On January 29, the Supreme Court, through a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, passed the order in a batch of three petitions, and put an interim stay on the new equity regulations introduced by the University Grants Commission (UGC) – the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. These regulations, which supersede the existing 2012 Equity Regulations, have been introduced to eradicate discrimination based on religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, or against persons with disabilities in Indian Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). The 2026 Regulations particularly focus on eradicating discrimination against the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (SCs/STs), socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs/ OBCs), economically weaker sections (EWSs), and persons with disabilities (PwDs), to promote full equity and inclusion among the stakeholders in HEIs. In his book Transformative Constitution, Gautam Bhatia argues that a person from the Depressed Class got admission in a university, but he was denied admission in the 1860s in one of the Indian universities under the pretext of caste-based disabilities as his presence would have polluted the academic space meant for the privileged groups. This is perhaps one of the documented pieces of evidence of exclusion of Historically Disadvantaged Groups (HDGs) in India. Thus, the psyche of modern Indian education is grounded in exclusion, and gatekeeping remains quite strong. The new UGC Regulations bring the inherent contradictions once again to the limelight. On the interim stayThe Supreme court interestingly observed that an interim stay was necessary as the 2026 guidelines are “capable of dividing the society”. The court has emphasised that the mere possibility of a provision being prone to misuse warrants judicial scrutiny to ensure that the laws remain uniform and applicable to all sections of society. It issued notices to both the UGC and the Union government, seeking their responses to the petitions, thereby staying the new equity regulations, with the continuance of the 2012 regulations in the meantime. This comes despite the Union government providing assurances against the misuse of these regulations and the Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan saying that “discrimination will not be allowed against anybody”. Ironically, the 2026 Regulations and its notification are a direct outcome of the Supreme Court’s order from September last year in Abeda Salim Tadvi & Anr. v. UOI (2025) given by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, where the court said: “The UGC may take a final decision as it deem appropriate and notify the regulations as early as possible”. It was born out of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed before the Supreme Court in 2019 by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, mothers of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi respectively, who reportedly died by suicide over caste-discrimination faced in their universities, seeking an institutional mechanism to end caste-based discrimination in HEIs. Advocate Disha Wadekar who represented the two mothers argued that the new Regulations is not a criminal law, and not to target a particular group or community, but are meant to protect vulnerable and marginalised communities who enjoy protection under the Indian Constitution itself.On identity-based discrimination and violenceIn any civilised society, people must be sensitive to discrimination. The presence of discrimination is antithesis of humanism and fundamental freedom that are required to make any society an inclusive political and social community. In Identity and Violence, Amartya Sen provides a framework of identity that remains multifaceted.Also read: What Did the Supreme Court Say When Staying the New 2026 UGC Equity Regulations?However, each society has its own peculiar historical wounds and catharsis. In this context, Gail Omvedt says in her biographical work on Dr. Ambedkar that equality and inequality are dialectical forces in Indian society. This framework takes us to the identity of caste that appears in Dr. Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste reminding how Indian society is pyramided of hierarchies, which lacks fundamental tenets of social solidarity. Weber says that violence is the midwife of history. Questions remain about who the perpetrators are and who are the victims of discrimination and violence. To answer this question, one does not need the skill set of Sherlock Holmes, as it is quite visible that we live in a fragmented glass house, where we see it but avoid talking about it. This is where the contradiction of public and private life comes into the picture that is further elaborated by Hannah Arendt’s work. Caste has no place in Nehruvian modernity, but it is well accommodated in our lives in the form of everyday appearances in the newspaper ads of suitable brides and grooms where caste remains the bar. This divide is omnipresent in our inside and outside paraphernalia such as inner and outer circle of friends. In public life, we speak the language of modernity, while back home we conveniently examine things based on conservative optics. In this context, it is pertinent to examine the subtle and sophisticated structure of discrimination and violence in Indian HEIs, which keeps trying its best to reproduce the status quo. When it comes to violence against the marginalised, the Foucault’s method based on discipline and punishment suggests that while medieval violence was brutal but honest, modern violence is based on the methodology of how to punish better. This is reflective in the story of Eklavya that at least he is revered and his ability is recognised, but in modern times, Eklavya does not have merit, and is silenced, commits suicide, and remains invisible. Their pain does not even create tremor for the collective conscience. This shows how we are living in the castle of academic panopticon, where the powerful can see everything