Why have the new UGC regulations been stayed? | Explained

The story so far: On January 29, the Supreme Court stayed a new set of regulations notified by the University Grants Commission earlier this month on the promotion of equity within higher educational institutes, saying they were “vague and could be misused”. These regulations were brought to replace a previous version in effect since 2012, to specifically address issues of caste discrimination in campuses, after parents of marginalised caste and tribe students who had died by suicide had approached the Supreme Court in 2019. The Supreme Court’s stay came after weeks of protests from “general or upper castes”, who argued the regulations discriminated against them in defining what “caste-based discrimination” is.

Ground Zero | 2026 UGC equity rules: Cracks on campus

What are the 2026 UGC equity regulations?

The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, were notified by the higher education regulator on January 13, 2026. The UGC said the objectives of the regulations were “to eradicate discrimination only on the basis of religion, race, gender, place of birth, caste, or disability, particularly against the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, persons with disabilities, or any of them, and to promote full equity and inclusion amongst the stakeholders in higher education institutions.”

In these regulations, the UGC defined “caste-based discrimination” as “discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of the Scheduled castes, Scheduled tribes, and other backward classes”. It also defined “discrimination” as “any unfair, differential, or biased treatment or any such act against any stakeholder, whether explicit or implicit, on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, disability, or any of them…”

Furthermore, the regulations provide for establishing a layered grievance redressal system for addressing discrimination. This included provisions to set up Equal Opportunity Centres, under which Equity Committees should be set up to look into complaints. Further, the rules called for setting up Equity Squads in each institute, and Equity Ambassadors in each unit (departments, schools) of the institutes. It also set up an overarching monitoring mechanism to oversee these functions directly under the UGC.

In addition, the regulations prescribed timelines and procedures for resolving complaints and grievances, and appealing the decisions of the panel ruling on these complaints. It also provided for an institutional accountability mechanism, where institutes found violating the regulations could be penalised by being debarred from offering degrees, programmes, participating in UGC schemes, and being taken off the regulator’s list of institutes.

Analysis | UGC equity rules flow from Article 15’s mandate to remedy historical injustice

Why did the ‘general or upper castes’ call the 2026 regulations biased?

The principal arguments of the protests across parts of north India alleging that these regulations discriminated against “general or upper castes” hinged on the definition of “caste-based discrimination”, the dropping of the provision on “false complaints”, and the ambiguity of the functions of bodies like the “Equity Squads”.

They argued that by defining “caste-based discrimination” in the 2026 regulations as a separate term, the UGC was actually defining who could be a “potential victim” of caste discrimination on campuses. By leaving them out of this definition, the upper caste section argued the regulations had “presupposed” that general or upper caste students would be the perpetrators of caste discrimination at all times.

Petitions challenging these regulations in the Supreme Court also argued that general or upper caste students at universities and colleges may also face caste discrimination, and that the regulations prevented these students from addressing such instances.

Further, the protesters argued that the provision of punishments for “false complaints” had also been absent, which they said could have been useful to counter complaints, if filed against them, and defend themselves, if necessary. The protesters also noted that it was not clear what the function of Equity Squads being proposed under the new regulations would be, further airing a grievance that while the regulations explicitly provided for the representation of SC, ST, OBC, women, persons with disability in the Equity Committee, it did not explicitly provide for the representation of general or upper castes.

Also Read | UGC’s anti-discrimination rules: What has changed, what has improved and what still concerns experts

How did these regulations come about?

These regulations were developed and brought out under the supervision of a Bench of the Supreme Court that was hearing a batch of petitions filed in 2019 by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, both of whom had died by suicide, alleging caste-discrimination in 2016 and 2019, respectively. Their petition had argued that the 2012 UGC regulations on the promotion of equity in campuses were not being implemented well enough to address the “rampant caste-discrimination” prevalent in Indian higher education institutes.

During the hearings in these petitions, the UGC had told the Supreme Court that it had formed a nine-member Expert Committee to revisit the 2012 regulations under the Chairmanship of Professor Shailesh N. Zala. This expert committee first drafted a revised version of the equity regulations, which the UGC had notified in February 2025 for public comments.

