By Badri Narayan, Vice-Chancellor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences
To preface this piece on the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) Equity Regulations, 2026, I am writing it as a scholar and columnist, not as a representative of any institution. The regulations have created a sociopolitical discussion due to their positioning. Much of the criticism takes single angles into account leaving out the complexity of the regulations. It is indeed a sensitive subject that may affect our social fabric, which we are all bound to strengthen. The National Education Policy 2020 aspires towards an equitable (samaras) campus, which is needed for the evolution of a samaras society. Campuses train us, remake us, and reshape our attitudes and personality.
Criticisms are always welcome in a democratic society, but as an act it poses certain moral, ethical, and social concerns. Criticism without such concerns may turn anarchic. Before positing any harsh criticism on the UGC, we need to consider that it is committed to the principles and provisions of the Constitution, ensuring the complete abolition of any discrimination based on caste, creed, and religion. This also ensures that students from marginal social groups and backward communities are protected. With this, the UGC also sticks to its greater responsibility of ensuring protection of all students from any discrimination. Higher education institution (HEI) campuses have witnessed many cases of caste-based discrimination, with some even ending in suicides. The judiciary advised the UGC to establish effective equity regulations to stop such cases and evolve campuses into samaras spaces. Thus, the UGC started to develop regulations which could respond effectively to such requirements.
Some criticism of these regulations does not even consider these facts. The regulations evolved after long-term, multi-sided consultations. In 2023, the UGC formed a committee consisting of academics, legal experts, HEI heads, etc. who worked rigorously and developed a draft—these regulations was framed through a deliberate, consultative, and transparent process. The draft was released in the public domain this year for consultation , and feedback and representations were invited. The committee may have examined them thoroughly and incorporated suggestions. The UGC also extended the duration of public consultation to give an opportunity to the majority of stakeholders to respond.
A dimension of the regulations that is not discussed sufficiently is awareness. The regulations fundamentally seek to raise awareness about discrimination rather than control and punish. They have a provision for mobile equity squads to create awareness and observe situations, contributing towards the making of a samaras campus; however, this is being perceived as a surveillance squad, which is not the case. Similarly, several other positive aspects are underrepresented or overlooked. Various arguments and data sources being quoted in social and print media discourses need to be validated and analysed fairly. Any critique attached to sentiment creates imbalances in analysis, which seems to be the case largely.
Members from the general category are included in the equity squad. The regulations allow anyone facing discrimination to lodge complaints, and propose an elaborate system to identify real victims, setting up a multilayered structure of appeal for the accused. It ensures genuine and ingenuine complaints and cases are separated.
Now that the Supreme Court has stayed the UGC Equity Regulations, it is difficult to say how they will be reshaped. Union Minister for Education Dharmendra Pradhan has reiterated that no one would be unnecessarily victimised. The real victims will be protected effectively under the framework of the Constitution. Samaras HEI campuses are essential to strengthen our youth, which in turn may anchor the Viksit Bharat vision. At this juncture, we must engage in constructive criticism for any regulation or law rather than nitpicking without nuance. We must be responsible citizens, which includes understanding the meaning of any document holistically, thereby advancing fair criticism and a balanced approach to understand society and institutions.