The new equity regulations notified by the University Grants Commission on this week signal a significant attempt to recast how discrimination, particularly caste-based discrimination, is addressed within India’s higher education system. Designed to replace the largely advisory framework that has been in place for more than a decade, the regulations seek to introduce a more structured, enforceable and institutionally accountable approach to promoting equity on university and college campuses.
While the Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the definition of caste discrimination in the updated regulations, here is a detailed look at what the new rules say:
At the core of the new rules is the idea that discrimination is not an abstract or occasional problem but a systemic issue that requires permanent institutional mechanisms. Every higher education institution is now required to establish dedicated equity bodies responsible for preventing discrimination, creating awareness, and handling complaints. These bodies are expected to operate with defined procedures and timelines, moving away from the earlier practice where grievance redressal structures existed largely on paper and functioned inconsistently across institutions.
The regulations give special emphasis to caste-based discrimination, explicitly recognising it as a serious violation of equity and dignity in academic spaces. They define such discrimination in relation to members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, and place a legal obligation on institutions to ensure that students, faculty and staff from these communities are protected from exclusion, humiliation, denial of opportunities or hostile treatment. Supporters of the framework argue that this clarity is necessary because caste remains one of the most persistent and deeply entrenched forms of social disadvantage in India and continues to shape access to education and campus experiences.
Another notable feature is the requirement that equity and grievance redressal bodies include representation from historically disadvantaged groups, as well as women and persons with disabilities. The intention is to ensure that those who assess complaints are not detached from the social realities faced by complainants and that decision-making reflects diverse perspectives. The regulations also encourage institutions to conduct regular sensitisation programmes, workshops and training sessions aimed at fostering inclusive campus cultures and reducing unconscious bias.
For the first time, the UGC has linked compliance with equity norms to concrete regulatory consequences. Institutions that fail to establish mandated bodies, ignore complaints, or violate the spirit of the regulations risk losing access to UGC funding and schemes, facing suspension of academic programmes or, in extreme cases, losing their recognition status. This enforcement architecture marks a sharp departure from the earlier regime, which relied primarily on moral persuasion and had limited deterrent value.
At the same time, the regulations have triggered intense debate and resistance, particularly over the way caste discrimination is defined. Critics argue that by framing caste-based discrimination only in relation to SC, ST and OBC communities, the rules implicitly exclude students and staff from the unreserved or general category from seeking redress under this specific framework, even if they face caste-linked harassment or bias. Opponents contend that this creates an unequal legal standard and undermines the principle that all individuals should have access to protection against discrimination.
Concerns have also been raised about procedural safeguards. The regulations do not clearly spell out penalties for false or malicious complaints, nor do they elaborate detailed standards of evidence or thresholds for establishing guilt. Some academics and legal experts fear that this could expose individuals to reputational harm or disciplinary action without adequate due process, especially given the broad language used to describe discriminatory conduct, which includes both explicit acts and more subtle forms of exclusion or hostility.
The political and social fallout has been swift. Protests have erupted on several campuses, largely led by general category students who view the rules as discriminatory and polarising. At the same time, many student groups, civil society organisations and activists from marginalised communities have welcomed the regulations, arguing that strong, enforceable protections are long overdue and essential to making campuses safer and more inclusive.
The controversy has now reached the judiciary, with petitions challenging the regulations on constitutional grounds. The court has indicated concern over vagueness and potential misuse and has temporarily halted implementation, directing that the older framework continue for the time being. This judicial intervention underscores the unresolved tension between the state’s responsibility to correct historical injustices and the need to ensure equality before the law and fair procedural protections for all.