​Stay the course: On the UGC’s Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions rules

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of India stayed the University Grants Commission (UGC)’s Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions rules, calling them “too sweeping”. Notified in January, the rules sought to address all forms of discrimination, in particular caste-based, on campuses after years of activism, litigation and tragic suicides such as Rohith Vemula that shocked the nation’s conscience. The Court had mandated the UGC to draw up these rules. The 2012 UGC framework on this issue had been almost completely ignored by HEIs. Caste and caste-based discrimination is a persisting reality and addressing it should be a political, social and educational priority. Many students have faced it, leaving lifelong scars, and sometimes ruining lives. UGC figures show that the number of such complaints in HEIs has more than doubled in the last five years. The draft rules were made public last year for discussion and the rules have been notified with changes. There is a case that the new rules are a dilution of the 2012 framework that identified many more and pressing forms of discrimination, and had separate sections that dealt with problems faced by SC/ST students such as not fulfilling reservation norms. But what is different is that the new rules seek to implement the setting up of equal opportunity centres, equity committees, equity helplines and squads, and time bound complaint resolution through better monitoring, oversight and representation in the inquiry committees. An HEI’s non-compliance with these rules can invite UGC action, potentially bolstering compliance.

Campuses in parts of northern India have seen protests against the new rules on two counts. The rules define caste-based discrimination as only those against SC/STs and OBCs, and there is no provision for action against false complaints. At one level, the former may seem unfair to general category students who appear to have been denied recourse. Though it is self-evident that caste-based discrimination is almost exclusively against lower castes, the Court could consider leaving out the explicit definition. This may mar the political signalling in the context of what led to the original Court directive but could be considered so as to achieve the overall goal of the new rules. Also, the draft rules of 2025 offered provisions for addressing false complaints. Putting them back in could have a chilling effect on complainants from marginalised sections. But a solution could ensure that only complaints proven to be motivated to frame someone were actionable, not all complaints that were merely unable to prove discrimination.

Published – January 31, 2026 12:10 am IST