Let’s start this article by revisiting the Constitution of India. The Articles that were embodied by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to eradicate the discrimination so that everyone is equal and lives a dignified life.

1.     Article 14 of the Constitution – Equality before the Law and equal protection before the Law. This article ensures that every citizen of India, regardless of the caste, religion, gender, race, would be given equal protection before law within the territory of India.

The University Grant Commission (UGC) has notified its Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026 (Rules). The rules aim at eradicating the discrimination on the basis of religion, race, gender, place of birth, caste, or disability only. On paper, this comes as a genuine effort by the UGC to eradicate the discrimination going on in the Higher Educational Institutions (HEI). Reading further in the Section 2 ‘particularly against the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, persons with disabilities, or any of them.’ Although the language appears universal, the regulatory framework is structurally tilted towards disadvantaged groups, raising concerns of asymmetrical protection under Article 14.

2.     Article 15 of the Constitution – This article prohibits the State from discriminating on the basis of race, caste, gender, religion and place of birth. It comes along with exceptions [Article 15 clause (3), (4) and (5)] that the State can make any provision or law to enable the advancement of the people belonging to so-called backward classes, women and children.

Section 3(c) of the Rules says ‘“Caste-based discrimination’’ means discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward classes.’ This section leaves the general category students from the scope of caste-based discrimination on the presumption that there cannot be any such discrimination against these students.

The framework applies to everyone present in the campus, from the management to students. According to it, the HEI are endowed with the duty and responsibility to promote ‘equity’ in the campuses. According to the Section 3 (f) of the Rules ‘equity’ means ‘a level playing field for all stakeholders with respect to the entitlement and opportunity for the enjoyment of all legitimate rights.’ A level playing field for everyone except the students of general category.

The heads of these Universities have been made the first line of accountability. Section 5 of the framework talks about ‘Equal Opportunity Center’(EOC) to keep check if the policies are being implemented or not. EOC is expected to coordinate with the civil society, Legal Services Authority (both center and state), police authorities etc. Every EOC will have its ‘equity committee’, the foremost responsibility of the EC would be to enquire the discrimination complaints, submit the report with recommendations, and manage the functioning of their university or college. The composition of the EC must include senior faculty members, non-teaching staff, civil society members, students; along with reservation for the people belonging to the backward classes, women, physically disabled persons in the said committee.

Beyond the EOC and EC, the framework also provides provision for making a ‘equity squad’ and ‘equity ambassadors.’ The equity squad are smaller units that are responsible for recognizing ‘vulnerable spots’ of the campus. Whereas, the equity ambassadors are tasked with vigilance across the campus, they will be designated at departments, libraries, hostel and other areas. This practice points towards the constant informal vigilance on the students instead of a reformative solution to the discrimination. Some possible consequences of such vigilance could be chilling effects on the students, hostile environment between students of different backgrounds, etc. Another mechanism to address the issue is ‘equity helpline’, which would work as a round the clock helpline number for the stakeholders to report their complaint. An aggrieved person can report through online portal, call on the helpline, email or file a written complaint. After a complaint has been registered, the EC has to meet within 24 hours, and file a report within 15 days. After this, the head of the institution has 7 days to initiate action. If anyone is aggrieved by the report of the EC, they can appeal to the ombudsman, to which an Amicus Curiae can be appointed. The Amicus Curiae is expected to dispose off the appeals within 30 days.  

The time bound procedure does aid the prompt action but questions the correctness of the procedure in such compressed period. The framework enables the UGC to form national level committees and conduct inspections, information requests etc.

Institutions found to be non-compliant can face serious consequences like debarment from UGC schemes, removal from UGC recognized lists, loss of permission to offer degrees or courses, etc.

The biggest question this framework poses is that is this really a step towards equality or 10 steps backwards to reverse oppression? There is no mention of the general category students in the whole document. What are the consequences for the students who misuse these laws to mentally harass other students? What are the consequences for students who file false complaints? What are the provisions for a person affected by a false complaint? What are the provisions for a general category student if they face discrimination?

The UGC Anti-Discrimination Rules, 2026 are, in principle, a progressive attempt to address entrenched inequalities in higher education. However, the legitimacy of any equality framework lies not merely in its intent, but in its constitutional coherence, inclusiveness, and fairness in application. By selectively defining discrimination and limiting the scope of protection to certain categories while excluding others, the Rules risk undermining the very constitutional promise of equality under Articles 14 and 15.

A framework that claims to promote equity cannot afford to operate on presumptions that discrimination flows only in one direction. Equality before law is not a privilege granted to some and denied to others; it is a universal guarantee. When regulatory mechanisms create asymmetrical protections, they do not dismantle discrimination but institutionalize new hierarchies in its place.

Moreover, the absence of safeguards against misuse, false complaints, and procedural overreach raises serious concerns about due process and natural justice. Vigilance mechanisms, if not carefully calibrated, may foster suspicion rather than solidarity, fear rather than fairness, and division rather than dialogue within academic spaces.

Therefore, the UGC framework, in its present form, stands at a constitutional crossroads. If the objective is genuine equity, the Rules must evolve into a truly inclusive regime that protects every student, irrespective of social category, while simultaneously addressing historical disadvantages with constitutional sensitivity. Otherwise, what is projected as a step towards equality may well become a step away from it, transforming universities from spaces of intellectual freedom into arenas of contested identities and selective justice.