Examining Equity: Analysing UGC Regulations, 2026 And The Judicial Directive
The University Grants Commission (UGC) on 13th January notified the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2026 (2026 Regulations). These Regulations were notified under the UGC Act, 1956 and replace the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012 (2012 Regulations), thus marking an important shift.
The aim of the 2026 Regulations is to promote equity and inclusion and eradicate discrimination, particularly against stakeholders belonging to Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, person with disabilities, in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs).
The Supreme Court, on 29th January, heard the petition challenging the 2026 Regulations, directing a stay on them. In this light, it becomes necessary to analyze the Regulations and the judicial decision.
The Need for Intervention
The death of Rohith Vemula in 2016 and Payal Tadvi in 2019 by suicide shook the country to its roots. While these are not isolated incidents, they compelled us to confront the systemic caste-based discrimination faced by not only these students but also many others within their institutions.
In 2019, Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Supreme Court to take steps to address the caste-based discrimination, enforce fundamental rights of such students and also flagged the inadequacy of the 2012 Regulations to curb discrimination in higher educational institutions. Later, in 2025, the Supreme Court heard the PIL and called for “a robust mechanism” to tackle caste-based discrimination. Against this backdrop, the UGC released the draft of the Regulations in 2025 and officially notified the Regulations in 2026.
The need for intervention is also buttressed by the findings of the Thorat Committee (2007) which highlighted discrimination, segregation and isolation faced by SC/ST students within elite institutions. In 2019, a survey by IIT Delhi further revealed that 75% SC/ST/OBC students faced discrimination.
Evolution of the Equity Framework
The 2012 Regulations were criticized for their uneven implementation and ineffectiveness. Their comparison with the 2026 Regulations reveals major changes.
Firstly, the present framework is binding on the higher educational institutions given that it stipulates the consequences of proven non-compliance such as debarment from participating in UGC schemes, offering degree, ODL and online mode programmes and removal from the list of HEIs maintained under the UGC Act. The commission has also been empowered to take additional punitive actions, if required. The absence of such robust compliance mechanism in the earlier regulations made them advisory and led to limited enforceability.
Secondly, unlike the earlier framework which provided narrow definitions and focused only on students, particularly those belonging to SC/ST categories, the scope of implementation has been broadened in the present Regulations. The definitions are broader; discrimination includes implicit and explicit acts, structural bias, and acts that harm human dignity. The ambit of applicability has also been widened on two fronts. One, it includes OBCs within its ambit of caste-based discrimination, apart from SCs and STs. Two, it recognizes discrimination against not only students but also against faculty, non-teaching staff and management members. While a broader definition of discrimination is a welcome move as it captures new forms of biases which traditional frameworks failed to recognize and address, it risks ambiguity, leaving interpretation in the hands of institutional committees.
The Architecture of the 2026 Regulations
The 2026 Regulations provides for various bodies to be constituted to achieve the stated objectives.
Firstly, every higher educational institution is required to establish an Equal Opportunity Centre (EOC) to oversee the implementation of policies for disadvantaged groups, provide guidance and counselling, and to enhance diversity within the campus.
Secondly, the EOC shall have an Equity Committee to manage the functioning of the Centre and enquire into discrimination complaints. To ensure inclusivity, the Committee is mandated to have representation of OBCs, SCs, STs, Person with Disabilities and women.
Thirdly, every higher educational institution is required to constitute a smaller body called Equity Squads which would remain mobile, visit vulnerable spots frequently, maintain vigil and prevent discrimination within campus.
Fourthly, every higher educational institution is required to appoint Equity Ambassador in each of its units, departments, faculties, schools, hostels, libraries or facilities who shall implement programmes planned by EOC in their units and report equity violation.
Lastly, every higher educational institution shall provide an Equity Helpline which shall be accessible round the clock to any stakeholder in distress due to any discriminatory incident.
Thus, the 2026 Regulations adopt a structured framework, mandating institutions to establish bodies at different levels to ensure accessibility, promotion of equity and prevention of discrimination.
