New Delhi– In a candid and revealing interview on the YouTube channel Ambedkarnama, renowned economist and former UGC Chairman Prof. Sukhadeo Thorat dissected the newly introduced UGC (University Grants Commission) Regulations 2026 on Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal of Discrimination in Higher Educational Institutions.

Titled "Is UGC Act 2026 Designed to Weaken the 2012 Anti-Discrimination Framework?", the discussion hosted by Prof. Ratanlal exposes glaring deficiencies in the updated guidelines, even as caste-based discrimination continues to plague Indian academia, leading to a staggering 118% rise in atrocities over the past five years.

Prof. Thorat, whose 2007 committee report laid the foundation for the original 2012 regulations, emphasized that while the new act includes some positive measures, its ambiguities and exclusions could render it ineffective in safeguarding Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), and now Other Backward Classes (OBC) communities from systemic bias.

Caste Discrimination in Higher Education: Suicides and Systemic Failures

Prof. Thorat recounted the tragic suicides that have scarred Indian campuses, from the 2006 AIIMS incidents where two Dalit students took their lives due to relentless harassment, to the high-profile cases of Rohith Vemula (2016, Hyderabad University), Aniket Ambhore (2017, IIT Bombay), and Payal Tadvi (2019, Mumbai's Topiwala National Medical College). "Discrimination is not just verbal abuse; it's a daily assault on dignity," Prof. Thorat stated, quoting a harrowing example from surveys: Dalit girls are often humiliated with slurs like "Are you from the quota or from the kotha (brothel)?" – a play on words that conflates reservation quotas with moral degradation.

Drawing from his experience as UGC Chairman (2006-2011) and ICSSR head, Prof. Thorat highlighted how education, envisioned by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as a "double-edged sword," can either democratize society or perpetuate oppression depending on who wields it. "Upper-caste teachers and administrators often treat SC/ST students as 'quota admissions' unworthy of equal facilities," he noted, citing forms of bias identified in his studies: segregation in hostels (e.g., locking Dalit boys out of upper-caste rooms), exclusion from cultural events and sports, biased evaluations denying fair grades, and denial of lab access for SC/ST faculty.

Genesis of the 2012 UGC Regulations

The 2012 regulations, formally known as "UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012," emerged from Prof. Thorat's pivotal 2007 committee on AIIMS. Prompted by the Health Secretary after two suicides, the probe , despite resistance from AIIMS authorities, uncovered "fairly significant" discrimination across student-student, student-teacher, and administrative levels. Key findings included classroom exclusion, hostel segregation, and evaluation biases.

Post-JNU's 2010 suicide, then-HRD Minister Kapil Sibal, influenced by Prof. Thorat's advocacy, directed UGC to draft specific rules. Prof. Thorat, with inputs from the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, authored the framework.

It defined 21-28 specific "forms of discrimination", from admission biases and fee waivers denial to verbal abuse, derogatory remarks, caste-related ragging, and emotional hurt via prejudice.

Institutions were mandated to appoint an Anti-Discrimination Officer (ADO), who could investigate complaints, form committees (excluding the VC), and recommend punishments under UGC/DOPT rules. This filled a gap in the 1955 Protection of Civil Rights Act (renamed from Untouchability Act) and SC/ST Atrocities Act, which lacked education-specific provisions beyond admissions.

Yet, implementation faltered. Prof. Thorat shared anecdotes: At Jindal University, walls displayed gender and disability policies but ignored 2012 rules. IIT Mumbai's director admitted ignorance post-suicide. A nationwide NUEPA study (funded by ICSSR) confirmed persistent biases, underscoring the need for enforcement.

Supreme Court Intervention and the Birth of UGC 2026

The turning point came with Supreme Court petitions by families of Payal Tadvi, and Rohith Vemula, argued by Indira Jaisingh. In 2023-2024, the court rapped UGC for poor implementation, demanding a revised framework. Facing pressure, UGC released the 2026 draft – but not without controversy.

Prof. Thorat praised inclusions like OBCs (expanding from SC/ST-only) and sensitization programs: annual reports, equity training, and "discrimination spotters" to patrol campuses. However, he lambasted it as a "watered-down" version, worse than the initial draft he critiqued in Hindustan Times.

Key Loopholes in UGC 2026 Exposed

1. Vague Institutional Coverage: Excluding Elite and Stand-Alone Institutes

The act vaguely defines "higher educational institutions" as those under UGC's purview (e.g., 1,168 universities and 45,473 colleges via 2(f)/12(B) recognition). But it sidesteps IITs (23 institutes under 1961 Institutes of Technology Act), IIMs (21 under National Institutes of Management Act), and 12,000 stand-alone institutions (polytechnics, teacher training, nursing offering diplomas/certificates). "This excludes a massive sector in haste," Prof. Thorat said, noting IIT Delhi's post-suicide claim of exemption. He plans to urge UGC for clarity via suggestions due within a month.

2. Removal of Specific Discrimination Forms. Deliberate Dilution?

Unlike 2012's exhaustive list (admission biases, classroom harassment, lab denial, biased interviews, ragging), 2026 omits them entirely. Instead, the "Equity Committee" (chaired by VC) must prepare an "illustrative list." "Who are they to define untouchability behaviors? This leaves victims in the dark," Prof. Thorat argued, suspecting intent to hide caste's "filth" – mirroring curriculum purges of Ambedkar, Dalit Panthers content.

3. Conflict of Interest in Equity Committee Structure Complaints go to a VC-headed committee including HoDs/Principals, who then recommend punishment to the same VC. "The accused judges the case – illegal!" Prof. Thorat fumed, citing a Hindu College principal scenario. 2012's ADO model was impartial; 2026's is flawed. He demands 50% SC/ST/OBC representation.

4. Ambiguity on Criminalization and Teacher Protection

Students demand a "Vemula Act" criminalizing discrimination (like ragging laws, which reduced incidents via jail terms). Karnataka, per Prof. Thorat's commission, is implementing one with 2-year imprisonment. 2026 mentions police referral if "criminal angle" exists but lacks clarity – who decides? For Dalit teachers facing VC/Principal bias (e.g., Jammu professor's 2025 suicide), coverage is "silent and unclear." 2012 detailed teacher-specific biases (evaluation, facilities); 2026 doesn't. Victims must invoke Atrocities Act directly, but no institutional mechanism exists. "Heavily student-focused, but even there, administrative discrimination against SC/ST/OBC lacks detail."

5. Punishment Gaps: Civil, Not Criminal Penalties remain civil (fines, semester drops) without mandatory jail, unlike ragging's success.

Prof. Thorat lauded proactive measures: mandatory equity programs, annual discrimination audits, and campus patrols. OBC inclusion addresses partial coverage for "some extent" affected boys. Yet, without fixes, "discrimination persists despite acts, devastating SC/ST/OBC youth – especially girls' humiliation. As he pens suggestions to UGC, Prof. Thorat urged: Define institutions explicitly, restore discrimination forms, reform committee for impartiality, mandate SC/ST/OBC reps, and clarify criminal provisions.