Opinion UGC’s new equity norms are much needed, there should be safeguards against their misuse
The backlash against the regulations cannot mask the reality that had forced an overdue recognition in the Mandal moment. The fact is that privilege reproduces itself through access, language and cultural capital, that inequality is often not a matter of accident but of historical exclusion.
Addressing entrenched inequities always provokes discomforts. But pretending they no longer exist would mean shirking the constitutional obligation of equality for all. The University Grants Commission’s new regulations against discrimination in higher education — the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 — are significant and welcome. They have sparked protests on the grounds of overreach and there are accusations that it ignores upper-caste concerns. Yet, the context that produces them shows why they are much needed. UGC data provided to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education in 2025 shows that over the last five years, the number of reported complaints of caste-based discrimination on educational campuses has gone up exponentially — from 173 in 2019-20 to 378 in 2023-24. It makes the regulations, which replace those from 2012, both urgent and necessary. If the 2012 regulations officially recognised social discrimination, the new ones call out caste discrimination in classrooms by its name and move the needle by institutionalising mechanisms of redress.
Certainly, the framework they put in place is not beyond critique. Despite Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s assurance that misuse will “not be allowed against anybody”, there will be challenges. The inclusion of Other Backward Classes (OBC), while welcome, will need to be addressed with rigour. Concerns have also been raised about the possibility of false complaints of discrimination, and over the feasibility of timelines prescribed for inquiries, which may strain under-resourced institutions. The threat of punitive action for non-compliance, including derecognition, has stoked anxieties. For the regulations to succeed, checks and balances and safeguards against misuse, and a commitment to due process, will be critical.
The backlash against the regulations, however, cannot mask the reality that had forced an overdue recognition in the Mandal moment. The fact is that privilege reproduces itself through access, language and cultural capital, that inequality is often due to historical exclusion. Ever since the implementation of affirmative action, classrooms have become more diverse. But caste prejudice still operates in covert and less recognisable registers. The UGC’s new regulations are not perfect, but they force a reckoning with that reality. Addressing entrenched inequities always provokes discomfort. But pretending they no longer exist would mean shirking the constitutional obligation of equality for all.
Share
