How UGC’s equity rules evolved and why their contentious definitions are back under review

The University Grants Commission’s (UGC) 2026 equity regulations, now at the centre of a legal dispute over their definition of caste-based discrimination, followed a nearly seven-year legal battle and a year-long exercise involving an expert committee, stakeholder consultations and suggestions from petitioners seeking stronger safeguards against discrimination in higher education institutions.The regulations triggered protests by upper-caste organisations and students.On Thursday, the Union government told the Supreme Court that it was considering setting up a committee to reconsider the framework, and was examining the issue to ensure that “no section feels dissatisfied or apprehensive”. The development comes over nine months after the court stayed the regulations, saying some provisions were “vague and could be misused”.The process began with a January 3, 2025, Supreme Court order directing the UGC to frame fresh regulations within six weeks in petitions filed in 2019 by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi.Tadvi, a second-year resident doctor pursuing a post-graduate degree, died by suicide at a Mumbai college hostel. Vemula was a PhD scholar at the University of Hyderabad, whose death by suicide in 2016 sparked protests over alleged caste-based discrimination.After their mothers moved the court, it sought details of consultations and suggestions received, and university-wise data on Equal Opportunity Cells, complaints under the 2012 regulations and action taken on them.On February 27, 2025, the UGC released a draft for public consultation prepared by a nine-member expert committee headed by Shailesh N Zala, former vice-chancellor of Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University, Gujarat. The draft invited suggestions, including the petitioners in the 2019 case, Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi.“The expert committee held over a dozen meetings. Before finalising the rules, they discussed over 300 suggestions on the draft, including those given by petitioners in the 2019 cases,” said a UGC official, requesting anonymity.The petitioners placed recommendations before the Supreme Court. In its September 15, 2025, order, the court recorded suggestions made by senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for them. These included a clear ban on discriminatory practices and segregation in hostels, classrooms and practical batches; digitised scholarship tracking, stronger grievance redressal and protection for complainants, personal liability for institutional negligence, specialised mental-health counselling, and social audits and equity-linked accreditation.They sought stronger UGC action against institutions that failed to comply, including withdrawal of grants and affiliations.The final regulations were notified on January 13, 2026. Two days later, the Supreme Court took note of the new rules and allowed Jaising to place further suggestions on record to improve their effectiveness.The regulations triggered protests by upper-caste organisations and students, who objected to the definition of caste-based discrimination and raised concerns about possible misuse. Following legal challenges by Rahul Dewan, Mrityunjay Tiwari and Vineet Jindal, the Supreme Court on January 29 stayed the rules, observing that some provisions were prima facie vague and could have “dangerous impacts”. It directed that the 2012 regulations would continue to operate in the interim.The Union education ministry and the UGC did not respond to HT’s queries on the proposed review, saying the matter is sub judice.How the definitions changedFormer UGC chairman Sukhadeo Thorat, writing in HT on January 28, said the 2012 regulations were framed following concerns over caste discrimination and suicides by Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) students, including at AIIMS in 2008.“Recognising the sad evidence on caste discrimination that had led to suicide by SC/ST students — at AIIMS in 2008 and, later, at other higher education institutions — the ministry of education had asked the UGC to frame regulations against discrimination. This led to the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations 2012,” Thorat wrote.The 2012 framework covered discrimination on grounds including caste, creed, religion, language, ethnicity, gender and disability, with specific provisions for SCs and STs. But it was criticised for weak enforcement and institutional apathy, with no penalty for non-compliance. The deaths of Vemula in 2016 and Tadvi in 2019 intensified demands for stronger safeguards.The February 2025 draft drew more extensively from Article 15 of the Constitution in framing its definition of discrimination.The 2019 Supreme Court petitioners suggested incorporating language from international human rights conventions, including the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.The final regulations define discrimination as “any unfair, differential, or biased treatment or any such act against any stakeholder, whether explicit or implicit” on specified grounds. They explicitly include Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the definition of caste-based discrimination, an inclusion sought by the petitioners and a parliamentary panel on education.But Regulation 3(c) has become the principal point of contention. It defines caste-based discrimination as discrimination “only on the basis of caste or tribe” against members of the SC, ST and OBC communities.The petitioners challenging the rules have argued that this excludes general-category students from protection, even if they face caste-based discrimination. Their plea questions why the definition excludes persons belonging to “general or upper castes from its protective ambit, regardless of the nature, gravity, or context of discrimination suffered by them”. They have questioned the absence of an adequate mechanism to deal with false complaints.The issue is linked to a provision in the February 2025 draft that proposed a fine, to be determined by the Equity Committee, for anyone found to have made a false complaint. The 2019 petitioners opposed the clause, arguing that it could deter victims from reporting discrimination. It was dropped from the final regulations. The 2012 rules, too, did not provide for action against false complaints.Which suggestions made it into the final rules?A comparison of the 2019 petitioners’ March 2025 submissions to the Supreme Court and the UGC’s expert committee with the draft and final regulations shows that several of their recommendations were incorporated. HT has seen copies of the submissions and regulations.The petitioners sought stronger enforcement of the 2012 framework, including powers for the UGC to act against institutions that failed to comply by withdrawing grants, affiliations or recognition. They also called for central monitoring and multi-member equity committees.The final regulations empower the UGC to act against non-compliant institutions, including by withdrawing grants, recognition and affiliations. They introduce a central monitoring mechanism and require institutions to establish Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees and Equity Squads, and appoint ombudspersons.The rules also expand the definition of an aggrieved person to cover all stakeholders, including faculty members and non-teaching staff. They require complaints to be forwarded to the police within 24 hours if a prima facie criminal offence is disclosed.Several proposals did not make it to the final framework. The 2019 petitioners sought to exclude vice-chancellors, registrars, deans and heads of departments from Equity Committees, citing possible conflicts of interest. They proposed interim safeguards for complainants, including academic protection, protection against retaliatory evaluation and temporary separation from the accused during inquiries.Other recommendations that were not incorporated included personal liability for administrators found negligent, mandatory mental-health counselling units, digitised scholarship tracking, public disclosure of equity compliance on institutional websites, social audits and linking accreditation to implementation of equity norms.The final regulations omitted detailed illustrations of discriminatory practices contained in the 2012 framework, including admission bias, hostel segregation and discriminatory mess practices. The 2026 regulations did not carry forward this detailed list, instead asking each institution’s Equal Opportunity Centre to prepare and disseminate an illustrative list of discriminatory acts.