The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 are in a middle of storm. The country is witnessing a huge number of protests especially by the General category students.
These regulations aim to eradicate discrimination only on the basis of religion, race, gender, place of birth, caste or disability, particularly against the members of Scheduled caste, Scheduled tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, Economically weaker sections, persons with disabilities in higher education institutions.
In 2019, public interest litigation was filed by Dr. Payal Tadvi and Radhika Vemula in the Supreme Court, following their children’s suicides due to alleged discrimination resulting in the formation of the present 2026 regulations replacing the older 2012 UGC equity framework.
The first point of contention raised by the critics is that the regulation 3(c) defines “caste-based discrimination” as discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of the scheduled castes, scheduled Tribes and other backward classes and does not include general category members, who they claim can also face discrimination on the basis of caste.
This argument falls flat because of two reasons; firstly the purpose and history of these regulations itself shows that these are made for protecting the weaker sections of the society. This is backed by Articles 15(3), 15(4) and 46 of the constitution of India providing the state the power to make special provisions for the women, socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or SCs and STs respectively. Article 46 directs the state to promote interests of weaker sections of the people and protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.
Special statutes such as The protection of civil rights Act, 1955, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and The Rights of persons with disabilities Act, 2016 have been enacted for protecting these weaker sections.
Therefore the UGC regulations do not make any blunder in excluding the General category from the definition.
Secondly, though the General category gets excluded from regulation 3(c), the Regulation 3(e), where “discrimination” is defined is a general provision and even a general category person can lodge a complaint if he faces any unfair, differential or biased treatment.
The second contention is that the Equity committee which is established for enquiring into the discrimination complaints mandates the representation of OBCs, SCs, STs, persons with disabilities and women members and doesn’t mention general category members, which can result in biased decisions against them.
Again, this argument does not seem plausible. The mandatory inclusion of disadvantaged sections is provided to further the very object of these regulations and a mere apprehension of prejudice is not enough to render the regulations unconstitutional.
Lastly, the contention that there is no punishment provided for false complaints and therefore there are chances of unnecessary harassment of General category persons does not contain enough weight as Regulation 9 of UGC regulations provides the right of Appeal before the ombudsperson, to the aggrieved person.
Hence, the UGC guidelines are grounded in the constitutional mandate of substantive equality. Mere apprehensions of bias or misuse cannot invalidate a framework designed to protect historically disadvantaged sections.
Author Name- Ayushi Mishra, 5th Year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
