New Delhi/Bareilly (UP): The Union government on Tuesday sought to calm growing unrest over the University Grants Commission’s newly notified Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, as student protests spread across campuses, a senior civil servant intensified his dissent, and a legal challenge reached the Supreme Court questioning the scope and constitutionality of the rules.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan said the regulations, which mandate the creation of equity committees and related bodies in all higher education institutions, would not be misused and would not result in discrimination against any group. His assurance came amid demonstrations by students in several states, criticism from sections of the academic community, and a plea before the apex court alleging that the framework excludes certain categories from institutional protection.
“I want to humbly assure everyone that no one is going to face any harassment.
There will be no discrimination and no one will have the right to misuse the regulation in the name of discrimination,” Pradhan told reporters. He added that all authorities involved, whether the UGC, the Union government, or state governments, would act within constitutional limits.
The regulations were notified on January 13 and replace the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, which were largely advisory. The new rules are binding and introduce a structured institutional mechanism to address complaints of discrimination and promote inclusion across campuses.
Under the 2026 framework, every higher education institution is required to establish an Equal Opportunity Centre to oversee the implementation of policies and programmes for disadvantaged groups. The centres are tasked with providing academic, financial, social, and other guidance to students and staff, enhancing campus diversity, and ensuring that discrimination is neither permitted nor condoned. The head of each institution is explicitly made responsible for enforcing the regulations.
Each Equal Opportunity Centre must have an Equity Committee constituted by the head of the institution. The committee is required to include representation from the Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, persons with disabilities, and women. Members of the committee will serve for a term of two years, while special invitees may serve for one year.
The regulations also mandate the formation of smaller bodies known as Equity Squads, which are intended to maintain vigilance and prevent discriminatory practices on campus. In addition, institutions must maintain an online portal for reporting incidents of discrimination and operate an Equity Helpline. Institutions that fail to comply face the prospect of inquiries and, if non-compliance is established, debarment from UGC schemes and removal from the list of recognised higher education institutions.
For colleges with fewer than five faculty members, the functions of the Equal Opportunity Centre are to be performed by the centre of the affiliated university. The rules further state that the centres should coordinate with civil society groups, local media, police, district administrations, nongovernmental organisations, parents, and legal services authorities to meet their objectives. A senior faculty member with an interest in the welfare of disadvantaged groups is to be nominated as coordinator of each centre.
The objectives section of the regulations states that the framework is aimed at eradicating discrimination based on religion, race, gender, place of birth, caste, or disability, particularly against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, and persons with disabilities, while promoting full equity and inclusion among stakeholders in higher education.
The notification follows directions from the Supreme Court, which had asked the UGC to submit revised regulations while hearing petitions filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi. Vemula, a PhD scholar at the University of Hyderabad, died by suicide in 2016, allegedly after facing caste-based harassment. Tadvi, a resident doctor at Mumbai’s Topiwala National Medical College and BYL Nair Hospital, died by suicide in 2019, allegedly after being subjected to casteist abuse by her seniors.
Despite this background, the regulations have drawn criticism, particularly from students and faculty belonging to general or unreserved categories. Critics argue that the definition of caste-based discrimination in the rules is restrictive and that the absence of mandated representation from the general category on equity committees could lead to bias.
These concerns were reflected in a protest held on Tuesday outside the UGC headquarters in Delhi, where students from several colleges gathered despite heavy rain and barricading. The protesters submitted a memorandum to the commission demanding a complete rollback of the regulations.
Alokit Tripathi, a PhD student at Delhi University who participated in the protest, said UGC officials agreed to discuss some of the demands. “They said they will consider our demand to appoint one member from the general community in the Equity Squad,” he said. According to Tripathi, the commission also assured protesters that it would propose a solution within 15 days, before February 12, and that the identity of complainants would not be kept confidential in order to discourage false complaints.
At the same time, the Left-backed All India Students’ Association issued a statement supporting the regulations, calling the inclusion of OBCs within the ambit of equity protection a positive step. However, the organisation flagged concerns about implementation, saying representation of SC, ST, OBC, and women members on equity committees among both faculty and students remained low, vague, and inadequately defined. It also said the definition of discrimination in the rules was broad and abstract and did not list concrete acts or instances.
The political and administrative fallout extended beyond campuses. In Uttar Pradesh, the state government suspended Bareilly City Magistrate Alankar Agnihotri on charges of indiscipline after he resigned from service on Republic Day, citing disagreement with government policies, including the new UGC regulations. The 2019 batch Provincial Civil Service officer described the rules as a “black law” and said they would vitiate the academic environment and fuel caste-based discontent.
Following his suspension, Agnihotri was attached to the office of the Shamli district magistrate. On Tuesday, he intensified his protest by staging a sit-in outside the district magistrate’s office, accompanied by supporters and raising slogans against the administration. He alleged that there was a well-planned conspiracy against him.
The controversy has now reached the Supreme Court through a petition filed by advocate Vineet Jindal. The plea challenges Regulation 3(c) of the 2026 rules, which defines caste-based discrimination as discrimination only against members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. The petition argues that this definition is non-inclusionary and fails to protect students and faculty who do not belong to reserved categories but may also face harassment or bias based on caste. The petition contends that limiting institutional protection to specific categories creates a hierarchy of protection that violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination by the state on grounds including caste. It also alleges a violation of Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to live with dignity.
“Caste-based discrimination should be defined so that protection is accorded to all persons discriminated on the basis of caste, irrespective of their specific caste identity,” the plea states. It seeks an interim order restraining authorities from enforcing Regulation 3(c) in its present form and asks the court to direct the UGC to redefine caste-based discrimination in a caste-neutral and constitutionally compliant manner.
The petition further requests interim directions to ensure that Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Helplines, and Ombudsperson mechanisms established under the regulations are made available to all students in a non-discriminatory manner until the definition is reconsidered.
As the Supreme Court prepares to examine the legal challenge, the government has maintained that the regulations are constitutionally sound and designed to prevent discrimination rather than create it. Whether the assurances offered by the education minister and the UGC will be enough to address concerns on campuses remains to be seen, as protests, administrative actions, and judicial scrutiny converge around one of the most significant regulatory changes in higher education in recent years.