With the Supreme Court staying the controversial University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, the Centre gets a breather not only to think through the provisions but also to take a closer look at the stiff opposition it has faced from sections of society.
In fact, it was different benches of the apex court that had earlier taken cognisance of the problem and sought effective measures to address student suicides in higher education institutions. In response, the UGC framed the regulations prohibiting discrimination based not only on caste but also religion, race, gender, place of birth or disability.
The prevalence and persistence of identity-based discrimination in society—and consequently in higher educational institutions, which are an integral part of it—is a reality experienced by several people belonging to disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. According to UGC data, complaints of caste-based discrimination in higher education institutions shot up by 118.4% since 2019. Discrimination also translates into depriving such groups of equal opportunities in accessing academic and other amenities.
Laws and regulations providing legal protection to vulnerable people such as women, children and Dalits are often challenged on the grounds of misuse. In this case too, the bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the regulations were “capable of misuse”. Firstly, there is a dire need for empirical data on alleged misuse so that the magnitude of the problem is clearly understood and lawmakers can factor it in while deciding on amendments.
Likewise, the judiciary could rely on data instead of perception, assumptions or anecdotal evidence.
The potential for misuse, especially without adequate verified data, should not be used as a reason to deprive vulnerable people of legal protection. Legal experts have consistently argued for better framing of laws, including safeguards against misuse, and for capacity building of law enforcement agencies to ensure fair investigation so that innocent people are not trapped in punitive legal processes.
The bogey of “misuse” of stringent protective laws also requires more rigorous socio-cultural scrutiny. Studies show that many people suffer silently and often find it difficult to overcome hesitation to knock on the doors of justice. Surveys indicate gross under-reporting of violence and discrimination against vulnerable groups.
Fear of retribution, low self-confidence, distrust of authorities, and lack of financial and other resources remain significant barriers to seeking justice. Without instilling trust in the system regarding fair and effective investigation, the inclusion of penalty provisions for false or malicious complaints could deter even genuine complainants.
The ruling party appears to have been taken by surprise by the severity of the backlash, especially from sections of its core general caste constituency, against the new regulations. The protests revealed fault lines in Hindutva’s carefully crafted claims of Hindu unity.
They also underline that casteist forces continue to thrive and that discriminatory practices remain systemic issues. Addressing them requires better-framed regulations that can withstand judicial scrutiny while effectively safeguarding vulnerable people.