Are New UGC Regulations on Equity Flawed?

When the University Grants Commission (UGC) notified the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026 in January, the intent appeared straightforward and commendable: make Indian campuses more inclusive, fair, and free from discrimination. In a country with deep social hierarchies and well-documented instances of exclusion in higher education, few would disagree with that objective.

Yet, within weeks, the regulations triggered widespread protests, intense public debate, and legal challenges — culminating in a stay by the Supreme Court of India. This reaction raises an important question: if the goal is equity, why has the policy itself become so controversial?

The answer lies not in the intent of the regulations, but in their design, scope, and implementation framework.

Equity With Selective Access

One of the most criticised aspects of the 2026 regulations is how they define and address caste-based discrimination. The grievance mechanism is largely limited to students and staff belonging to SC, ST, and OBC categories. While these groups undeniably face systemic disadvantage and deserve robust protection, critics argue that excluding others from access to redress creates a new form of inequality.

Discrimination, by its very nature, is wrong regardless of who experiences it. When access to justice itself becomes identity-dependent, it raises uncomfortable constitutional and ethical questions. Many legal experts therefore view this selective framework as conflicting with the principle of equality before law.

Vagueness and the Risk of Misuse

Another major concern is the lack of clarity in key definitions and procedures. What exactly constitutes discrimination? How should intent, context, and evidence be assessed? The regulations leave much of this open-ended.

The Supreme Court, while staying the regulations, pointed out that vague provisions are not merely a drafting issue — they can lead to arbitrary application, misuse, and inconsistent outcomes across institutions. In matters involving reputation, careers, and academic futures, ambiguity can do more harm than good.

Due Process Takes a Back Seat

A fair system protects both the complainant and the accused. However, the final version of the regulations does not provide explicit safeguards against false or malicious complaints, nor does it clearly define standards of proof or evidentiary thresholds.

This absence worries many stakeholders. Without procedural balance, equity mechanisms risk becoming punitive rather than corrective — where accusation alone can cause irreversible damage. Such a framework undermines trust and may discourage open academic engagement.

Speed Over Substance

The regulations mandate strict timelines for inquiry and action. While this is intended to prevent institutional delay, critics argue that complex discrimination cases require nuance, context, and careful examination.

Rushed processes may deliver quick outcomes, but not necessarily just ones. In academic environments — where disagreements, evaluations, and interpersonal conflicts are common — depth of inquiry matters as much as speed.

Institutional Conflicts and Capacity Gaps

Most equity bodies under the regulations are internal committees chaired by institutional heads. This structure raises concerns about conflicts of interest, particularly when complaints involve senior faculty or administrators.

Additionally, the compliance-heavy framework — helplines, monitoring units, reporting systems — imposes a significant administrative burden, especially on smaller and rural institutions that already operate with limited resources. Without adequate funding or support, implementation risks becoming uneven and symbolic.

From Inclusion to Polarisation?

Ironically, a policy meant to promote inclusion may end up deepening divisions on campus. By linking grievance access to specific identities, the regulations risk reinforcing “us versus them” thinking. Several educators and students argue that equity frameworks should be inclusive in access, even if they remain sensitive to historical disadvantage.

A Process That Invited Distrust

Finally, many critics point to the lack of meaningful stakeholder consultation before the regulations were notified. When policies affecting millions of students and teachers are introduced without visible dialogue, mistrust is almost inevitable. The backlash, therefore, reflects not just disagreement with the content, but also frustration with the process.

Conclusion: A Necessary Idea, Poorly Executed

There is broad consensus that discrimination in higher education must be addressed decisively. However, the UGC’s 2026 equity regulations illustrate how good intentions can falter due to flawed design.

The problem is not the pursuit of equity — it is the risk that equity, if implemented without clarity, inclusivity, and due process, can undermine the very values it seeks to uphold. That is why the debate today is not about abandoning equity, but about reimagining it in a way that is fair, constitutional, transparent, and trusted by all stakeholders.