— ✍️ Nethrapal

A huge uproar has started among the general category that there will be umpteen numbers of fake cases against them using these regulations.

I had a look at the latest UGC Equity Regulations 2026 and compared it with the 2012 UGC Equity Regulations. My initial analysis suggests that there is complete dilution of 2012 regulations.

Ten reasons are listed below for everyone's benefit:

[1] UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, are not applicable to IITs/IIMs and many other institutions. You should remember IITs/IIMs are governed by other acts and not the UGC act. The definition of higher education institutions as per section 3(1)(n) of UGC 2026 needs to be amended to include IITs/IIMs/other institutions. This is the biggest bottleneck in the act. The biggest issue of caste discriminations/suicides is in IITs/IIMs and top institutions. Now these UGC 2026 guidelines currently are not applicable to them.

[2] In the above regulations, the word "discrimination" has been diluted. The earlier 2012 regulations defined the word "discrimination," and specifically defined scenarios were provided. It also included harassment, ragging, unfavorable treatment, and victimization, which were included in 2012 guidelines. In the latest regulations it is missing. Not defining this would allow discretion to the top office bearers of the universities to take a call on what amounts to discrimination.

[3] Section 3(2) of UGC 2012 was exclusively for SC/ST and defined the forms of discrimination. For example, Section 3(2)(a) talks about discrimination in admission against SC/ST, like breaches in the policy of reservations in admissions, not admitting reserved candidates, not processing their applications correctly, not giving admissions even when they are eligible, withholding degree certificates or giving documents that were given for seeking admission, demanding more money, and treating them unfavorably. So this was specific to admissions, wherein SC/ST students face huge hurdles. This is completely done away with in the new regulations.

[4] Section 3(2)(b) of the 2012 UGC regulations describes various ways of higher educational institutions harassing or victimizing any student, which should be prohibited. For example, announcing verbally the names of castes in class, labelling students as reserved category, passing derogatory remarks using caste, allotting differential time to meet faculty compared to others, keeping students idle in the laboratory, earmarking separate seats, differential treatment in the issue of books and journals, differential treatment in sports facilities, etc. However, this has been completely done away with, and now the words “harassment," "victimization," and "unfavorable treatment” do not figure in the new UGC regulations.

[5] Section 3(2)(c) of the 2012 regulations talks about discrimination in the evaluation of marks, like not properly evaluating, evaluating examination papers, and delaying declarations of results of reserved category students. Etc. This is completely removed, and this acted as a deterrent on casteist professors.

[6] Section 3(2)(d) of the 2012 regulations talks about discrimination in fellowships. This is completely removed. Maximum discrimination is faced by Ph.D. students. This would adversely affect them.

[7] Section 3(2)(e) of the 2012 regulations talks about hostel segregation, usage of common resources like canteens, playgrounds, etc. It also talks about ragging, extortion, and not allowing reserved category students to participate in cultural programs or sports events. This is now diluted.

[8] Now SC/ST discrimination is on account of social disabilities. Now in these regulations, EWS and physical disability are also included in one act. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the Aaditya Narayan Pandey v. Union of India case clearly mentioned that the handicaps faced by OBCs, SCs, and STs are different, and hence there is a need for age relaxation, but EWS is an economic deprivation that can change, while social disabilities remain with economic progress too. In view of this, the UGC Equity regulations to bring in EWS and PWD categories also into the UGC Equity cell are not correct.

There is no data to prove that there is significant discrimination against these groups. Even if it is there, it is not caste-based; it may be economic-based and needs a different cell altogether. Now for women, sexual harassment guidelines and acts are already in place. Now a woman from SC, ST, or OBC can take recourse to any discrimination listed above. But now the question of General category women facing exclusive discrimination is still not known. Where is the data to prove this? Now gender-based disabilities and economic disabilities cannot be equated with social disabilities. This cannot be clubbed along with the SC/ST/OBC regulations cell. Now the women's cell should be a different cell from the SC/ST/OBCs. The women's cell should be exclusively manned by women alone, and in case they mix up everything, there will be dilution of representation, and bias cannot be ruled out. Again, this can become a tool for general category women and EWS/PWD category students also to file fake cases against SC/ST/OBC students as well...

[9] The DOPT guidelines clearly mention the need for having liaison officers for SC, ST, and OBCs. Now these liaison officers are not appointed and also not part of the committee. This is a big issue. There should be a liaison officer of the rank of joint secretary or equivalent for each category of SC/ST and OBCs. He should be part of the equity cell.

[10] Finally, a common equity cell is more injurious to SC-ST, which faces the max discrimination. For example, in Karnataka, the state introduced the Rohit Vemula Act, but it included minorities as a single protected group. If we go into this bill, it included Buddhists, Christians, Jains, Muslims, Parsis, and Sikhs too in it. Now this bill failed to recognize that minorities can run their own educational institutions, and secondly, there is no data to prove that Jains or Muslims face discrimination in universities.

Numerous committees like the AIIMS Thorat Committee, the Elayaperumal Committee, the Senthil Kumar Committee, the Prof. Pavarala Committee, and others have predominantly targeted discrimination faced by SC/ST communities. Separate equity cells should be considered for each category; however, a common equity cell would work only if SC-ST-OBC representation is at least 50%-75%. So, UGC regulations need a relook for sure. This analysis is dedicated to Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi, one from the SC and the other from the ST community, who committed suicide because of institutional discrimination.

- The author has over 16 years of experience in the Indian Revenue Service (IRS), and is a seasoned tax enforcement leader who is passionate about ensuring compliance and fairness in the tax system. He has a strong academic background with a B-Tech from IIT-Madras in Electrical Engineering, where he received a Silver Medal, and a PGDM from IIM-Bangalore, where he specialized in Finance and Economics.