Merit or bias? The case for a civil debate

UGC’s checks against caste-based discrimination are necessary to address entrenched disadvantages.

The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations 2026 have generated intense reactions across the country. Anti-reservation groups have taken to the streets, arguing that these norms threaten merit, dilute autonomy, and create new divisions on campus. On Thursday, the Supreme Court put on hold the regulations, citing “vague” provisions and the dangers of them being “misused”, and suggested a relook by a committee of jurists.

For thousands of Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) students, the regulations represent something simple: an attempt to address the discrimination and exclusion they continue to face in institutions that are supposed to nurture intellectual freedom and equality. A balanced reading of the issue requires acknowledging both realities.

Despite higher enrolment in recent years, numerous studies – the Thorat Committee Report on AIIMS (2007), the Indian Institute of Dalit Studies’ campus climate surveys, data submitted to SC/ST Commissions, and UGC consultations – show that discrimination in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) remains widespread.

First, campus climates remain hostile for many SC/ST students. Slurs, subtle exclusion from peer groups, faculty scepticism about their abilities, and microaggressions create an atmosphere where learning becomes secondary to survival. Second, academic evaluation often shows patterns of bias. The disparities mirror the documented reluctance of faculty to supervise research by SC/ST students or include them in advanced projects. Third, social capital deficits compound these challenges. Many SC/ST students are first-generation learners navigating unfamiliar academic cultures, English-medium instruction, and limited financial buffers. Fourth, existing institutional mechanisms such as SC/ST cells often lack autonomy, and grievance processes are opaque.

The 2026 Regulations are an attempt to correct these systemic deficits, not an ideological imposition. They introduce three key reforms: 1. Mandatory institutional structures: Every HEI must establish a fully functional Equity Promotion Cell, with defined responsibilities and measurable outputs. 2. Academic and psychological support: Bridge courses, peer mentoring, counselling services, and faculty orientation on inclusive pedagogy. 3. Monitoring and accountability: Institutions must submit annual equity reports, disclose data on representation and grievances, and face penalties for non-compliance.

These reforms do not change quotas of reservation, nor do they privilege one category over another. They simply ensure that the constitutional promise of equality is honoured.

A democratic approach requires taking critics seriously. Several concerns raised by anti-reservation groups deserve engagement, even if one disagrees with their conclusions.

“Merit will suffer” is a weak argument against equity. Merit is not abstract; it is shaped by schooling quality, coaching access, nutrition, language proficiency, and inherited social capital. Evidence shows that SC/ST students perform on par with their peers when systemic obstacles are removed. Concerns over these measures stigmatising SC/ST students are not credible – stigma arises from caste prejudice, not from support systems. The regulations create no punitive measures against general-category students. Furthermore, it is being contended that the regulations would erode institutional autonomy. This autonomy, however, cannot override constitutional values. Finally, the threat of deepened caste division. It must be noted that the regulations did not create this division; they simply make it visible.

A constructive approach requires stronger implementation without bureaucratisation. HEIs should adopt transparent processes, train faculty in inclusive practices, and design mentoring programmes that support all disadvantaged learners. Instead of confrontation, universities should facilitate structured debates between student groups, allowing concerns to be expressed without demonisation. The conversation should shift from quotas to capabilities. The real question is not “Who gets admission?” but “Who gets to succeed?” This aligns with Ambedkar’s vision of social justice, Gandhi’s talisman of serving the last person, and the capability approach of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum.

Equity strengthens excellence

The heated response to the UGC’s 2026 Regulations reflects both the deep anxieties and deep inequalities embedded in Indian higher education. But the debate must not obscure the central truth: excellence is impossible without equity. An institution cannot be called world-class if it tolerates caste-based humiliation or leaves first-generation learners without support.

The new regulations are not about favouring some and punishing others; they are about ensuring fairness, dignity, and accountability in our universities. Critics deserve to be heard, but so do the students who bear the brunt of discrimination. India’s universities must rise above polarisation and reaffirm their commitment to constitutional morality and the rights of every learner.

(The writer taught Political Science at Bangalore University. He is currently an honorary professor at the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Development and Panchayat Raj University, Gadag)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.