from their cocoon, while the marginalised are kept in metaphorical concentration camps.On law, Indian constitution and social solidarityIn this context of this division, the purpose of the law is to create social solidarity. We can see that there are examples in history such as the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education (1954), where the US Supreme Court held the racialised education system unconstitutional, marking a watershed moment in the civil rights movement. Thus, we can see desegregation can happen without violence and hence law becomes an effective tool to address social, religious, gender, caste and other sorts of identity-based violence. Based on this commitment, right from the beginning itself, the preamble of the Indian constitution brings the ideal of substantive and procedural equality that defines our Republic. It gets further grounding in Articles 14 to 18 and Article 13 puts a condition that any law which violates the fundamental rights will be void. So, equality remains the cherished constitutional moralism of the Indian constitution. The idea of an inclusive universityWho is a university meant for, and how and when does it become inclusive? The UGC has brought these regulations under Article 26 of the UGC Act 1956 to bring equity in the higher education space. Since its incarnation, a bipolar debate has triggered which is divisive and reminds one of the genealogy of past. This needs introspection and a proper framework is required where we can address the questions of identity-based discrimination in any given space. First and foremost, based on some accidental identity or in the words of Namit Arora, the “Lottery of Birth“, one should not take a position and vouch for a political and moral world, which does not align with the stated constitutional morality. Nehru himself reflected that university is the brain of any nation, and an integrated space is very much required for the growth of nations. In this context, it becomes important to mention that since independence SCs and STs got reservation in job and educational institutions as reiterated in the First amendment of the constitution itself. It was made available to the OBCs much later – first in jobs through the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1993) and only after Ashok Thakur v. Union of India (2008), 27 % seats were reserved for the OBCs in HEIs. This ambit was further expanded for the economically vulnerable sections of the society (EWSs) by the Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2023). The current academic framework in which things operate in Indian HEIs, an independent rational existence, which requires a researcher to operate in a rights-based and entitlement-based system, is negated. Due to this, some researchers adopt other means, based on survival techniques such as becoming a pet spy or a blind disciple of a professor. Ultimately, this process cannibalises their mind. In this context, the university space has significantly changed from its past pedigree through several caste- and class-based affirmative action policies. However, the presence of marginalised students in academic spaces is also viewed by some in terms of tradition of caste-based logic as usurpation of privileged ‘upper caste’ space, which was traditionally unthinkable for HDGs. This has brought tension and contradictions to the idea of an inclusive university. The first phase of reforms in accessing HEIs was largely concentrated on representation. It did not adequately institutionally address the marginalisation, suicide, and academic alienation of students from the HDGs within the four walls of academia, most of whom were the first ever in their familial history to reach a HEI. The government data itself suggests that the drop rates particularly of the students from the SC/ ST/ OBC categories make a gloomy picture – over 13,500 SC, ST, and OBC students dropped out of Central universities, IITs, IIMs in just the past five years (until 2023). Many times, the HEIs certify these students as failures, while they lost their great Indian dream of empowerment through education. Dr. Ambedkar himself says: educate, agitate and organise, so everything starts from education itself. Even sociologist Satish Deshpande argues that considering the conservative approach of redistribution of public goods, education remains the only available commodity for the marginalised to change the dynamics of power and existing social order. Considering this, the new Equity Regulations, which seek to fill the existing gaps and provide inclusive academic space for marginalised groups, needs a serious introspection as to whether it serves the interest and long demand of HDGs or is it just an act of whim, caprice and arbitrariness. Jurisprudence and rule of constitutional interpretation say that laws made by legal authorities will be presumed to be valid unless it is declared otherwise. What is the urgency for new Equity Regulations?Dispute settlement in the existing framework works more like a system of fate, and based on our own experiences and knowledge, we can say that each case is dealt with in an ad hoc mannerism, which speaks more realpolitik than any rule-based system. Ultimately, mostly first-generation learners are left to choose between academic morsel or dignity. Any first-generation learner will choose academic morsel and hence questions of culpability and accountability in the case of discrimination have rarely been determined. Hence, the whole existing process produces a social order of academic apartheid. Considering this, let us critically analyse certain vital aspects of the 2026 Regulations.Protected groups: 2026 Regulations seeks to bring SC, ST and OBCs within the ambit of the protected groups along with women, disabled, and EWS. This categorisation can be examined within Article 14, which enunciates that like should be treated like and alike shall be treated alike. This is the framework of equal protection of laws as a positive connotation as given in the Indian constitution. Whether this classification