Rethinking UGC’s new equity regulations

Last month, the University Grants Commission (UGC) (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, triggered protests by a section of general category students. On January 29, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the regulations.

These regulations are necessitated by an undeniable reality. Caste-, gender-, and religion-based discrimination in higher education is persistent and has been increasing in recent times. Grievance redressal mechanisms have been notoriously slow, often discretionary, and at times only symbolic, leaving students from marginalised communities to suffer the consequences in silence. Even the most ardent opponents of these new regulations cannot, therefore, deny the necessity of such an intervention. Why then are there protests?

A troubling combination

The opposition to the regulations stems from an apprehension that some members of historically disadvantaged and marginalised sections may exploit the structural flaws in the regulations — such as the vagueness of the definition of discrimination, the composition of the equity committee, and the procedure to be followed to get grievances redressed — to victimise upper castes. This reflects distrust and fear that measures aimed at providing justice to one section could become unjust for others.

Introduced to tackle caste-based discrimination with unprecedented urgency, the regulations insist on swift redressal. They say complaints must be acknowledged immediately, committees convened fast, and inquiries concluded within rigid timelines. This design rests on the assumption that speed and fairness reinforce one another. Yet justice systems across the world suggest otherwise.

Quick timelines and central monitoring without clear procedural standards create fear. Institutions worry about regulatory penalties they cannot contest. Faculty and students worry about reputational damage from complaints processed rapidly and unfairly. The combination of speed and procedural vagueness is bound to lead to protests.

Thin process

The new regulations assume that the time taken in exercising due diligence and completing procedural formalities in grievance redressal is tantamount to institutional inertia. They seek to ensure rapid enforcement by threatening higher education institutions with dire consequences. The message is clear. Neutrality is no longer an option. Whether that shift commands legitimacy, however, will depend not on intent alone, but on the architecture of enforcement.

The experience of American universities during the 2010s is instructive. Faced with pressure to act swiftly on campus misconduct, institutions prioritised speed, only to encounter sustained judicial pushback over vague evidentiary standards, unclear rights of response, and reputational harm inflicted before findings were established. The backlash arose because the process was thin.

Clearly, justice that moves quickly but unclearly destroys trust. That risk is magnified by how the UGC regulations distribute authority. They do not specify offences or penalties. Investigation is delegated to internal equity committees, and punishment is imposed through existing institutional service or disciplinary rules. The UGC itself does not adjudicate individual guilt; it penalises institutions for non-compliance. This creates a powerful incentive structure. Faced with the threat of de-recognition or funding withdrawal, universities are encouraged to prioritise visible action over careful adjudication. In this system, ambiguity creates fear, which rarely fosters justice.

In a complaint-driven enforcement model, the consequences could be even more harmful. The ability to document harm, express it in institutional language, and navigate committees is unevenly distributed: while rural students and linguistic minorities often struggle to translate daily discrimination into administratively legible complaints, those with greater cultural and institutional exposure are better positioned to mobilise the system. As a result, a regime designed to amplify marginal voices ends up privileging the institutionally fluent among them.

Compliance theatre

These pressures inevitably spill into classrooms and supervisory relationships. Universities operate through constant grading, feedback, and assessment, all of which are inherently subjective. When academic judgment is subjected to regulatory scrutiny without procedural clarity, risk aversion becomes the most logical course. Faculty respond by diluting feedback, avoiding difficult conversations, and sanitising evaluation.

Over time, institutions learn ways to bypass the complexities. Committees multiply, documentation thickens, and compliance becomes performative. Governance scholars describe this as compliance theatre, a phenomenon where organisations learn to demonstrate reform without addressing underlying hierarchies. India’s higher education system is uneven across regions and institutions and is vulnerable to this drift.

Justice in universities must not be a race to the first response. It should be a long, difficult conversation. One that demands urgency, yes, but also precision, patience, and the humility to revise.

Sameer Ahmad Khan, research scholar at Jamia Millia Islamia; Furqan Qamar, former professor of management at Jamia Millia Islamia

Published – February 11, 2026 01:00 am IST