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