and exclusion of remaining groups is based on the reasonable nexus and has a symmetrical relationship between the object, purpose and proposed classification of the protected groups needs to be analysed. At this point, a fair argument could be made that based on the larger victimisation of people from HDGs, this law seems a safe method to counter discrimination, i.e., through deterrence and availability of institutional space for the victims, as many of them lack means and support to formally approach the court. However, at this point another question emerges, that is, how far justifiable it is to treat a large pool of castes, namely OBCs, as homogenous and prone to discrimination. One can safely argue that there are few OBCs which have similar strength as their counterparts in ‘upper caste’ groups in a comparative sense. This is where fragmentation of OBCs for the purpose of reservation comes in, and the same structure for the victimhood is not necessarily reflected in the legal sophistication. Secondly, there is a possible argument that constitutional protection in favour of SCs and STs outweighs such protection vis-à-vis OBCs and EWSs. Considering this, one argument can be made that integration of OBCs as a single protected group and inclusion of EWSs could undermine the protection in favour of SCs and STs. However, experience says the opposite. Firstly, inclusion of OBCs has made the interest and entitlement of SCs and STs more protected, and secondly, a conflict between SCs/STs and OBCs/EWSs/Others could still invite the application of the SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Definition of discrimination: Rule 1(e) includes unfair, differential or biased treatment. Its stated purpose is to prohibit impairment of equality of treatment in education and uphold human dignity. In this framework, it is to be noted that there are two things that this law seeks to change: eliminate abuse of power and restore duty to eradicate discrimination. Earlier when a person in power viewed students of a ‘reserved’ category as fodder and incompetent and denied them equal opportunity, no effective institutional and procedural mechanism was available. Under 2026 Regulations, a non-compliance will have a deterrent effect in terms of one or more of the following: institutional debarment from participating in UGC schemes, offering degree, Open and Distance Learning (ODL) and online mode programmes, and being removed from the list of HEIs maintained under Sections 2(f) and 12B of the UGC Act 1956, with a potential to take additional punitive actions.Duty to promote equity: Rule 4 inter alia says that the head of the institution is under a duty to eradicate discrimination and that these regulations are duly observed. This will lead to elimination of a culture and cocktail of silence and violence.In HEIs, some victims of discrimination allege that a group acts as “gutter inspectors” who perpetrate discrimination. This, in effect, satisfies the collective conscience of another group that otherwise appears progressive, but closer introspection reveals a disturbing complacency.They do not follow the Gandhian principle of duty to disobey. 2026 Regulations seek to end complacency and hold everyone involved accountable with a duty on the institution to ensure equity in procedural and substantive treatment, which was due for a long time. Institutional challenges and available resourcesWhile the 2026 Regulations mandate establishment of Equity Committee, Equity helpline, Equal Opportunity Centre, Ombudsperson in all UGC recognised institutions, the mandate of Equity Squads is vague and nature of their power and responsibilities are not well demarcated. This may be idealistic but in real terms creation of such an institutional infrastructure at all UGC recognised HEIs does not seem possible in near future. Hence, it is grounded on poor and instrumental compliance. Key takeawaysThe requirement of the Equal Opportunity Centre to coordinate with District Legal Service Authority and the Equity Committee to have two student representatives, one non-teaching staff member, and the representation of SC, ST, OBC, women, and Persons with Disabilities are welcome steps. The online portal could create a first line of evidence recording which otherwise remains invisible. The 2026 Regulations further keep the mandate of Equity Ambassador and ask for periodic meetings and publication of reports. Moreover, it seeks to empower students of marginalised communities and promote equity through workshops. Appeals, monitoring and consequences of noncompliance are clearly stated. These are more objective and better dispute settlement mechanisms.The UGC Equity Regulations, 2026 mark an innovative and radical step towards ensuring substantive equality in HEIs. However, they lack an objective framework at multiple levels, such as treating all OBCs as a homogeneous group, adopting a broad definition of discrimination that should be more precisely articulated in terms of professional relationships, and establishing a first-level accountability mechanism for academic staff.Existing institutional capacity requires a systemic overhaul, which does not appear feasible given funding constraints and other structural limitations, at least in the near future. Nevertheless, the normative framework of these regulations closely aligns with the constitutional vision of justice, dignity, and equality.In this sense, the challenge lies not in their intent, but in their careful calibration, precise drafting, and faithful implementation. The regulations also appear to cross the threshold laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India for being just, fair, and reasonable, with the goal of humanising university spaces by aspiring to make them more just, equitable, and inclusive through clearer, stricter, and more representative institutional accountability mechanisms.Aklavya Anand is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. Dr. Shailesh Kumar is a Lecturer in Law at the Department of Law & Criminology, Royal Holloway, University of London.