The recently notified University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 have replaced the 2012 anti-discrimination framework. The new rules attach serious consequences to non-compliance, including debarring institutions from offering degree programmes, withholding participation in UGC schemes, and their removal from the UGC’s list of recognised HEIs. The regulations were prompted by judicial pressure after the death of students linked to caste harassment, such as that of Rohith Vemula — it is the 10th anniversary of his demise. A Supreme Court directive in January 2025 had also required the UGC to collate data on caste discrimination complaints under the 2012 rules. The data show why stricter regulations are crucial. Reported complaints of caste-based discrimination in HEIs rose by 118.4% over five years, from 173 in 2019-20 to 378 in 2023-24. Across 704 universities and 1,553 colleges, 1,160 complaints were recorded between 2019-20 and 2023-24. Pending cases climbed from 18 to 108 over the same period. The new regulations are thus timely. The notified rules also correct two serious flaws in an earlier draft. Other Backward Classes have been brought within the ambit of caste-based discrimination and the proposed deterrent against ‘false complaints’ has been dropped. These changes recognise a basic reality: marginalised students, already facing discrimination, being made to bear the burden of suspicion would have slowed the reporting of such crimes.
Yet the final rules still have gaps. The 2012 regulations had more concrete descriptions of discriminatory practices, including those pertaining to admissions and institutional treatment. The new framework offers broader definitions but omits several specific guardrails. Equity committees chaired by institutional heads risk becoming administrative instruments unless independence is built into appointments and reporting. Moreover, enforcement will require transparent timelines for inquiries, public disclosure of anonymised outcomes, and external audits. Further, faculty and staff also need to be trained to recognise caste biases. The new complaint mechanisms also fail to protect complainants from retaliation. Support structures outside the complaint pathway are equally important. The UGC’s draft mental health policy for higher education, with counselling centres, helplines, and peer support systems, is an important step in this context. Emotional support, however, cannot be a substitute for institutional accountability or a firmer commitment to an inclusive, non-discriminatory campus.