Tag: University Grants Commission

‘UGC Had Laid A Minefield For Gen Category Students Where Any Word Was Potential Lawsuit’

By Lokmarg

Nikhil Shulka, a postgraduate student from Lucknow University, says the stay on the UGC Rules by Supreme Court rekindles hope on the campus in these polarized times. His views:

The Supreme Court stay on the discriminatory UGC rules 2026 reaffirms a simple, powerful truth: Equality cannot be achieved by institutionalizing inequality. We welcome it because it protects the innocent from malicious prosecution. We welcome it because it gives the country a chance to craft a policy that truly unites us as students of India, rather than dividing us into caste conflicts. The SC has suspended a regressive set of rules and it is now up to the policymakers to chart a progressive, inclusive path forward.

The apex court has tried to preserve of the university as a space of learning. General Category students want to study, compete, and succeed based on merit. They do not want to spend their college years navigating a minefield of identity politics where every word is a potential lawsuit. The SC’s stay is seen as a defence of the academic environment itself—preventing it from becoming a courtroom of historical grievances.

The stay of the SC is also an opportunity to redraft the laws. The demand is simple – make the laws caste-neutral. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of who does it to whom. A Brahmin bullying a Dalit is wrong. A group of Dalits bullying a Brahmin is also wrong. The law must penalize the act of bullying/discrimination, not the identity of the actors. We expect the UGC to come back in March with a “re-modulated” draft that removes Clause 3(c) or expands it to include all students.

This episode has been a political awakening for the General Category youth. The silence of the political class has taught them that they cannot rely on traditional party loyalties. The swift legal victory has shown the power of judicial activism and community organization.

The General Category student body is now more vigilant. Any future attempt to sneak in exclusionary clauses will be met with immediate legal challenges. The trust in the system is shaken, but the trust in the Constitution (and the Supreme Court as its guardian) is strengthened.

General Category students have felt that their concerns about reverse discrimination were dismissed by the intelligentsia as privileged whining. The SC’s observation that the rules could divide society and were vague is a judicial acknowledgment that these fears were grounded in reality. The Court effectively said that you cannot protect one group by stripping rights from another.

This principle—that equity does not mean retribution—is the cornerstone of the General Category’s position. With the stay, the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ mechanism is paused. The immediate threat of summary suspension without due process is gone. General Category students feel that their right to a fair hearing—a right afforded even to terrorists like Kasab—has been preserved. They are no longer ‘worse than Kasab’ in the eyes of the law, at least for now.

The Pre-Judgment phase was a dark period characterized by the fear of misuse, and the Post-Judgment phase brings relief, not because the struggle against discrimination has ended, but because the highest court has affirmed that this struggle must be inclusive, fair, and constitutional.

As told to Rajat Rai

‘UGC Rules 2026 Are Rooted in the Basic Tenets of Our Constitution’

By Lokmarg

Dr Nisheeth Rai, faculty, department of anthropology, Mahatma Gandhi International Hindi University in Maharashtra, offers an objective analysis of new UGC rules with facts and stats.

UGC Rules 2026 have sparked an acrimonious debate amid a polarized academic ecosystem. To make matters worse there are narratives in social media which seek to project a dystopian and draconian scenario if these rules are imposed. At its core, the new rules are merely administrative guidelines intended to operationalize the Constitution within campus boundaries. Allow me to explain.

First, it should be clear that these regulations are neither a drastic law nor a charge-sheet against a specific community; these are a compliance measure rooted in the highest law of the land. The objective aligns directly with Article 14 (Equality before the Law) and Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. The regulations do not stand outside the Constitution; rather firmly within it. The outrage often stems from a selective reading of the Constitution—embraced when it offers privilege, and rejected when it demands accountability.

There are also some misconceptions that have aroused with, what I believe, by miscalculation and misinterpretation. A primary justification for these new rules has been the reported 118.4% increase in discrimination cases from 2019-20 to 2023-24. While this percentage is statistically accurate, a deeper analysis is required to understand the ground reality and it goes as follows. The raw numbers show an increase from 173 complaints to 378 complaints. When viewed against the backdrop of India’s higher education sector, which houses approximately 4.33 crore students, these 378 complaints represent less than 0.03% of the student population—less than one complaint per 10,000 students.

Critics argue that the fundamental rights of crores of students should not be compromised for such a minute percentage, but from the government’s perspective, even a single instance of discrimination is a constitutional failure. Furthermore, the rise in numbers likely reflects better reporting mechanisms, such as the e-Samadhan portal, rather than a sudden spike in criminality. The challenge lies in addressing these specific cases without creating a blanket atmosphere of suspicion.

Second, much of the panic revolves around the 10-member Equity Committee where a narrative has been constructed that the General Category has been “erased” from this body. However, this fear is mathematically and technically unfounded. While the regulations mandate representation for SC, ST, and OBC members, along with women and persons with disabilities, the intersectionality is often ignored. A woman or a person with a disability can belong to the General category and furthermore, the unreserved seats remain open. The “math” is simple, but in the current political climate, simplicity is overshadowed by the fear of losing traditional hegemony.

While the intent is noble, the mechanics of the regulation raise valid administrative concerns. The regulations impose strict timelines for resolving complaints, with the implicit threat of funding cuts or loss of recognition for non-compliance. This creates immense institutional pressure and to save the institution’s reputation and secure funding, college administrations may opt for “summary justice.”

There also lies a genuine risk – that vice-chancellors and principals, fearing administrative backlash, might punish an accused student quickly rather than conducting a fair, time-consuming investigation. This rush to judgment may bypass the nuance required in sensitive interpersonal conflicts. Thus, a significant point of friction is the provision for immediate action against the accused. It is also being argued that opposing immediate punishment weakens the law, but a distinction must be drawn between security and punishment. While security measures like restraining orders, hostel changes, or monitoring are essential to protect the victim during an investigation, a punishment like suspending a student before an inquiry is complete treats them as guilty until proven innocent.

This approach risks violating the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a case where the Court observed that action without inquiry can violate personal liberty. Furthermore, in another case, the Court warned against automatic arrests, stating that checks and balances are essential to prevent the law from becoming a weapon of harassment. The new UGC rules, in their current draft, seem to skirt these vital judicial guardrails. Thus, the two critical gaps in the regulations (Removal of Safeguards and Scope of Protection) require government attention to ensure the law is truly balanced.

The regulations are a necessary step toward a more inclusive academic environment and the government is right to challenge the status quo where privilege often masks discrimination. However, for these regulations to be truly effective and fair, they must be refined to restore safeguards against false complaints, ensure preliminary inquiries before suspension, and broadening the scope of protection will not weaken the law—it will strengthen the government’s credibility.

As told to Rajat Rai