The two faces of equity: Navigating the UGC Regulation 2026
The Indian higher education landscape is currently witnessing a tectonic shift with the notification of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. This landmark framework, notified last month, replaces the 2012 guidelines, marking a transition from advisory norms to a strictly enforceable legal mandate. The genesis of these regulations lies in a painful history of systemic failure and tragedy.
Following the heart-wrenching suicides of scholars like Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, their mothers petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking a robust mechanism to end the pervasive culture of caste-based exclusion. In response and under judicial pressure to address a staggering 118 per cent rise in discrimination complaints over the last five years, the UGC has introduced a framework designed to hold institutional leadership directly accountable for the social climate of their campuses.
At its core, the 2026 Regulation aims to institutionalise empathy through structural reform. One of its most significant merits is the expansion of the protective umbrella to explicitly include Other Backward Classes (OBCs), alongside Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). By mandating the establishment of Equal Opportunity Centres (EOCs) in every university and college, the UGC is attempting to create a ‘standard operating procedure’ for social justice. These centres are not merely symbolic; they are backed by Equity Committees and ‘equity squads’ proactive units tasked with monitoring ‘vulnerable spots’ on campus to prevent discrimination in real-time. Furthermore, the regulation introduces a revolutionary time-bound grievance redressal system.
The requirement for an Equity Committee to meet within 24 hours of a complaint and submit a full report within 15 days is a direct attempt to combat the ‘delay and deny’ tactics that have historically silenced victims. For the first time, institutional heads are liable and non-compliance carries the heavy threat of losing UGC funding or even derecognition.
However, the very stringency that makes the regulation promising has also exposed significant demerits that threaten to undermine its legitimacy. The most contentious issue is the ‘unidirectional’ definition of victimhood. Regulation 3(c) defines caste-based discrimination exclusively as acts committed against members of SC, ST, and OBC categories. Critics argue that this phrasing creates a legal vacuum where students from the ‘General Category’ are effectively deemed incapable of being victims of bias. This perceived exclusion has turned a tool for social harmony into a lightning rod for division.
Additionally, the broad and somewhat vague definition of ‘indirect discrimination’ has raised concerns among faculty that routine academic evaluations or disciplinary actions could be misconstrued as bias, potentially leading to a ‘race to the bottom’ where merit is sacrificed to avoid litigation. The removal of a previous draft’s clause that penalised ‘false or malicious complaints’ is another glaring demerit, as it leaves the system vulnerable to weaponization for settling personal scores or campus politics.
This perceived lack of balance has sparked widespread resistance, particularly among student groups from unreserved categories. The pushback, often coalescing under digital movements like #UGCRollback, is rooted in the fear of ‘reverse discrimination.’ Students argue that the current structure of Equity Committees, which mandates representation from reserved categories but remains silent on the inclusion of general category members, lacks the appearance of neutrality required for natural justice.
There is a palpable anxiety that campuses are being transformed into zones of surveillance. The deployment of ‘equity squads’ is seen by many as an intrusive overreach that could chill everyday social interactions, replacing organic peer bonding with a culture of suspicion. Resistance is not necessarily against the principle of equity but against a design that many feel presumes guilt based on identity rather than evidence.
As we look toward the future of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), it is clear that the UGC Regulation 2026 is a necessary but imperfect instrument. The intent to purge campuses of the ancient poison of casteism is noble and constitutionally mandated.
However, for any regulation to be effective, it must be perceived as fair by all stakeholders it governs. To ensure the long-term success of these guidelines, the UGC should consider critical amendments. Reintroducing a safeguard against demonstrably false and malicious complaints would go a long way in building trust.
Furthermore, the definition of discrimination should be made ‘caste-neutral’ in its language, ensuring that any student, regardless of their background, has a pathway to redressal if they face identity-based harassment. Equity should be a bridge that connects the campus community, not a wall that segregates it into silos of permanent grievance and fortified privilege. Only by balancing accountability with due process can we create a truly inclusive academic environment that honors both social justice and individual merit.
(The writer is a former college principal and founder of Supporting Shoulders)
