellors personally liable for non-compliance, which could lead to “defensive governance” and over-regulation.
  Eg: Institutions face the risk of losing UGC recognition or degree-granting powers if they fail to resolve complaints within tight 15-day timelines.
• Defining Subtle Discrimination: Governance becomes difficult when “indirect” or “implicit” discrimination is not clearly defined, leading to subjective interpretations by Equity Committees.
• Risk of Campus Polarization: The mandatory formation of Equity Squads and committees without mandatory general category representation may deepen social fault lines rather than resolve them.
  Eg: Protests under #RollbackUGC highlights fears that these squads could act as “parallel administrative blocks”.
• Inadequate Safeguards for Educators: Faculty members express concern that the rules lack a verification mechanism, potentially allowing the system to be used for professional vendettas.

What Can Be Done: Towards Inclusive Equity

• Adopt Caste-Neutral Definitions: Redefine discrimination to protect all students based on their caste identity, while maintaining “affirmative focus” on historically disadvantaged groups.
• Restore Procedural Safeguards: Reintroduce the provision to discourage false or malicious complaints to restore trust in the grievance mechanism.
• Balanced Committee Representation: Ensure that Equity Committees include stakeholders from all categories to ensure the “appearance of fairness” and reduce perceptions of bias.
• Focus on Hidden Bias: Shift from a purely punitive approach to sensitization-led governance, particularly during high-stakes admissions and viva-voce examinations.

Conclusion

Equity in higher education must not be a zero-sum game. While the state has a mandate to protect the vulnerable, it must do so through neutral oversight and transparent procedures. The success of the 2026 Regulations will depend on the UGC’s ability to evolve a framework that upholds the dignity of the marginalized without compromising the fundamental principles of natural justice and equal protection for every student on campus.

DOWNLOAD PDF