The University Grants Commission’s newly notified Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026 carries an objective that few can oppose: Indian campuses must be free from discrimination and indignity. These regulations also respond to long-standing concerns expressed by the Supreme Court about the absence of effective institutional mechanisms to protect vulnerable students and staff. That intent deserves respect.
But good intentions are not enough. The real test of any regulation lies in its design, balance, and constitutional soundness.
Justice, to be durable, must feel fair. Fairness in a democracy rests on due process, equality before law, and procedural balance. The unease many academics and legal observers express today is not about the goal of equity, but about the architecture through which it is being pursued.
One concern is definitional. If regulatory frameworks appear to recognise discrimination primarily in one direction, they risk departing from the broader constitutional promise of equality under Article 14, which protects every individual from arbitrary treatment. Universities are complex social ecosystems. A grievance mechanism must be capable of recognising injustice wherever it arises, not only where it is presumed to arise.
DON'T MISS
The second concern is procedural. The regulations do not sufficiently articulate safeguards against false or motivated complaints, nor do they adequately protect individuals from reputational harm before findings are reached. This is not a minor technical flaw. Academic life is built on trust: between teacher and student, mentor and mentee, colleagues who disagree. When fear of procedure replaces trust, mentorship weakens, dialogue shrinks, and institutional culture suffers.
There is also a larger legal question. The UGC is a statutory body under the UGC Act, 1956, tasked primarily with coordinating and maintaining standards in higher education. When regulations begin to resemble quasi-adjudicatory frameworks, impose reputational consequences, or reshape rights without robust procedural protections, they invite scrutiny on grounds of proportionality and mandate. Delegated authority, however noble its purpose, cannot travel beyond constitutional limits.
None of this is an argument for weaker protection of vulnerable groups. It is an argument for better protection through stronger fairness. Clear safeguards against misuse, defined evidentiary standards, trained and neutral inquiry committees, confidentiality until findings, and credible appeal mechanisms would strengthen these regulations, not dilute them.
Indian universities are not merely administrative spaces. They are communities where young people learn, often unconsciously, what fairness, authority, and justice look like in practice. The frameworks that govern them therefore shape not only behaviour, but values. If equity is pursued with balance, transparency, and due process, it will strengthen trust in institutions. If it is pursued through procedures perceived as imbalanced, it risks weakening that trust. For reforms of this importance to succeed, they must carry not only moral intent, but also procedural credibility.
Contributed by: Kunwar Shekhar Vijendra, Chancellor of Shobhit University and Chairman, National Council on Education, ASSOCHAM. He writes on higher education, public policy, and institutional governance.
