The recently notified Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, have sparked widespread opposition across the country, with protests breaking out in several places. People from different backgrounds, especially students, have taken to the streets to express their concerns over the new framework.

After several days of sustained protests, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan addressed the issue on 27th January and assured the public that the regulations would not be misused. However, this assurance failed to calm the genuine anxieties of those opposing the regulations. Critics argue that the rules reinforce the idea that general caste students cannot be victims of caste-based discrimination and, more importantly, exclude them entirely from the grievance redressal system.

The UGC Equity Regulations 2026 have been projected as an “improvement” over the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2025. Yet, in practice, the 2026 regulations appear to move in the opposite direction. According to Swarajya, the 2025 draft regulations presented a more balanced and practical approach to addressing discrimination in educational institutions. Unlike the latest version, the earlier draft attempted to protect vulnerable groups without compromising fairness or due process for others.

The background and beginnings of the UGC equity regulations

The 2025 draft regulations originated from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in 2019 by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, who died in 2016 and 2019 respectively. Their families alleged that both students died by suicide after facing caste-based discrimination. The petition was represented by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, along with advocates Prasanna S. and Disha Wadekar. The legal plea sought stronger anti-discrimination measures within higher educational institutions.

Importantly, the PIL did not ask for a completely new set of rules. Instead, it demanded strict enforcement of the existing University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012. These 2012 regulations required universities to set up Equal Opportunity Cells to address complaints of discrimination, particularly those faced by Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) students.

In the PIL, the petitioners alleged caste bias in admissions, academic evaluations, hostel allotments, and overall campus life. They also pointed to what they described as a near-total failure to implement the 2012 framework. According to the petition, there was no meaningful monitoring, Equal Opportunity Cells existed only on paper in many institutions, and there was no integration with accreditation bodies such as NAAC. For years, the matter saw little progress. It was only in January 2025 that Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan criticised the University Grants Commission (UGC) for failing to comply with its own rules. The judges directed the UGC to submit data on Equal Opportunity Cells, the number of complaints received, and the actions taken. In response to the Supreme Court, the UGC informed the court that it was drafting updated regulations.

The 2025 draft rules followed a balanced and cautious path

In February last year, the UGC released the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2025, for public consultation. The 2025 draft regulations attempted to strike a careful balance between strengthening protections against discrimination and safeguarding institutional autonomy, fairness, and due process. While the draft continued to focus on caste-based discrimination against SC and ST students, as demanded by the PIL, it defined discrimination as “unfair, differential, or biased treatment” based on caste or tribal identity. At the same time, it allowed institutions the flexibility to interpret and apply the rules based on context.

Under the 2025 draft, the equity committee was to be chaired by the head of the institution, ensuring accountability at the highest level. At least one member of the committee was required to belong to the SC or ST community. The draft also encouraged broad participation from faculty members, students, and administrative staff, promoting a sense of shared responsibility. Rooted in the principles of natural justice, the regulations stressed procedural fairness and cautioned against hasty or disproportionate punishments, recognising that the careers and reputations of individuals could be severely affected. While accommodating the demands raised in the PIL, the 2025 draft regulations clearly leaned towards prevention rather than punishment.

The 2026 regulations closely mirror Indira Jaising’s proposals

Despite this measured approach, the petitioners were dissatisfied with the 2025 draft regulations. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising proposed ten major changes to the draft. These included the formation of grievance committees with significant representation from marginalised communities and provisions for withdrawal of grants in cases of non-compliance. The Supreme Court subsequently set an eight-week deadline for finalising the regulations. On January 13, 2026, the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, were officially notified.

The final version departed sharply from the balanced framework of the 2025 draft and incorporated several of Jaising’s recommendations. These included bans on discrimination with debarment powers under Section 11, explicit anti-segregation clauses under Section 7(d), wider representation in Equity Committees including OBCs, persons with disabilities, and women under Section 5(7), confidentiality and anti-retaliation safeguards, expanded duties for institutional heads under Section 4(3), mandatory counselling under Section 7(f), and the introduction of proactive Equity Squads and Equity Ambassadors.

However, the 2026 regulations also categorically exclude general caste students as potential victims of caste-based discrimination. By limiting the definition of victims to SCs, STs, and OBCs, the regulations leave no room for general category students to file complaints if they face caste-based discrimination. This framework assumes that caste-based discrimination can only be directed at specific communities and, in doing so, effectively denies protection to a large section of the academic population. Critics argue that this exclusion risks encouraging reverse discrimination by leaving general caste students without any institutional safeguard.

The new framework is widely seen as openly biased against general category students, who will have no formal recourse if the regulations are misused against them. This perceived imbalance lies at the heart of the widespread anger and protests against the 2026 regulations. For many students, whose academic futures could be directly shaped by these rules, the concerns are not theoretical but deeply personal and immediate.