The UGC Equity Regulations 2026 present the Supreme Court of India with a constitutional test it cannot afford to evade. At issue is not whether discrimination exists in higher education it does, and it must be addressed decisively but whether the state is permitted to combat discrimination by abandoning equality before law, procedural fairness, and institutional neutrality. These regulations, as notified, create a system of asymmetric legal protection that conflicts with Article 14, dilutes natural justice, and risks converting grievance redressal into an instrument of selective power. In doing so, they cross a constitutional line.

The origins of the regulations lie in genuine grievance. The deaths of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi raised disturbing questions about caste prejudice, institutional apathy, and the failure of existing safeguards. Their families approached the Supreme Court not seeking a new legal regime, but demanding enforcement of an old one: the UGC’s Promotion of Equity Regulations, 2012. Those rules already required Equal Opportunity Cells and grievance mechanisms for SC and ST students. The constitutional failure was not legislative absence, but executive non-implementation.

This distinction matters. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that where enforcement fails, the remedy lies in compliance and oversight, not in rewriting law in a manner that disturbs constitutional balance. The UGC itself appeared to understand this when it issued a draft in February 2025. That draft strengthened equity mechanisms while preserving due process. Complaints were to be investigated, evidence heard, and decisions reasoned. Crucially, it included a deterrent against demonstrably false or malicious........

© Greater Kashmir