Abstract:
Equity in higher education has moved from being a normative aspiration to a legally enforceable obligation in India. The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 represent a decisive attempt to institutionalise constitutional commitments to equality, dignity, and inclusion within higher education institutions. However, their rapid notification and implementation generated intense public debate, institutional resistance, and culminated in an interim judicial stay by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which expressed prima facie concerns regarding procedural fairness, proportionality, and safeguards against arbitrariness.This paper critically examines the constitutional, administrative, and policy tensions embedded within the 2026 Regulations. While the framework seeks to address systemic discrimination and protect vulnerable student communities through mechanisms such as Equal Opportunity Centres and a National Level Monitoring Committee, its drafting reveals significant weaknesses. Vague definitional clauses, inadequate procedural safeguards, absence of an independent appellate mechanism, and uniform compliance burdens across structurally unequal institutions raise serious concerns under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Further, the lack of participatory consultation and insufficient accommodation of institutional capacity risks reducing the Regulations to symbolic compliance rather than transformative reform.The paper argues that the Regulations are constitutionally legitimate in objective but fragile in execution. It proposes targeted legislative and regulatory reforms, including narrowly tailored definitions, explicit due process guarantees, proportional and restorative sanctions, phased implementation based on institutional capacity, and sustained parliamentary oversight. Ultimately, the paper contends that enforceable equity in higher education can succeed only when moral ambition is matched with legal precision, cooperative federalism, and democratic legitimacy, enabling the Regulations to evolve into a durable instrument of transformative constitutionalism.
Keywords:Equity in Higher Education; Constitutional Equality; UGC Regulations 2026; Procedural Fairness; Transformative Constitutionalism
Introduction:
Equity in higher education is increasingly becoming a matter of intense rollout controversy rather than just a matter of moral aspiration. The University Grants Commission’s efforts to convert an advisory framework into binding rules, UGC (Promotion of equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulation,2026[1],marks climacteric moment in India’s HEIs’governance, but its rapid rollout turned into a rapid debate, controversies, large-scale protests, and, later on, a judicial stay by the Hon’ble Apex court. While granting an interim stay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court prima facie expressed concern that the “Regulations, in their present form, raise significant questions relating to procedural fairness, proportionality, and the absence of sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness, making judicial examination essential before their enforcement”[2].This paper offers a concise policy critique and a set of concrete legislative reform proposals that preserve the regulations’ substantive equity goals while reducing legal, administrative, and social risks[3].
The 2026 regulation of UGC attempts to fill the vacuum for safeguarding vulnerable students and ensuring inclusive campuses. These regulations mandate every HEI to provide safeguards by establishing a National Level Monitoring Committee under Regulation 10 of UGC,2026[4], to review implementation and recommend corrective measures, and the Equal Opportunity Centre to ensure fairness, inclusion, and equal opportunities for all students and staff while addressing discriminatory issues. Still, the core critics point to vague discrimination by including disability to experience a safe, fair, and supportive educational environment, weak procedural safeguards, and the practical burden on institutions that lack administrative capacity. The controversy reached its pinnacle in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, stating the regulations pending further adjudication, underscoring real constitutional and implementation challenges.
The Constitution of India through Article. 14,15.17,21 [5]collectively impose a positive obligation on the state to dismantle structures, discrimination, and ensure equal access, liberty, dignity, and opportunity. In the realm of education, Art.15(4), 15(5), 16(4), and 46 [6]further empower the state to uplift and advance socially and educationally backward classes. From the vantage point, the regulation of UGC aligns with constitutional morality [7]by seeking to translate the constitutional mandate into the institutional mechanism. It also resonates with India’s international obligation under the instrument. Likewise, international conventions, economic, social, and cultural rights[8], and the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women[9], procedural fairness, clarity of law, and proportionality of exercises are the key path of constitutional fairness.
Policy critiques of the regulation:
A major critique of this regulation lies in the indeterminate drafting of the core definitions clause. Clause 3(c) defines “caste-based discrimination” [10]as discrimination only based on caste or tribe against members of SC and ST. The exclusion of the general category from the definition would lead to Harassment, vagueness also creates fertile ground for arbitrary[11]or selective enforcement. Moreover, the regulations contain no mechanism to penalise false complaints against them.[12]The regulation came out of the case of Abeda Salim Tadvi Vs UOI (2014)[13], In which the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the framing of a new regulation to address caste-based discrimination and student suicide.
