UGC’s equity regulations need reform

The University Grants Commission’s Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026 marks a decisive shift in how caste -based discrimination on campuses is addressed. Unlike the advisory framework of 2012, the new regulations are enforceable, punitive, and binding across public and private institutions. The intent is unambiguous and necessary. Persistent evidence of social exclusion, biased evaluation, denial of mentorship, and institutional apathy has rightly demanded stronger safeguards.

Equity, dignity, and inclusion are constitutional imperatives. Yet, the strength of any regulatory framework lies not only in intent, but in design. On this count, the 2026 regulations raise serious concerns that warrant urgent revision – not to weaken equity, but to preserve its legitimacy. Equity cannot be selective. The most fundamental concern lies in how the regulations define a “victim” of caste-based discrimination. Protection is explicitly limited to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. This approach assumes that discrimination operates only in one direction and that caste identity alone determines vulnerability. While historical disadvantage is real and must be acknowledged, constitutional equality cannot be category-exclusive.

Advertisement

Article 14 guarantees equality before law to all persons. Equity mechanisms must protect any individual subjected to discrimination, humiliation, or institutional bias – regardless of category – while continuing to provide enhanced safeguards where vulnerability is demonstrably higher. By excluding the unreserved category altogether, the regulations risk substituting corrective justice with categorical presumption. The regulations mandate the establishment of Equal Opportunity Centres and grievance committees with compulsory representation from SC, ST, OBC communities, women, and persons with disabilities. Diversity in institutional processes is essential. However, the complete absence of any mention of representation from the general category raises legitimate concerns about procedural balance.

Grievance redressal systems must command trust across the institution. When committee composition appears asymmetrical, even well-intentioned decisions risk being viewed as biased – undermining both compliance and credibility. Justice is not only about outcomes; it is about confidence in process. Perhaps the most consequential omission in the regulations is the absence of any provision dealing with false, frivolous, or malicious complaints. The penalties imposed on institutions under the new framework are severe – ranging from withdrawal of funding and suspension of new courses to derecognition. In such a high-stakes environment, the lack of deterrence against misuse creates administrative fear and moral hazard. This is not an argument against protecting complainants. It is an argument for balance.

Supreme Court jurisprudence has consistently held that safeguards against misuse do not dilute genuine protection; they strengthen it by preserving credibility. A framework that presumes guilt, offers no remedy for the falsely accused, and provides no penalty for proven misuse violates principles of natural justice. Accountability must be symmetric. The regulations rightly fix responsibility on Vice-Chancellors and institutional heads for implementation. Leadership accountability is long overdue. But accountability must extend in all directions – administrative, procedural, and participatory. Without clear timelines, evidentiary standards, appeal safeguards, and consequences for abuse, institutions risk becoming compliance theatres rather than spaces of justice. The solution is not to abandon the equity framework, but to refine it.

Three targeted reforms can restore balance:

1. Expand the definition of victimhood to include all individuals facing discrimination, while retaining proportional safeguards for historically disadvantaged groups.

2. Ensure balanced committee composition, including representation that reassures all stakeholders of procedural fairness.

3. Introduce penalties for demonstrably false complaints, after due inquiry, to protect the integrity of the system. Equity cannot survive on moral force alone.

It must rest on fairness, symmetry, and trust. If the UGC wishes these regulations to endure – and to truly reduce discrimination – it must revise them not under pressure, but under principle. A just system protects the vulnerable without creating new vulnerabilities. (The writer is director-Mrikal

(AI/Data Center) and a young alumni member, Government Liaison Task Force, IIT Kharagpur.)