the story So Far: Supreme Court on 29 January imposed a new set of rules Notifications issued by the University Grants Commission earlier this month on promoting equality within higher education institutions had said they were “vague and open to misuse”. These rules were brought in to replace the previous version, effective from 2012, to specifically address issues of caste discrimination on campuses, after parents of students from marginalized castes and tribes who died by suicide had approached the Supreme Court in 2019. The Supreme Court’s stay came after weeks of protests from “general or upper castes” who argued that the rules discriminate against them in defining “caste-based discrimination”.
Ground Zero 2026 UGC Equity Rules: Cracks in the campus
What are the 2026 UGC Equity Rules?
The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, were notified by the higher education regulator on January 13, 2026. The UGC said the rules were intended to “eliminate discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, sex, place of birth, race or disability, particularly against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, persons with disabilities or any of them.” and promoting full equity and inclusion among stakeholders in higher education institutions.
In these rules, the UGC has defined “caste-based discrimination” as “discrimination against members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes on grounds only of caste or tribe”. It has defined “discrimination” as “any unfair, discriminatory or prejudicial treatment or any such act, whether explicit or implicit, against any stakeholder on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, disability or any of them…”
Furthermore, the regulations provide for setting up a tiered grievance redressal system to address discrimination. This included provisions for setting up an equal opportunities centre, whereby equity committees should be set up to look into complaints. Furthermore, the rules called for setting up Equity Squads in each institution and Equity Ambassadors in each unit (department, school) of the institutions. It also established a comprehensive monitoring mechanism to monitor these works directly under the UGC.
In addition, the regulations set out timelines and procedures for resolving complaints and grievances and for appealing against decisions of panels adjudicating on these complaints. It also provides for an institutional accountability mechanism, where institutions violating the rules may be debarred from offering degrees, programmes, participating in UGC schemes and may be struck off from the regulatory list of institutions.
Analysis UGC Equity Rules flow from the mandate of Article 15 to address historical injustice
Why did ‘general or upper castes’ call the 2026 rules discriminatory?
The main argument for the protests in parts of North India is that these rules discriminate against “general or upper castes”, based on the vagueness of the definition of “caste-based discrimination”, the removal of the provision on “false complaints”, and the functions of bodies such as “equity squads”.
He argued that by defining “caste-based discrimination” as a separate term in the 2026 rules, the UGC was actually defining who could be a “potential victim” of caste discrimination on campuses. Excluding them from this definition, the upper caste class argued that the rules “presupposed” that general or upper caste students would be perpetrators of caste discrimination at all times.
The petitions challenging these rules in the Supreme Court also argued that general or upper caste students may also face caste discrimination in universities and colleges, and the rules prevent these students from addressing such matters.
Furthermore, the protesters argued that the provision of punishment for “false complaints” was also absent, which could have been useful to counter the complaints filed against them and defend themselves if necessary. The protesters also said it was not clear what would be the function of the proposed Equity Squad under the new rules, putting forward a complaint that the rules clearly provide for representation of SC, ST, OBC, women, persons with disabilities in the Equity Committee, but it does not clearly provide for representation of general or upper castes.
Read this also UGC’s anti-discrimination rules: What’s changed, what’s improved and what still worries experts
How were these rules made?
These rules were developed and brought under the supervision of a bench of the Supreme Court, which was hearing petitions filed in 2019 by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, both of whom died by suicide, alleging caste-discrimination in 2016 and 2019 respectively. Their petition argued that the 2012 UGC regulations on promoting equality on campuses were not being implemented adequately to address the “rampant caste-discrimination” prevalent in Indian higher education institutions.
During the hearing on these petitions, the UGC had told the Supreme Court that it has constituted a nine-member expert committee under the chairmanship of Professor Shailesh N Zala to reconsider the 2012 rules. This expert committee first drafted the revised version of the equity rules, which was notified by the UGC for public comments in February 2025.
These draft rules introduced the terminology of “caste-based discrimination”, but defined it as discrimination on the basis of caste or tribe “only against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes”. Furthermore, the draft rules contained a provision to punish cases of “false complaints” without clarifying what a “false complaint” would be. The petitioners in the Supreme Court case submitted a large number of suggestions from the public in this draft, which included recommendations that Other Backward Classes should be protected under the definition of “caste-based discrimination” and that the provision on “false complaints” should either be removed or a distinction should be introduced to differentiate “false complaints” from “complaints which cannot be substantiated”.
In December 2025, a parliamentary committee on education headed by Congress leader Digvijay Singh had also supported the suggestion to explicitly protect OBCs in the definition of “caste-based discrimination”.
Editorial Stay on course: On UGC rules to promote equality in higher education institutions
What were the 2012 rules and how are the new rules different?
In the 2012 rules by the same name brought by the UGC, the regulatory authority did not separately define “caste-based discrimination”. It had defined “discrimination” with sub-sections on denying access to education, imposing indecent conditions and maintaining separate educational and social spaces within campuses on the basis of caste, creed, religion, language, ethnicity, gender and disability.
The 2012 rules provided for setting up a grievance redressal mechanism, which included the establishment of an equal opportunities cell, SC/ST cell and appointment of an anti-discrimination officer to whom complaints should be addressed.
Further, to prevent discrimination against SC and ST students in higher educational institutions, the 2012 rules had identified a total of 25 specific instances and types of discrimination in the area of admission, assessment, within classrooms, segregation of hostels and messes and dissemination of information on scholarships and fellowships. These definitions include the experiences of students from marginalized caste and tribe backgrounds in these areas and the experience of being ridiculed in the name of being a “reserved” category student, among other examples.
None of these specific acts of discrimination are included in the 2026 rules.
While the main thrust of the 2012 rules was in defining and identifying the types and acts of discrimination faced by students at the hands of students, faculty and institute administration, the main thrust of the 2026 rules was to provide for the establishment of grievance redressal mechanisms in the form of equal opportunity committees, equity committees and equity squads. However, the 2012 rules did not explicitly provide language to protect “other backward classes” and did not have institutional consequences for non-compliance with implementation of the rules.
Read this also Leaders welcome Supreme Court stay on UGC equity rules
Did only the upper castes have problems with the new rules?
While the opposition that intensified over the new rules came from a section of general or upper caste students reiterating the argument that the new anti-discrimination rules were biased against them, there was a significant section that argued that the new rules were not actually strengthening the anti-discrimination 2012 rules, primarily due to the lack of specifications on what would count as discrimination.
Professor Sukhadev Thorat, former UGC chairman and instrumental in drafting the 2012 rules, has argued that the new rules do not make it clear whether they will apply to institutions like IITs, IIMs, polytechnics, nursing institutions, etc., further saying that the composition of equity committees should specify the quantum of representation for SC, ST and OBC members instead of leaving it open.
Subhajit Naskar, assistant professor at Jadavpur University, has also said that by removing specific acts of discrimination faced by students in various aspects of campus life, the new rules have, in fact, weakened the 2012 rules.
Read this also Students protest against UGC’s new equity rules, political impact in UP
what now?
The Supreme Court has said that the petitions challenging the 2026 rules will be heard along with the petitions filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, while also calling on the UGC to go back to its 2012 rules while it hears challenges to the new version.
In doing so, the Supreme Court has also formulated certain legal questions which have to be addressed while hearing these cases from now on. The next hearing on these petitions is to be held in March, by then the Central Government has also been asked to file an affidavit.
