UGC's New Equity Rules: A Step Forward or a Missed Opportunity for Social Justice?
On January 13, 2026, the University Grants Commission (UGC) introduced the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, marking a significant policy move to tackle discrimination across Indian campuses. These regulations have been hailed by many as a serious and concrete effort to address long-standing issues of caste discrimination, gendered harassment, and systemic exclusion of students with disabilities. However, a closer examination reveals that while well-intentioned, they may fall short of achieving real social justice by not confronting the deeper structural inequalities embedded in the higher education system.
Mandatory Measures and Infrastructure
The regulations mandate that every university and college, whether public or private, must establish Equal Opportunity Cells (EOCs) and operate 24x7 equity helplines. Additionally, institutions are required to publish biannual reports detailing complaints and demographic data of reported cases, and create internal equity squads and equity ambassadors to provide immediate attention to incidents of discrimination. Fixed timelines for grievance redressal are also set, with non-compliance risking loss of UGC funding, accreditation, and recognition.
Building this equity infrastructure involves significant expenses, but it is justified given the severity of campus discrimination. For too long, discrimination has been treated as episodic misconduct rather than a governance failure. Marginalised students have faced social exclusion, caste-based abuse, biased evaluation, and even tragic outcomes like suicides. The new regulations formally acknowledge that equity is a statutory obligation, not charity, aiming to create safe and inclusive campuses.
Continuation of Existing Policies
These regulations build upon existing policy measures in Indian universities, such as anti-ragging committees, internal complaint committees, and SC/ST cells. However, many of these structures exist largely on paper, raising concerns that the new equity architecture could become another layer of administrative compliance. Without proper monitoring, it might accumulate reports and posters without fundamentally changing institutional behavior.
The Deeper Problem: Power and Privilege
Inequality in higher education is not solely about unfair treatment; it is also about who holds power and privilege. The regulations define equity as a level playing field for all stakeholders, but they do not address critical areas like faculty recruitment, promotions, research funding, policy decision-making, and academic gatekeeping, which remain dominated by socially privileged groups. There is no requirement for universities to audit biased faculty hiring or ensure equal representation of marginalised groups in leadership roles. Moreover, the regulations fail to examine how merit is defined or assessed, risking a focus on symptoms rather than root causes.
Performative Moves and Capacity Issues
The emphasis on monitoring and reporting incidents, including data on complaints and dropout rates, is essential for transparency. Yet, in a neoliberal higher education environment where rankings and reputations are paramount, institutions may feel pressured to underreport cases to maintain their image. Without independent audits, this reporting could become a performative move—appearing compliant without being transformative.
Capacity building is another concern. Structures like helplines and counselling services require resources that many state-level institutions lack. The unequal distribution of financial resources to provincial colleges and universities must be addressed before such measures can be effectively implemented.
Beyond Grievance Redressal
Grievance redressal alone cannot undo power asymmetries. First-generation students, ad hoc and contractual faculty, and non-teaching staff may fear retaliation when complaining against those in decision-making roles, despite procedural safeguards. In many discrimination cases, fear silences formal rights, highlighting the need for a more holistic approach.
While the regulations are a necessary step, they should not be dismissed. To achieve true equity, we must democratise university social spaces, decision-making processes, faculty, and leadership. Regulations should serve as a link between equity and social justice, fostering epistemic inclusion on campuses. The UGC's new rules have opened a crucial debate, but for equity to become a lived reality for marginalised students, much work remains.
