New Delhi- Following the Supreme Court's stay on the UGC Equity Act 2026, the All India Students’ Association (AISA) held a protest at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, demanding its immediate implementation and the enactment of the Rohith Vemula Act. The protest was led by AISA State Secretary Abhigyan. Several speakers addressed the gathering and raised serious concerns about caste discrimination in higher education.

Prominent speakers at the protest included Prof. Uma Gupta, Delhi's former cabinet minister Rajendra Pal Gautam, Jitendra Meena, Prof. N. Sukumar, CPI(ML) MP Raja Ram from Ara, and Lakshman Yadav.

The first speaker, Prof. Uma Gupta from Delhi University, stated that the UGC Equity Act was needed much earlier. She emphasised that the regulation should include minorities and marginalised communities. In her address, she also referred to Rohith Vemula’s suicide note and highlighted how institutional discrimination continues to affect students from oppressed backgrounds.

The second speaker, Jitendra Meena, said that people had gathered at Jantar Mantar to fight for their rights and for their community. He stated that this protest was different because those entrusted with the responsibility to deliver justice to marginalised communities had done the opposite. He pointed out that the Supreme Court had stayed a notification that had not even come into existence, claiming the Act could be misused. He alleged that the rulers of the country are prejudiced against marginalised communities despite being aware of social realities. He also mentioned the misuse of laws by government agencies such as the ED and CBI, as well as incidents of houses being demolished using bulldozers. He highlighted the illegal admission of upper-caste students in universities and criticised the media narrative, referring to headlines such as “Thakur Pandit Jeet Gaye, Batware Wale Haar Gaye.”

Prof. N. Sukumar took the discussion forward and spoke about his book Caste Discrimination and Exclusion in Indian Universities: A Critical Reflection. He discussed cases of students such as Anil Meena and Darshan Solanki, along with many others who have been victims of caste-based discrimination in higher education institutions. He stated that nearly 35,000 students across universities, including IITs and IIMs, have faced similar discrimination. He explained how the PhD interview process often discriminates against deserving and brilliant students. He stressed that the UGC Equity Act is essential for universities to protect students from administrative atrocities. He also urged upper-caste individuals to read his book to understand why such a law is necessary.

The fourth speaker, CPI(ML) MP Raja Ram from Ara, spoke about the atrocities faced by marginalised communities at the hands of upper-caste groups. He said that the struggle for justice is long and ongoing. He mentioned Deen Bandhu Upadhyay and referred to the collection of crores for land distribution in Bihar. He highlighted how landlords extort money from farmers in the state. He called upon students and peasants to unite and take a stand against discriminatory practices so that no one faces injustice.

The final speaker, who concluded the gathering, was Lakshman Yadav, an ex-ad-hoc professor at Zakir Husain College, Delhi University. He said that the UGC Equity Regulation was a positive initiative for society. He mentioned that the regulation was initially named the Samaanta Committee and was meant to work for oppressed students in institutions. However, he claimed that it later became part of a political conspiracy. He questioned the government’s intentions and stated that if the regulation had been introduced with genuine intent, it would not have been halted at its very first hearing. He criticised the fragility of the law, which was supposed to address discrimination, and argued that the UGC Regulation 2026 should have been implemented much earlier.

The protest concluded with a broader question raised by the speakers: When caste-based discrimination has existed in higher education for a long time, why was the law to prevent it introduced so late, and why was it stayed at the very first hearing? They questioned the real intention behind this, asking why. despite knowing how widespread discrimination is, it was halted on the pretext of possible misuse.

- Reported by Abhishek Mishra, IIMC ADPR.