Inquiry Procedure and Appellate Mechanism
An aggrieved person may report discrimination related incidents on an online portal, in writing, through an email to the Coordinator of EOC or to the Equity Helpline. The information received on helpline shall be forwarded to the police authorities if the case falls under penal laws. The Equity Committee shall meet within 24 hours of receiving such information to take appropriate action. The Committee has 15 working days to submit its report to the Head of the Institution, who shall initiate further action within 7 working days of receipt of the report. In case the complaint is against the Head of the institution, the Coordinator of EOC shall chair the Equity Committee, with its report to be submitted to the next higher authority of the Head of the institution.
A person aggrieved by the report of the Equity Committee may prefer an appeal before the Ombudsperson within 30 days from the receipt of such report and the Ombudsperson shall make efforts to dispose off the appeal with 30 days. The Ombudsman may also appoint an amicus curiae to facilitate hearing of an appeal.
Thus, the 2026 Regulations stipulate a time-bound mechanism of reporting, inquiry and disposal of cases. While the stipulated mechanism facilitates timely action, it also raises questions regarding careful investigation within such time constraints. Regarding the appeals, it provides a safeguard against the institutional processes.
Constitutional Alignment
Going to the point we began from, the need for an equity framework arose due to discriminatory incidents reported across the country and how the fundamental rights of the victims of discrimination were violated.
Article 14 of the Constitution recognizes equality before law and Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. By recognizing implicit and structural biases, the 2026 Regulations safeguard against violation of Articles 14 and 15 and also align with the evolving idea of substantive equality, an idea which calls for acknowledging historical injustices and different backgrounds rather than blind, formal equality. At the same time, by recognizing harm to human dignity as a facet of discrimination, the Regulations safeguard the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The 2026 Regulations draw normative authority from the Directive Principles of State Policy, prominently Article 38, which obligates the State to promote welfare of people and minimize inequalities, and Article 46, which obligates the State to promote educational (and economic) interests of SCs, STs and other weaker sections and to protect them from social injustice.
Thus, the 2026 Regulations owe their allegiance to the constitutional mandate and safeguards the interests of the marginalized sections.
Judicial Scrutiny
On 29th January, the Supreme Court heard the petition challenging the 2026 Regulations. The Court noted that certain provisions of the Regulations suffered from ambiguity and that there was a possibility of their misuse. On these considerations, the Court directed the Regulations to be kept in abeyance and invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the continuation of operation of the 2012 Regulations till further order.
Section 28 of the UGC Act mandates laying of every regulation made under this Act before both the Houses of the Parliament. While questions have been raised regarding tabling of the 2026 Regulations, such non-compliance, even if established, would constitute a procedural flaw rather than a ground for outright invalidation. Pertinently, the phrase “as soon as possible may be” used in Section 28 incorporates a certain degree of procedural flexibility, reflecting assessment of the tabling requirement on the yardstick of reasonableness rather than immediacy.
As stated in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) v UOI[1], while a delegated legislation enjoys presumption of constitutional validity, still the courts can intervene in matters challenging such legislations. However, in Bhavesh D. Parish v UOI[2], the Supreme Court observed that in matters of stay on legislation, “...unless the provision is manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional, the courts must show judicial restrain in staying the applicability of the same.” This judgement also pointed out that until the legislation is in question before the judiciary, it would not be put under suspension at the interim stage.
Against this doctrinal background, while judicial scrutiny of the 2026 Regulations may be justified, a complete stay on them at the preliminary stage raises questions of proportionality, as the matter remains to be finally adjudicated.
The UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2026 mark a significant shift from the earlier framework by introducing a structured and enforceable mechanism to promote equity and eradicate discrimination in higher educational institutions. By widening the ambit of definitions, scope of applicability, and institutionalizing a multi-body mechanism and timebound approach, the Regulations acknowledge the systemic discrimination that persist in academic spaces and that it requires a robust mechanism to deal with it.
Although the operation of the Regulations stands in abeyance, the architecture introduced by them requires careful consideration. The ongoing judicial proceedings present an excellent opportunity to refine the framework of the Regulations to ensure constitutional soundness and institutional effectiveness. Any future endeavor must remain oriented towards progression rather than regression.
REFERENCES
[1] Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515
[2] Bhavesh D. Parish v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 2047
Views are personal