<p>By keeping the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations 2026 in abeyance, the Supreme Court may have delivered a legally sound response. The Court expressed apprehensions about the way the regulations have been framed, and described them as exclusionary. </p><p>HEIs in the country continue to report incidents of caste-based discrimination faced by students belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. Concerns have peaked since the suicide of Rohith Vemula in 2016. </p><p>While the UGC’s regulations were a natural response intended to eradicate discrimination on campuses, the apex court held that they could “divide society”. It also noted that the regulations lacked safeguards against their potential misuse, as has been the case with many similar laws.</p>.Government committed to 'justice for all': BJP on UGC rules row.<p>The UGC issued the fresh guidelines earlier this month, as an update to its own 2012 rules. Through the fresh regulations, the Commission envisions protection for SC, ST, and Backward Classes students, provisions for equal opportunity centres, monitoring of complaints, and a resolution mechanism. However, some of the upper caste groups argue that the definition of discrimination, by excluding the general category, identifies only some sections as potential victims, creating a presumption of guilt for the other students. </p><p>It has also been noted that there is no provision for initiating action against false complaints, which makes students in the general category more vulnerable to such cases. Protests staged against the regulations in some of the campuses in northern India echoed narratives from events that preceded the violent stir sparked by the Central government’s decision to implement the Mandal Commission recommendations in 1990. The sentiment is much the same, revealing how polarisation on caste lines still runs deep in society.</p>.<p>The argument that the regulations do not factor in considerations of all categories has legal merit. But that cannot discredit the reality that SC, ST, and BC students are the ones who are almost always subjected to discrimination. In socially hierarchical societies, access to equality is not equal. There is a case for the regulations to frame a more inclusive definition of discrimination. </p><p>A stronger mechanism to identify and deter false complaints is crucial because it can also ensure that students who are genuinely impacted are not dissuaded from voicing their grievances. With the Court proposing a review of the regulations, the focus must now be on evolving a mechanism which is fair and acceptable to all. Equity and equality have a complex relationship, which needs to be negotiated carefully.</p>
<p>By keeping the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations 2026 in abeyance, the Supreme Court may have delivered a legally sound response. The Court expressed apprehensions about the way the regulations have been framed, and described them as exclusionary. </p><p>HEIs in the country continue to report incidents of caste-based discrimination faced by students belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. Concerns have peaked since the suicide of Rohith Vemula in 2016. </p><p>While the UGC’s regulations were a natural response intended to eradicate discrimination on campuses, the apex court held that they could “divide society”. It also noted that the regulations lacked safeguards against their potential misuse, as has been the case with many similar laws.</p>.Government committed to 'justice for all': BJP on UGC rules row.<p>The UGC issued the fresh guidelines earlier this month, as an update to its own 2012 rules. Through the fresh regulations, the Commission envisions protection for SC, ST, and Backward Classes students, provisions for equal opportunity centres, monitoring of complaints, and a resolution mechanism. However, some of the upper caste groups argue that the definition of discrimination, by excluding the general category, identifies only some sections as potential victims, creating a presumption of guilt for the other students. </p><p>It has also been noted that there is no provision for initiating action against false complaints, which makes students in the general category more vulnerable to such cases. Protests staged against the regulations in some of the campuses in northern India echoed narratives from events that preceded the violent stir sparked by the Central government’s decision to implement the Mandal Commission recommendations in 1990. The sentiment is much the same, revealing how polarisation on caste lines still runs deep in society.</p>.<p>The argument that the regulations do not factor in considerations of all categories has legal merit. But that cannot discredit the reality that SC, ST, and BC students are the ones who are almost always subjected to discrimination. In socially hierarchical societies, access to equality is not equal. There is a case for the regulations to frame a more inclusive definition of discrimination. </p><p>A stronger mechanism to identify and deter false complaints is crucial because it can also ensure that students who are genuinely impacted are not dissuaded from voicing their grievances. With the Court proposing a review of the regulations, the focus must now be on evolving a mechanism which is fair and acceptable to all. Equity and equality have a complex relationship, which needs to be negotiated carefully.</p>
