The University Grants Commission (UGC) equity regulations, designed to combat caste-based discrimination in higher education, are facing significant opposition and have been stayed by the Supreme Court. The rules aim to protect students from bias based on caste, religion, race, gender, place of birth, or disability. However, a backlash from students in the ‘general category,’ primarily from upper castes, has emerged, with concerns that the regulations are too vague and could lead to false accusations. Students from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) argue that caste bias persists on campuses and these regulations are vital for addressing it.
Caste Discrimination Persists on Campus
Students from marginalized communities report experiencing subtle yet impactful caste-based discrimination. Examples include educators asking students to stand at a distance or making dismissive remarks about their academic potential based on their background. These incidents, though often not overt, create a mentally exhausting environment for affected students.
Gangasagar Nishad, a PhD scholar at Lucknow University, believes the UGC regulations would deter discriminatory practices. He recounts scoring highest in a PhD entrance test but receiving low marks in the interview, suspecting caste bias. Nishad, from an OBC community, states that interviews are subjective and can be influenced by faculty biases.
Das, a Delhi University student, experienced her family name change to hide their caste identity. She faced casteist remarks from peers and a professor who linked food habits to caste. Her attempts to engage in campus politics were also met with resistance, which she links to caste bias.
Opposition to UGC Regulations
The UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, have sparked controversy. Opponents argue that the definition of discrimination is unclear and that there is no mechanism to address false complaints. A circulated video claiming an incident at Shri Ram College of Commerce was debunked by the college, highlighting the charged atmosphere around the regulations.
The Supreme Court’s stay on the regulations means students continue to face potential discrimination without immediate regulatory recourse. Scholars and students from SC, ST, and OBC categories emphasize that bias manifests in interviews, grading, disciplinary actions, and daily campus life, even if not always explicit.
Impact on Academic and Social Life
Reports from Lucknow University, Delhi University, and others indicate that discrimination, though evolving in form, continues to affect students’ academic progress and social integration. Academic achievements of students from historically marginalized backgrounds are sometimes dismissed with comments attributing their success to affirmative action rather than merit.
Rajesh Kumar Yadav, a PhD scholar at MGAHV Wardha, described discrimination occurring through administrative procedures like attendance manipulation and delayed research approvals. He claims punitive actions were taken against SC, ST, and OBC students for participation in protests, while procedures were bypassed.
Manish Kumar, a PhD scholar at Allahabad University, called discrimination ‘structural and routine.’ He stated that assertive students from marginalized communities face harsher treatment. Kumar experienced a suspension that was later revoked by the Allahabad High Court.
Student Protests and Future Actions
Following the Supreme Court’s stay, student groups have initiated protests, advocating for the implementation of UGC equity regulations. They argue these rules are essential for improving complaint systems and addressing caste bias effectively.
Concerns remain about the effectiveness of past regulations and the composition of inquiry committees. Some students also point out that resource shortages are often masked by debates over reservation policies, diverting attention from systemic issues.