Universities have
historically been sites where society's deepest conflicts surface first. The
protests by General Category students against the UGC (Promotion of Equity in
Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 must therefore be read not just
as resistance to a regulatory framework, but as an anxiety over how equity is
being redefined within Indian higher education.
At the heart of the
debate lies a conceptual tension as old as the Constitution itself: equality
of opportunity versus corrective justice.
The Intent of the
Regulations
The stated objective
of the Regulations is unambiguous. Clause 4 mandates every Higher
Education Institution (HEI) to "eradicate discrimination and promote
equity" across grounds of caste, religion, gender, language,
ethnicity, disability, and region[1].
This clause reflects the constitutional morality articulated in Articles 14,
15, and 46, and resonates with B.R. Ambedkar's insistence that political
equality is hollow without social equity.
Further, Clause 5 institutionalises
this commitment by establishing an Equal Opportunity Centre (EOC). In addition,
Clause 5(5–7) establishes an Equity Committee with compulsory
representation from SC, ST, OBC, women, and persons with disabilities[2].
The framework shifts equity from being aspirational to enforceable, backed by Clauses
10 and 11, which empower the UGC to penalise non-compliant institutions[3].
From a capacity approach perspective (associated with Martha
Nussbaum), such regulations can be understood as attempts to correct
structurally unequal starting points by expanding the substantive opportunities
available to disadvantaged groups.
The Protest and Its
Core Anxiety: Equity or Adversarial Governance?
The protests by
General Category students, however, are not centred on the rejection of equity
per se, but on procedural fairness and neutrality. Their primary concern
arises from the Equity Committee's category-based composition (Clause 5),
which does not explicitly mandate representation for all social groups[4].
The broad and vague scope of "discrimination" under Clause 3
(Definition clause) lacks objective thresholds[5]. The
absence of safeguards against frivolous or malicious complaints under Clause 8,
a provision that existed in earlier drafts but was omitted in the final
notification[6].
The universities,
especially the central and state-funded ones, are caught in a very tricky
situation. While following the UGC guidelines is the least that can be
expected, universities will be concerned about the deterrent effect that could
result in the suppression of academic freedom if disputes are viewed through a
punitive lens. These broad regulations could rather create challenges with
climate and implementation on campuses.
The protests are not
simply questioning whether or not discrimination is real—of course it is. The
question is whether heavy-handed enforcement of regulations is the best way to
teach and change. Colleges are not courts; they are communities that are meant
to be places of learning. Too much legalism can destroy trust, and dialogue can
become a labyrinth of grievances and regulations from above. However, history
has also shown that voluntary compliance has often been ineffective in upending
long-standing power imbalances. The existence of such Regulations is the result
of decades of institutional inertia.
In this regard, the
insight of political philosopher John Rawls is helpful: inequalities are
justifiable only if they benefit the least advantaged (the difference
principle) and arise within institutions that preserve fair equality of
opportunity and equal basic liberties. The ongoing protests indicate that the first
requirement may be fulfilled, but the second is seen as precarious.
A Constitutional
Pause, Not a Retreat: A Question, Not a Verdict
The Supreme Court's
decision to put the UGC Regulations, 2026, in abeyance while continuing the
2012 Regulations under Article 142 is more of a constitutional pause than a
stop to the reform process. It again emphasises that reforms in higher
education, a vital sector for social mobility, cannot be hurried through merely
because of the executive's design. The Chief Justice's remark, "Whatever
we have gained in terms of achieving a casteless society, are we now becoming
regressive?", captures the underlying fear that the reform process
is consolidating justice but may also be hardening society's divides[7].
The argument
concerning the UGC Equity Regulations 2026 should not simply be viewed as being
either in favour or against them. Instead, it highlights the way that a
developing democratic society attempts to find balance between justice &
trust, correction & maintaining cohesion and equity & liberty.
It is necessary to
look at the way that policies will impact, primarily, the last person in
society, as demonstrated by Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy of 'Antyodaya',
however, also demonstrated through the writings of Ambedkar as 'When
democratic institutions cease to have moral authority, democracy is at an end'.
Therefore, the way in which these regulations will empower previously
marginalised groups will depend on how sensitive the respective institutions
are to these groups during the course of interpreting/implementing these
regulations, rather than simply on the text itself. Lastly, in that unresolved
space between intention and impact, the university once again becomes what it
was meant to be: a mirror to society, asking uncomfortable but necessary
questions.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are personal to the author. Publication on Nib & Notion does not imply endorsement. Nib & Notion assumes no liability for reliance on the information provided.
[1] University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in
Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, Cl. 4, UIN 1/2026 (Gazetted
on Jan. 13, 2026).
[2] University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in
Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, Cl. 5(5)–(7), UIN 1/2026
(Gaz. of India, Jan. 13, 2026).
[3] University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity
in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, Cls. 10 & 11, UIN
1/2026 (Gaz. of India, Jan. 13, 2026).
[4] University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, Cl. 5, UIN 1/2026 (Gazetted on Jan. 13, 2026).
[5] University
Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions)
Regulations, 2026, Cl. 3(e), UIN 1/2026 (Gazetted on Jan. 13, 2026).
[6] University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, Cl. 8, UIN 1/2026 (Gazetted on Jan. 13, 2026).
[7] Debby Jain, ‘Capable of Misuse, Vague’: Supreme
Court Stays UGC Equity Regulations 2026, LiveLaw (Jan. 29, 2026), https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-stays-ugc-equity-regulations-2026-521055.
0 Comments