On January 13, 2026, the University Grants Commission (UGC) unveiled the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, an attempt to address discrimination in universities and colleges across India by strengthening a framework that had existed since 2012 but had clearly fallen short. The earlier rules struggled to confront entrenched biases, especially those faced by marginalized communities. The new regulations sought to widen the scope of protection, covering not only Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) but also explicitly including Other Backward Classes (OBC), along with discrimination rooted in gender, religion, disability, race, place of birth, and institutional power hierarchies. They proposed equity committees, helplines, and structured sensitization programmes, backed by UGC oversight and the option of appeals to external ombudspersons. The push for reform followed Supreme Court directions and reflected the failure of earlier mechanisms—visible in the paradox of low formal complaints despite persistent problems—and the haunting reminders provided by student suicides such as those of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, which exposed the depth of systemic exclusion on campuses.

That momentum, however, was abruptly halted just over two weeks later. On January 29, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed the regulations, describing them as “completely vague” and vulnerable to misuse. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the narrow framing of caste-based discrimination, noting that its exclusion of individuals from the general category ran contrary to Article 14’s guarantee of equality and risked reinforcing social divisions in a society that aspires to move beyond rigid classifications. Pending a detailed review scheduled for March 19, the court restored the 2012 rules, underscoring the need for clarity and inclusiveness in any legal framework meant to govern educational spaces, while cautioning against provisions that could be weaponised for personal or political vendettas.

The episode reveals a deeper tension: while the intent to confront discrimination in higher education is both necessary and overdue, the regulatory approach falters when it lacks precision, workable safeguards, and a vision that moves beyond entrenched caste-versus-caste binaries. Campus inequities are real and demand serious intervention, yet equity cannot be built through........

© ABP Live