The regulation (10) empowers the Monitoring Mechanism[14]to inquire into complaints and most within 24 hours of receiving a report and recommend punitive measures. Still, they provide limited guidance on procedural safeguards. Through the lens of the regulation, it provides insufficient clarity on notice requirement[15], rights of representation, standard of proof, and safeguards against bias, the Equity Committee. In the absence of an independent appellate mechanism, parties are often compelled to approach constitutional courts directly, leading to floods of petitions/appeal and regulatory uncertainty. Such definitions raise serious concern under Art. 21 as defined in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs UOI (1978)[16]. Arbitrarinessis an antithesis of Equality, justice, fairness, and reasonableness.[17]
Another significant concern is the consequences of non-compliance by HEIs, as per Regulation 1(b), these regulations apply to all Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), failing to comply with the regulations will face serious penalties[18], under Regulation 11, and UGC will impose additional Punitive actions depending on the severity of non-compliance. Regardless of size, funding structure, or regional disparities. Many universities lack the administrative capacity and financial resources to establish new multiple bodies. Moreover, education is a subject of shared responsibility between the union and the states[19]. It is the duty of the collective society to ensure accessible and fair education. This regulation risks becoming a paper stamp rather than a transformative intervention. The intensity of the backlash reflects a perception that the regulations were formulated without sufficient consultation[20]. When regulatory instruments addressing sensitive social issues lack participatory legitimacy, they risk being viewed as tools of ideological enforcement rather than social justice.[21]
Legislative and regulatory reform proposals:
The regulation shorts adopt narrowly tailored, illustrative definitions of prohibited conduct. A progressive framework distinguishing between academic disagreement, interpersonal misconduct, and structural exclusion would allow for proportionate remedies and reduce misuse. Such a fine-tune would also protect academic freedom while addressing the genuine discrimination faced in the HEIs; due process must be explicitly embedded within the regulatory text. This regulation includes mandatory notice, opportunity to respond to reasoned decisions, and protections against conflict of interest in Equity committees. Importantly, there should be an external, independent, and binding Appellate Authority[22], such as a regional education ombudsperson, that should be established to review serious sanctions.
Disciplinary action should be proportionate to the gravity of misconduct, with an emphasis on corrective and restorative measures over immediate penalisation. There should be a balance and strict data protection norms, preventing reputational harm and misuse of sensitive information. Equity committee mandates must be accompanied by adequate funding and proper infrastructure. A phased roll-out, differentiated by institutional capacity, would enhance compliance and effectiveness. Model guidelines, investigator training modules, and centralised support systems would further professionalise implementation.For the proper transformative nature of these regulations, sustained parliamentary oversight is essential. Assimilating a statutory review clause after a defined period would allow empirical assessment of outcomes and course correction based on lived institutional experience.
Conclusion
At the very threshold, the thought process underlying the UGC Equity Regulations, 2026, highlights a constitutionally legitimate and socially necessary ambition: to make Indian HEIs dignified, non-discriminatory, and highly inclusive for the vulnerable students. Still, the success of Equity regulation depends not only on moral clarity but equally on constitutional mandates, legal precision, procedural fairness, institutional capacity, and inclusivity across all sections of the academic community.On second thoughts, rather than abandoning the project of enforceable equity, the path forward lies in reforming the regulatory framework through clearer drafting of definitions, robust procedural safeguards, cooperative federalism[23], and meaningful democratic oversight. Only then can the Regulations evolve from a contested mandate into a durable instrument of transformative constitutionalism in higher education.[24]
[1]University Grants Commission, UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 (UGC, New Delhi, 2026).
[2]‘Vague and Divisive’: Supreme Court Freezes UGC’s 2026 Equity Rules, Calls for Rethink – The Logical Indian
[3]State of Tamil Nadu v Union of India (1974) 4 SCC 3.
[4]University Grants Commission, UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations 2026 (UGC 2026) reg 10.
[5]The Constitution of India arts 14, 15, 17 and 21.
[6]The Constitution of India arts 15(4), 15(5), 16(4) and 46.
[7]Indra Sawhney v Union of India 1993 Supp (3) SCC 217.
[8]International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3.
[9]Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (adopted 18 December 1979) 1249 UNTS 13.
[10]UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, reg 3(c).
[11]Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
[12]Kartar Singh v State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569.
[13]Abeda Salim Tadvi v Union of India (2014) 10 SCC 30.
[14]UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, reg 10.
[15]A.K. Kraipak v Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262.
[16]Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
[17]E.P. Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3
[18]UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, reg 11.
[19]Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, List III, Entry 25
[20]Union of India v Cynamide India Ltd (1987) 2 SCC 720.
[21]Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637.
[22]Manohar Lal Sharma v Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 516.
[23]Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[24]Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1.
Author Bio- Skand Vats, Undergraduate Student, B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.), University Institute of Legal Studies (UILS), Panjab University, Chandigarh
