Promotion of Equity in Higher Education, or not ?

The UGC “Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026” seeks to eliminate discrimination, promote inclusion, and safeguard disadvantaged groups. While the objective is legitimate and constitutionally aligned, several provisions raise substantive conceptual, administrative, and constitutional concerns.

Risk of Deepening Caste Consciousness on Campus

The regulations institutionalise caste and identity categories at multiple levels creations like Equity Committees, Squads, Ambassadors, continuous monitoring (creating panopticon structure), and reporting structures.

Such structural embedding of caste categories into daily administrative functioning may - 

1. Unintentionally reinforce caste identities
2. Create a persistent atmosphere of categorisation
3. Increase the salience of caste in interpersonal relationships
4. Disincentive natural social integration.

Reservation is generally accepted because it is targeted, and corrective, aiming at equality of opportunity. However, mainstreaming caste into routine campus governance risks moving beyond affirmative action into identity-fixed administration, which may become counterproductive. Higher education institutions function best as zones of social mixing, merit-based interaction, and identity transcendence. Over emphasising caste can fracture this environment.

Representation Imbalance 

The Equity Squad and related bodies include mandatory representation for SC/ST/OBC/PwD/women categories, but the regulations do not mandate inclusion of General Category members.

This omission is problematic because - 

1. An equity mechanism should be institution-wide and therefore socially representative.
2. Excluding one segment of the student/faculty population weakens neutrality and trust.
3. A body meant to prevent discrimination should not risk being seen as structurally biased or exclusionary.

Lack of Safeguards Against Misuse and No Penalty for Fake Complaints

The regulations in this guideline - 

1. Allows anonymous reporting
2. Mandates action within 24 hours
3. Do not specify checks against malicious intent
4. Do not define consequences for false or frivolous complaints.

This creates serious procedural risks against any form of substantive justice and due process because students may face irreversible reputational damage even before verification. Complaint mechanisms without accountability can become tools for personal vendetta or peer conflict escalation. A system intended to reduce discrimination may unintentionally create fear and self-censorship among students and faculty.

Turning Higher Education Institutions into Panopticon Structure 

Colleges and universities are intended to be spaces of social learning, dialogue, and intellectual freedom. 

However, the creation of - 

1. Equity Squads patrolling the vulnerable spots
2. Ambassadors in every department and hostel unit
3. Continuous monitoring and reporting
4. Biannual activity audits may transform campuses into over-regulated environments resembling surveillance frameworks rather than academic spaces.

This can stifle organic student interaction, create a climate of over-caution or suspicion and reduce the autonomy of natural peer conflict resolution mechanisms.

Possible Hindrance to Institutional Autonomy

The said regulations require - 

1. Fixed institutional bodies
2. Mandatory reporting timelines
3. UGC and State-level oversight
4. Standardised procedures irrespective of the nature of the institution.

Such heavy administrative superstructure risks undermining institutional autonomy, which is an essential feature recognised in judicial precedent and university governance norms. Autonomy is vital for academic freedom, self-regulation, context-specific decision-making and innovation in grievance-redressal approaches.

Article 14 - Equality and Non-Arbitrariness

Article 14 demands that all state action be reasonable, just, and free from arbitrariness. The structure of the equity mechanism under the new regulations raises potential issues on this front. If the committees responsible for receiving and adjudicating complaints are not fully representative of the institutional demographic, they may inadvertently become structurally biased. A body tasked with upholding fairness must itself reflect the principle of equality.

Further, the absence of specific safeguards against false or motivated complaints introduces a layer of procedural uncertainty. A mechanism that obligates immediate action without pre-verification may lead to decisions driven more by compulsion than by reasoned analysis. Such scenarios can amount to procedural arbitrariness, which is squarely at odds with Article 14. Overemphasis on caste-based categorisation in administrative decision-making also risks enabling reverse discrimination, a concern repeatedly highlighted in judicial discourse.

Together, these factors create a legitimate question - Do the regulations uphold the constitutional promise of equality, or do they risk undermining it through unintended administrative imbalances ? 

Natural Justice - Right to Be Heard and Absence of Bias

The principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause), forms the backbone of fair procedure in Indian administrative law. The Equity Regulations’ complaint-handling framework raises challenges under both principles.

The requirement that Equity Committees respond within 24 hours of receiving a complaint may compel action before a fair and complete hearing is possible. This timeline, while intended to ensure prompt redressal, risks compromising the accused’s right to adequately present their defence.

Moreover, the provision for anonymous complaints, though designed to protect complainants, can simultaneously weaken the accused’s ability to understand the context or confront the accusation. This asymmetry may impair procedural fairness.

The representation imbalance within the committees may create a perception of bias. Even if decision makers act impartially, the absence of broad-based representation can weaken confidence in the neutrality of the process, violating the spirit of nemo judex in causa sua.

While the Equity Regulations aim to advance inclusivity and protect disadvantaged groups, their current structure raises genuine concerns regarding constitutional validity and procedural fairness. Ensuring compliance with Article 14 and natural justice would require revisiting committee composition, instituting safeguards against misuse, and providing adequate procedural protections for all stakeholders. Equity, to be meaningful, must be pursued through mechanisms that uphold fairness not only in outcome but also in process.