Gazette notifications issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC), the statutory body that oversees higher education in India, usually don’t attract much public attention. However, a recent one announcing updates to its 2012 anti-discrimination framework to make it more stringent has triggered a nationwide controversy and invited sharp comments from parents, students, politicians, and even the Supreme Court, which stayed it.
While the updates were meant to give teeth to the existing mechanism to effectively check discrimination on campuses by promoting equity, the vague language of the regulation and its exclusivity evoked protests and raised questions about the motive behind the move. Critics pointed out that the new regulation was inherently biased against upper caste members as the general category was left out of its ambit. Instead of protecting the marginalised groups, they claimed, the new rules could end up creating caste divisions, hatred, and unwarranted tension on campuses.
The new framework aimed to replace the mechanism introduced in 2012 to check discrimination in higher education institutions. Its rules tightened the prevailing provisions and mandated universities to protect historically disadvantaged groups such as scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other socially and educationally backward classes. The regulations also expanded the definition of caste-based discrimination to include OBCs and, in a controversial move, removed a proposed provision to punish those who file false complaints.
The Supreme Court is now seized of the matter and has stayed the new regulation till March 19, when the issue will be taken up in detail. While ordering a stay, the court orally remarked that the manner in which the law was drafted could create confusion and unrest among students. For the time being, the existing rules notified in 2012 will hold, the court ruled.
Need for a new regulation
The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 was notified on January 13 following a Supreme Court directive in September 2025. The court asked the UGC to consider bringing a stronger framework to protect students from caste bias and harassment. The direction came during the hearing of a public interest petition filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, who died by suicide in 2016 and 2019, respectively, allegedly over caste discrimination. The duo’s PIL said the UGC’s 2012 equity regulations were not good enough and sought robust anti-discrimination mechanisms on campuses across India. They also sought accountability from the institutions in implementing the regulations and demanded creation of equity panels in the institutions with adequate representation from the SCs and STs. The Supreme Court asked the UGC to consider suggestions from the petitioners and also other stakeholders while drafting the new regulations.
In the hearing in September 2025, the petitioners’ counsel Indira Jaising came up with 10 suggestions, which included grievance committees with mandatory representation from the marginalised communities, withdrawal of grants to institutions for non-compliance, explicit anti-segregation clauses, and stronger punitive powers. The court set an eight-week deadline for UGC to come up with a new set of regulations, warning against any major omissions.
New mechanism
The latest norms stipulate that all higher education institutions must set up Equal Opportunity Centres (EOC) to oversee the implementation of the policies and programmes for disadvantaged groups. Besides, Equity Committees must be formed to manage the functioning of the EOCs and probe discrimination complaints.
These equity committees will have, apart from faculty and staff members, students and civil society representatives. Also, the panel is required to have representation from SC/ST/OBC communities but there is no word on those from the non-protected category. General category members fear this could hurt chances of fair hearing and influence the outcome, triggering what they call ‘reverse discrimination’.
The new regulation mandates institutes to facilitate 24-hour helplines to deal with complaints of discrimination against SC, ST and OBC students. Institutions that fail to act on complaints could be debarred from offering degree programmes.
Once a complaint is received, the equity committee must meet within 24 hours to take action and file its report to the head of the institution with a copy to the aggrieved person within 15 days. The institution head has seven days to act on the report. If a criminal offence is made out, the matter should be reported to the police.
The concern was the relatively short time frame to investigate complaints and take action may force institutions to arrive at rushed decisions.
Equity squads
Apart from EOCs and equity committees, Universities must also constitute ‘equity squads’ or vigil groups that will conduct raids at ‘vulnerable spots’ frequently to report any equity violation. The squads will have representation from marginalised groups and will report violations to the EOC. Each institution was also directed to designate ‘equity ambassadors’ who will act as a nodal officer for implementing the activities planned by the EOC. Each unit, department, faculty, library, and hostel will have such ambassadors who will report any equity violation.
Bone of contention
Prior to notifying the updated regulation, the UGC had released the draft in February 2025, seeking public feedback. The draft was largely balanced and did not attract strong objections. In particular, it had a clause titled ‘false complaints’ to check malicious petitions of discrimination. It recommended a fine on those who deliberately push such wrongful complaints with the provision for strong disciplinary action against repeat offenders.
“Anyone who makes a false complaint of discrimination shall be liable to a fine as may be determined by the Equity Committee. In case of subsequent false complaints or false complaints of a serious nature, the Equity Committee may recommend the initiation of disciplinary proceedings as per the rules of the HEI in addition to the imposition of the fine,” it said.
However, the entire section was struck off in the final regulation notified on January 13, which has now been stayed by the Supreme Court. The omission was the main grouse of the protesters, who allege the new law protects only the SCs, STs and backward classes, and shuts the door on general category students who also face discrimination and harassment due to their ethnicity, language, or place of origin.
They feel the proposed safeguards against demonstrably false complaints should have been kept, given the reality on campuses known for ideological clashes and personal rivalries. With penal provisions removed, malicious actors can weaponise the new mechanism to target rivals who don’t belong to the protected categories. Moreover, they allege, there could be a spike in complaints against general category students and faculty, which could create unwarranted divisions on the basis of caste.
Caste-ing aspersions
The stated objective of the revised regulation of 2026 is “To eradicate discrimination only on the basis of religion, race, gender, place of birth, caste, or disability, particularly against the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, persons with disabilities, or any of them, and to promote full equity and inclusion amongst the stakeholders in higher education institutions.”
Section 3(e) defines discrimination as biased treatment, whether explicit or implicit, based only on the grounds of religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, disability, or any of them. It goes on to define ‘caste-based discrimination’ separately under Section 3(c), as “discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward classes.” This double entry created the impression that only members of the SC, ST, and OBC face discrimination and, therefore, can lodge complaints. The Supreme Court also questioned the need for a separate category called ‘caste-based discrimination’ when the same is already covered under the broad category titled ‘discrimination’. Besides, ragging — a common form of harassment faced by all regardless of caste—has been left out of the scope of the regulations. The Supreme Court also remarked that excluding ragging from the anti-discriminatory law reduced its scope.
The latest regulations offer to keep the identity of the complainant confidential, to keep him/her from potential retaliation. However, no such consideration has been accorded to those accused of discrimination. This, critics argue, could cause irreparable damage to the reputation of the accused, even if they are falsely accused and subsequently exonerated.
Also, many find the phrase “whether explicit or implicit” problematic in dealing with biased treatment. What qualifies as implicit bias and who gets to decide that? Such open-ended wording leaves room for subjective interpretation influenced by the confirmation bias of the deciding authority.
2012 vs 2026
University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012 has been revived by the SC and is in force now, while the 2026 norms stand stayed. The 2012 regulation broadly defines discrimination as bias against a student on the basis of caste, creed, religion, language, ethnicity, gender, and disability. It explains the term ‘equity’ as “a level playing field for all students in respect of the entitlement and opportunity for enjoyment of all legitimate rights”. It also spells out the issues of ragging and victimisation of students based on their caste, creed, religion, language, ethnicity, gender and disability.
In stark contrast, the 2026 norms appear to focus only on caste-based discrimination against SC/ST/OBC communities with other forms of harassment being ignored.
The main difference between the two laws is that the existing one is largely advisory in nature and specifies no strict timelines for action, while the other is specific in its application and stipulates deadlines for institutions and equity committees to act on complaints.