Within days of the announcement of the 2026 equity regulations, there is wide-ranging scepticism regarding the regulatory provisions being used for the victimisation of all those who engage with such stakeholders in HEIs.
The recent notification of the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations 2026, superseding the prevailing Promotion of Equity Regulations of 2012 by the University Grants Commission (UGC), has exposed the harsh reality of discrimination prevalent in higher educational institutions (HEIs). This is a serious pointer to the lapses in realising the spirit of Articles 14 to 17 of the Indian Constitution. The data brought out by the apex regulator in 2025 shows an increase in caste-based discrimination in Indian Universities by 118.4% over five years. The actual number of reported instances in the higher education system of the country, with around 4.33 crore students and 15.98 lakh teachers as per AISHE, may appear dismal, but it indicates the stubborn persistence of a discriminatory mindset among a few in academia.
Undoubtedly, this is largely attributed to the birth-centred inequality embedded in social consciousness due to the structural problems in our society and not due to the insufficiency of regulations or prohibiting laws. A cue about the deep social roots of the caste system can be drawn from the instance of the denial to Dr B. R. Ambedkar to speak on the subject in 1936, which fortunately culminated in his seminal piece on ‘Annihilation of Caste’.
Also Read: How External Politics Is Undermining India’s Universities
The promulgation of regulations one after the other to curb this menace and the inability to achieve a discrimination-free society are of great concern. Because, even after more than 75 years of independence, we continue to fail in behaving rationally and in treating one another as equal human beings. This failure is all the more disturbing in the 21st century, when continuous advances in science and technology are dominating the lifestyle, and there is a national aspiration to become Viksit Bharat.
Delving deeper into the caste discrimination in higher education institutions (HEIs) reveals a regime where the subconscious perception of some individuals as inferior and others as superior by birth gains predominance over the competency. Unfortunately, caste continues to be a painful reality of Indian society, and raising one’s voice against discrimination arising from such involuntary social positioning, which is beyond the control of any individual, often provokes animosity and a retaliatory impulse. Despite a series of measures taken to give special opportunities and privileges to ensure equal opportunity, resulting in some representation of academics from all communities, the caste-centred recognition of students, teachers, and even apex academic administrators holding the highest positions, such as Director, Principal, and Vice Chancellor, is not uncommon in HEIs.
The common curiosity of knowing the caste of any individual to judge them based on caste rather than capabilities and grant certain advantages/disadvantages accordingly, not only frustrates the individual and adversely impacts their psychology, but also gradually erodes the homogeneity of the society. Quite often, special efforts have to be made to ensure representation of all segments of society in the education system holistically, but the same is still not achieved due to the alleged insufficiency of meritorious candidates, which is always debatable, given the inherent subjectivity involved in the assessment process.
Even though caste-based discrimination is constitutionally prohibited and UGC has promulgated the 2012 regulation to prevent discrimination in HEIs, the continued lapses in ensuring discrimination-free environments in higher education institutions (HEIs) have compelled the UGC to issue the 2026 Regulations, which prescribe institutional duties to promote equity through preventive and protective measures for providing discrimination free ambience. These regulations aim to eradicate discrimination only based on religion, race, gender, place of birth, caste, or disability, particularly against the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, persons with disabilities, or any of them, and to promote full equity and inclusion amongst the stakeholders in higher education institutions.
The regulations mandate the setting up of the Equal Opportunity Centre with the Equity Committee headed by the Head of HEI and an Equity Helpline. The new regulation lays down specific measures to promote equity, along with procedures for reporting instances of discrimination, appealing decisions, monitoring, and the consequences of non-compliance with these regulations. Yet, whether these measures will fructify as envisaged or instead foster an atmosphere of fear and disharmony in HEIs, owing to apprehensions about their use or misuse, remains an open question. Quite likely, the teachers and academic administrators may grow risk-averse and defensive, and students sceptical of the intent behind the regulatory framework. Also, given that education is on the concurrent list and a large number of HEIs are established under the state’s legislative framework, receive zero grant from UGC, or are functioning in self-finance mode, it remains to be seen whether all the consequences of non-compliance are legally maintainable within the UGC Act 1956.
Within days of the announcement of the 2026 equity regulations, there is wide-ranging scepticism regarding the regulatory provisions being used for the victimisation of all those who engage with such stakeholders in HEIs. The allegations have surfaced that the members of the specific sections mentioned in the regulations may be unable to perform adequately and could make illegitimate claims, even when treated fairly. It is therefore argued that in every eventuality, both neglect or undue privilege of any of the stakeholders in education should be avoided for the healthy growth of society.
At the same time, something must be learned from the failure of the 2012 Equity Regulation to act as a deterrent against discrimination. This failure suggests that all those who have been genuinely discriminated against do not get a fair trial, or some notional action is taken, or the complainants are harassed for raising their voices by the academic system of their HEI. Philosophically, the interactions between the teacher and taught ought to be selfless, fearless, and pious with the aim of enhancing the abilities and competencies of the students.
Therefore, it’s time for academia and governance to introspect on the precarious situation where people are identified by their caste and discrimination nucleates. Contemplation is also required to evolve a strategy in which individual identities are restricted to their first names, and the surname or caste is not revealed, ensuring that the purity of the teaching-learning-assessment processes is not affected by the possibilities of caste-based discrimination in any form. The regulations, in their present form, appear to contribute more to a perception of threat than to genuine mindset change. Their implementation may inadvertently disadvantage the very groups they seek to protect, as their mentors may avoid serious interactions due to the fear of the likely use of provisions of the regulation, and the rigour of education may be lost for the group indicated in the 2026 Equity regulations. It must be essentially seen that any action designed to correct injustice must not end up deepening it.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author solely. TheRise.co.in neither endorses nor is responsible for them. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.