[Answered] Examine the efficacy of the UGC’s revised Equity Regulations in addressing caste-based discrimination in higher education. Evaluate the challenges of institutionalizing social justice while addressing concerns regarding potential misuse and its impact on the academic environment of higher education institutions

Introduction

India’s higher education system remains socially stratified; NCRB and Rohith–Payal cases show caste as a determinant of campus vulnerability, prompting UGC’s 2026 Equity Regulations to operationalise constitutional social justice mandates.

Normative–Constitutional Efficacy of the Revised Regulations

1. Constitutional Anchoring: The 2026 Regulations concretise Articles 14, 15(2), 15(4) and 46, shifting equality from formal non-discrimination to substantive equality, as endorsed in Indra Sawhney and Navtej Johar judgments.
2. Rights-Based Regulatory Architecture: Unlike the advisory 2012 framework, the new regime introduces enforceability through NAAC linkage, funding conditionality and UGC oversight—reflecting the Supreme Court’s insistence in Vineet Narain on institutional accountability.

Institutional Mechanisms for Addressing Caste-Based Discrimination

1. Equal Opportunity Centres (EOCs): EOCs act as nodal institutions for preventive governance, legal aid and inter-agency coordination—aligning with ARC-II’s recommendation on grievance redressal decentralisation.
2. Equity Committees & Squads:  Time-bound inquiries (24 hours–15 days) and campus vigilance reflect principles of responsive regulation and early-warning systems, crucial given IIT-Bombay and AIIMS case studies of delayed interventions.

Addressing Structural and Digital Forms of Discrimination

1. Recognition of Systemic Bias: By including micro-aggressions, viva-voce bias and exclusionary academic practices, the regulations acknowledge Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence in elite institutions.
2. Digital Discrimination Lens: Post-pandemic hybrid learning exposed algorithmic bias in attendance, evaluation and hostel allocation—an issue flagged by UNESCO’s 2023 “AI and Education” report, now normatively addressed.

Concerns of Misuse and Due Process Deficit

1. Vagueness and Over-Criminalisation: Critics argue undefined terms like “hostile environment” risk subjective enforcement, echoing earlier debates around misuse of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, highlighted in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan.
2. Absence of False Complaint Safeguards: The deletion of the ‘false complaint’ clause raises apprehensions of procedural imbalance, potentially violating principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem).

Impact on Academic Freedom and Meritocracy

1. Chilling Effect on Pedagogy: Faculty fear legitimate academic critique may be misconstrued as discrimination, threatening academic freedom—a core component of university autonomy recognised by the Kothari Commission.
2. Reconceptualising Merit: However, empirical studies (EPW, 2022) show “merit” often reflects socio-cultural capital, reinforcing the need to de-link meritocracy from caste privilege.

Balancing Social Justice with Institutional Fairness

1. Restorative Justice Framework: Adopting mediation, apology, counselling and institutional reform aligns with Howard Zehr’s restorative justice model, reducing adversarial litigation.
2. Capacity Building over Policing: Mandatory sensitisation, diversity audits and inclusion dashboards—as recommended by NITI Aayog’s Strategy for New India—can internalise equity norms sustainably.
3. Procedural Safeguards: Clear definitions, appellate mechanisms and independent ombudsmen can reconcile social justice with rule of law.

Conclusion

As Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noted, equality demands institutional empathy. The UGC regulations, if refined procedurally, can transform campuses into constitutional spaces of dignity, dialogue and democratic learning.