These draft regulations introduced the terminology of “caste-based discrimination” but defined this as discrimination on the basis of caste or tribe “only against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes”. Apart from this, the draft regulations had a provision to punish instances of “false complaints”, without clarifying what would constitute a “false complaint”. The petitioners in the Supreme Court case made suggestions to this draft, along with a large number of suggestions from the public, which included recommendations that Other Backward Classes be protected under the definition of “caste-based discrimination” and that the provision of “false complaints” either be removed or a distinction be introduced between differentiate a “false complaint” from “complaints that could not be substantiated”.

In December 2025, a Parliamentary Committee on Education headed by Congress leader Digvijay Singh had also backed the suggestion to explicitly protect OBCs in the definition of “caste-based discrimination”.

Editorial | ​Stay the course: On the UGC’s Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions rules

What were the 2012 regulations, and how are the new rules different?

In the 2012 regulations that were brought out by the UGC under the same name, the regulatory authority had not defined “caste-based discrimination” separately. It had defined “discrimination” with sub-sections on depriving access to education, imposing undignified conditions, and maintaining separate educational and social spaces within the campuses on the basis of caste, creed, religion, language, ethnicity, gender, and disability.

The 2012 regulations had provided for setting up grievance redressal mechanisms, which included the establishment of Equal Opportunity Cells, SC/ST Cells, and the appointment of an Anti-Discrimination Officer, to whom complaints must be addressed.

Further, in prohibiting discrimination against SC and ST students in higher educational institutes, the 2012 regulations had identified a total of 25 specific instances and types of discrimination in the spheres of admissions, evaluation, within classrooms, segregation of hostels and messes, and the dissemination of information on scholarships and fellowships. These definitions accounted for the experiences of students from marginalised caste and tribe backgrounds in these spheres and also accounted for the experience of being derided in the name of being a “reserved” category student, among other instances.

None of these specific acts of discrimination have been included in the 2026 regulations.

While the major thrust of the 2012 regulations was in defining and identifying types and acts of discrimination faced by students at the hands of students, faculty, and institute administrations, the main thrust of the 2026 regulations was to provide for the setting up of grievance redressal mechanisms in the form of Equal Opportunity Committees, Equity Committees, and Equity Squads. However, the 2012 regulations did not explicitly provide the language to protect “Other Backward Classes” and did not have institutional consequences for not following through on the implementation of the regulations.

Also Read | Leaders welcome Supreme Court stay of UGC equity rules

Were the upper castes the only ones who had an issue with the new regulations?

While the protests that intensified over the new regulations came from a section of general or upper caste students, echoing the argument that the new anti-discrimination rules were biased against them, there was a significant section that argued that the new regulations were not actually strengthening the 2012 rules on anti-discrimination, principally because of the lack of specificity on what counted as discrimination.

Professor Sukhadeo Thorat, former Chairperson of the UGC and an instrumental figure in drafting the 2012 regulations, has argued that the new regulations do not clarify if they will be applicable to institutes like IITs, IIMs, polytechnics, nursing institutions, etc., further noting that the composition of Equity Committees should mention the quantum of representation for SC, ST, and OBC members, instead of leaving this open ended.

Jadavpur University Assistant Professor Subhajit Naskar has also added that in dropping the specific acts of discrimination faced by students in various aspects of campus life, the new regulations had, in fact, diluted the 2012 regulations.

Also Read | New UGC equity regulations spark student protests, political fallout in U.P. 

Now what?

The Supreme Court has said that the batch of petitions challenging the 2026 regulations will be heard with the petitions filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, also calling for the UGC to go back to its 2012 regulations while it hears the challenges to the new version.

In doing so, the Supreme Court has also framed certain legal questions that are to be addressed in the course of the hearings in these matters from now onwards. These petitions are to come up for the next hearing in March, by which time the Union Government has been asked to file an affidavit as well.