UGC Rules 2026: Need for Equity in Higher Education
Recently a new law has been introduced in the Parliament as University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations Bill, 2026, commonly referred to as the UGC Equity Regulations Bill, 2026 or the Anti-Discrimination Rules, 2026.
The regulations seek to replace the existing 2012 regulations with more
stringent measures to ensure inclusion for students from marginalized
backgrounds, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST)
and Other Backward Classes (OBC). As of latest update of 29 January 2026, the
Supreme Court of India has stayed the proposed regulations.
UGC Rules 2026 and Constitutional Values
The following major
key points has been introduced by UGC Rules 2026:
Anti-discrimination cells:
Institutions must establish a dedicated cell to handle complaints related to
discrimination based on caste, religion, gender, or disability.
Equity officers: Institutions are
required to appoint an "Equity Officer" to oversee the implementation
of inclusive policies and ensure that students from disadvantaged groups are not
harassed or excluded from academic and extracurricular activities.
Inclusion in curriculum: There are
suggestions for sensitizing faculty and students through mandatory orientation
programs and the inclusion of equity-based themes in the academic
environment.
Stricter penalties: The regulations provide for financial penalties and the potential withdrawal of grants for institutions that fail to comply with the equity standards or ignore complaints of discrimination.
The major changes mentioned in this new
law the regulations are unconstitutional on grounds that they violate articles 14, 15 and
21 of the Constitution and could be misused to target specific sections of the
academic community.
Article 14 and UGC Rules 2026 (Equality
Before Law)
It guarantees equality before law and equal protection of
laws to all persons within the territory of India. It ensures that no
individual or group is above the law and that similar cases are treated alike.
However, concerns have been raised that vague definitions of
discrimination and differential treatment of complainants may violate
Article 14 if similarly placed individuals are treated unequally.
Article 15 and UGC Rules 2026 (Prohibition
of Discrimination)
It prohibits discrimination by the State on grounds of religion,
race, caste, sex, or place of birth. It specifically safeguards access to
public spaces and opportunities. At the same time, Article 15 permits the State
to make special provisions for women, children, socially and
educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes.
At the same time critics argue that if the regulations are implemented
without safeguards, they may conflict with Article 15 by creating new forms
of exclusion or unequal access to grievance mechanisms. Thus, the challenge
lies in balancing protective discrimination with inclusive justice.
Article 21 and UGC Rules 2026 (Right to
Life with Dignity)
Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
The UGC Rules 2026 seek to uphold Article 21 by addressing harassment,
exclusion, and discrimination that adversely affect students’ mental health,
academic freedom, and dignity. However, procedural fairness in inquiry
mechanisms is essential. Any arbitrary or biased process could violate Article
21 by denying individuals fair procedure and natural justice.
Articles 14, 15, and 21 together form the golden triangle
of the Indian Constitution. They ensure equality, prohibit discrimination, and
protect personal liberty, thereby upholding the ideals of justice, dignity, and
human rights in a democratic society.
Judicial Intervention and Present Status
The Supreme Court has framed four substantial questions of law in the
petitions challenging the constitutionality of the University Grants Commission
(Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026.
1.The Court noted that the Regulations
defined both "caste-based discrimination" as well as
"discrimination".
2.The Court noted that the Regulations provided remedial measures only with
respect to "discrimination", which also covers caste-based
discrimination. In this context, the Court wondered why "caste-based
discrimination" is separately defined.
3. The Court further flagged that Most Backward Classes and Extremely
Backward Classes are not specified in the definition of "caste-based
discrimination."
4.The Court's next concern was regarding
the use of the word "segregation" in Regulation 7(d). This clause
directs the Higher Education Institutions "to ensure that any selection,
segregation, or allocation for the purpose of hostels, classrooms, mentorship
groups, or any other academic purposes is transparent, fair, and
non-discriminatory." The Court wondered if it was a mandate for
caste-based segregation in classes and hostels violating the spirit of
fraternity.
5. The Court next questioned the exclusion of "ragging" from the
Regulations. While issuing notice on the petitions, the Court also ordered that
the Regulations be kept in abeyance.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant and
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the Regulations suffered from
"certain ambiguities" and that the "the possibility of their
misuse
Cannot be ruled out.”
“The 2026 Regulations have sweeping consequences which will divide the
society,” Chief Justice Surya Kant, heading a Bench comprising Justice Joymalya
Bagchi, observed.
“After whatever we have gained in the past 75 years towards forging a
casteless society, are we going for a regressive policy now,” the Chief Justice
asked.
Case Title:
(1) MRITUNJAY TIWARI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No.
101/2026
(2) VINEET JINDAL Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No.
109/2026
(3) RAHUL DEWAN AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No.
108/2026
Comments 0