By TV Mohandas Pai & Venkataramanan K, Respectively Chairman, Aarin Capital, and management consultant
The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, have ignited a fierce debate across India’s academia since their notification on January 13. Though the Supreme Court has granted a temporary stay, the regulations are not yet rolled back. Public outrage has centred largely on the definition of caste discrimination, which singles out general category individuals as oppressors while excluding them from protective coverage.
The new rules seem like a knee-jerk reaction to intense media coverage of isolated cases, rather than evidence of widespread caste discrimination. The 2022-23 (provisional) AISHE report shows 60,380 higher educational institutions with 4.38 crore students. Of this, 2.66 crore (61%) are SC/ST/OBCs. Yet UGC data records only 378 complaints of caste-linked discrimination—roughly 0.00087% of enrolled students.
Critics question UGC’s broad response to limited complaints
The UGC provides no details of these complaints (nature, seriousness, evidence, outcomes, or background of the accused), making it impossible to gauge their scale or seriousness. Despite the negligible rate, the UGC introduced sweeping new rules without public consultation. This disproportionate response risks creating caste conflicts, social disorder, and over-regulation of campuses based on rare cases instead of balanced, data-driven policy. Under Section 5(6), each equity committee must include at least three senior professors, besides staff, student, and civil society representatives. Section 8(c) requires the panel to meet within 24 hours of a complaint to take “appropriate action”, while Section 8(d) mandates recommendations within 15 days.
In top-tier STEM institutions, where faculty face heavy teaching loads and intense research pressure for publications, rankings, career progression, and funding, these tight timelines create a disruption and a culture of fear. Without any preliminary screening or prima facie validity check, senior professors risk being frequently pulled into caste-related conflicts, mandatory meetings, and investigations.
The 24-hour and 15-day clauses also invite misuse against students: a strategically timed complaint could force the accused into immediate proceedings, disrupting preparation and performance in a highly competitive environment. Moreover, the undefined term “appropriate action” grants the committee broad, unchecked powers, increasing the risk of abuse.
Sections 6(3), 7(h) and 8(a) permit the complainant’s identity to remain anonymous. This is highly prejudicial to the accused, who must be given the right to confront and cross-examine the complainant—a right rendered impossible without disclosure of identity. Moreover, the rules prescribe no procedure for issuing notice, granting an opportunity of hearing, or providing any procedural safeguards to the accused. This violates the principles of natural justice and the constitutional guarantee of justice to all.
Under Section 8 (d), a copy of the equity report should be sent to the head of the institution and the aggrieved person. No provision is made to supply the report to the accused, which is manifestly arbitrary. This reduces the process to a kangaroo court where one is denied any scope of defence. The accused has a fundamental right to know the allegations and any findings made by any administrative or quasi-judicial authority which may have civil or penal consequences against him or her. Therefore, it contravenes Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Section 3.1(e) says discrimination could also be implicit and Section 5.10(h) gives arbitrary powers to every institution to create its own discrimination list without any uniform national standards or objective basis. The open-ended approach risks labelling routine academic or social interactions as implicit discrimination—such as a faculty member delaying email replies, excluding someone from a project group, team selection in sports, or a casual remark. Without clear boundaries, students, faculty, and staff become vulnerable to highly subjective complaints, fostering an atmosphere of fear, disorder, potential blackmail, and harassment.
Section 5(6) requires the equity committee to include two civil society representatives with “relevant experience”, but fails to define what qualifies as such experience. This is problematic because such members have no stake in the institution’s academic performance or reputation. Unlike faculty or staff, they are neither academic experts nor law-enforcement authorities. Many civil society organisations in India are ideologically aligned (often left-leaning), heavily politicised, foreign-funded, and agenda-driven. Many have shown little regard for institutional reputation and would be more than eager to amplify complaints for their own interests. Including NGOs in equity panels risks rendering educational institutions hostage to external groups with no stake.
Suicide figures put focus on UGC norms
In response to an unstarred question in the Lok Sabha on March 27, 2023, the ministry of education revealed that general category students accounted for 50% of all suicides in IITs, NITs, and IIMs. Yet, the new equity regulations overlook this reality, focusing protections and mechanisms primarily on other categories.
The UGC rules stand as a classic example of a regulator succumbing to woke activism that has blown up a largely isolated problem through relentless media campaigns. The rules pre-judge the “oppressor” and “oppressed” categories. Such a framework ignores basic safeguards, due process, and balance, risking misuse and turning India’s diverse higher education campuses into a fear-based war zone. The rules must be rolled back and replaced with new regulations adhering to the principles of justice and equality—inclusive of all categories of students, faculty, and staff.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are the author’s own and do not reflect the official policy or position of Financial Express.