The Supreme Court of India on Thursday stayed the implementation of the 2026 regulations notified by the University Grants Commission to address discrimination, including caste-based bias, in higher education institutions. The regulations, issued earlier this month, mandated universities and colleges to constitute ‘equity committees’ to examine complaints related to discrimination on campus.
The court flagged serious reservations about the regulations, noting that they have been challenged as discriminatory against the “general category.” During the hearing, it observed that the provisions are prima facie “vague” and “capable of misuse”. The apex court suggested that the framework be reconsidered by a committee of eminent jurists, Live Law reported.
Under the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, these panels were required to include representatives from Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, persons with disabilities and women. The court’s interim order puts the framework on hold pending further hearing.
While these rules were intended to strengthen protections for students from marginalised communities, within days, the rules sparked huge backlash. Some students and political figures claimed the regulations could be misused and lead to harassment of students from the general category.
What are the new UGC regulations?
The rules are officially called the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026.
They aim to “eradicate discrimination only based on religion, race, gender, place of birth, caste, or disability,” especially against Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Economically Weaker Sections, and persons with disabilities. The regulations also seek to promote full equity and inclusion on campuses. Unlike the older version, these rules apply to all higher education institutions and clearly lay down how complaints must be filed and handled.
UGC’s new rules: Background
The regulations are a revised version of UGC’s older “equity” rules from 2012. This time, however, they come with tighter enforcement and clearer procedures, which is exactly what has led to the scrutiny. So what do these rules actually say, why were they introduced, and why are they being opposed?
The new UGC rules follow a Supreme Court intervention based on a petition filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi. Both students died by suicide in 2016 and 2019, respectively, following alleged caste-based discrimination.
Their mothers, Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, approached the court saying that the existing UGC rules from 2012 were not being properly implemented. They argued that colleges lacked strong systems to deal with discrimination complaints.
On January 3, 2025, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan made it clear that such regulations must be more than just symbolic. The court said they needed to be enforced in an impactful way.
After this, the UGC released a draft of the new regulations in February 2025, invited feedback, and finally notified the revised version earlier this month.
How will colleges and universities implement these rules?
To put the regulations into action, every institution must now set up three key bodies.
First is the Equal Opportunity Centre, or EOC. This centre will oversee policies related to disadvantaged groups, coordinate with district authorities and the police, and even help arrange legal aid if needed. Each EOC will have five faculty members. There is no reservation requirement for these five positions. If a college does not have enough faculty, the university’s EOC will take over its role.
Next comes the Equity Committee, which will function under the EOC. This committee will have ten members. At least five members must be from reserved categories, including Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, persons with disabilities, and women. This committee must meet within 24 hours of a complaint being filed. It has 15 days to submit its report, after which the head of the institution must begin action within seven days.
Then there are Equity Squads. Their job is to stay alert on campus, visit areas considered vulnerable, and help prevent discrimination before it happens. Institutions must also run a 24-hour Equity Helpline and appoint Equity Ambassadors.
How are new UGC rules different from the 2012 regulations?
The biggest difference is enforcement.
The 2012 regulations were mostly advisory. While they spoke about punishment being “commensurate with the nature of the discrimination or harassment,” they did not mention clear procedures or penalties for institutions that failed to comply.
The new regulations change that. The UGC can now actively monitor compliance through a national-level monitoring committee. Institutions that ignore the rules can face serious consequences. These include being barred from UGC schemes, losing permission to offer degree or online programmes, or being removed from the list of institutions eligible for central grants.
The older rules did require colleges to set up Equal Opportunity Cells, but they did not explain who should be in them or how complaints should be handled. They also focused only on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, with no mention of OBCs.
One major concern came from the All India OBC Students Association, which pointed out that OBCs were missing from the draft’s definition of caste discrimination and from the equity committees.
The final version fixed this. It now clearly states that “caste-based discrimination means discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward classes.”
Another significant change was the removal of a section on “false complaints.” The draft had proposed fines or disciplinary action in cases where complaints were found to be false.
Critics argue that the regulations could be misused and lead to the harassment of students from the general category. They are particularly unhappy about the absence of penalties for what they call “false complaints,” while institutions themselves can face action for not following the rules.