UGC’s Equity Regulations: Its History, Implementation, and Institutional Failure

For the last three days, I have repeatedly come across one thing on social media as well as in printed media: UGC.

What is UGC? UGC stands for the University Grants Commission, the statutory body responsible for regulating and maintaining standards of higher education in India. Recently, UGC proposed the Promotion of Equity Regulations, 2026, which has now become a topic of national debate.

The 2026 Promotion of Equity Regulations places a clear responsibility on universities by mandating Equal Opportunity Centers, shifting equity from a moral idea to an administrative duty. By introducing equity committees with monitoring powers, the regulations attempt to ensure that discrimination is addressed institutionally rather than through informal or selective responses. A key shift is from complaint-driven action to preventive responsibility, where universities are expected to identify and reduce structural inequities before harm occurs. This framework has the potential to reduce the burden on students who are often required to repeatedly justify their experiences of discrimination. However, the real impact of these rules will depend on procedural clarity, fairness in implementation, and the ability of institutions to balance equity with due process.

After reading this, I felt the need to go deeper and understand UGC itself. The roots of UGC go back to the pre-independence period. In 1945, the Sargent Report laid the foundation for a regulated higher education system in India, focusing on both academic structure and financial support. This report clearly recognized that higher education could not be left unregulated if the country wanted social and economic progress.

In 1953, the University Grants Commission was officially established by the Government of India, and in 1956, it was given legal status through the UGC Act. From that point onwards, UGC became responsible for funding, regulation, and quality control of universities and colleges across the country.

Fast forward to 2006, when the 93rd Constitutional Amendment Act came into effect. This amendment strengthened reservation policies for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes in centrally funded institutions like IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, and NITs. This was a major step towards inclusion, at least on paper.

The core role of UGC since then has been to ensure that higher education institutions follow reservation norms: 15% for Scheduled Castes and 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes. To support this, UGC mandated the formation of Equal Opportunity Cells and SC/ST Cells in universities and colleges. These bodies were meant to support students, ensure proper implementation of reservation policies, and address discrimination on campuses.

But like every coin has two sides, the same thing happened with UGC guidelines and policies. Between 2019 and 2024, cases related to caste discrimination on campuses reportedly increased by around 118 percent. This increase reflects hostel isolation, academic harassment, social exclusion, and bias against SC and ST students in campus placements. These experiences are shared quietly by many students but rarely acknowledged openly by institutions.

The real issue is not whether policies exist. The real issue is implementation. Many universities have been slow or reluctant to fully implement UGC guidelines, which directly reduces transparency. Committees exist on paper, but not in spirit. Reports are delayed. Complaints are discouraged. This failure is not about the intent of reservation or equity, but about the unwillingness of institutions to hold themselves accountable.

Why is this hurting people so much? Because under UGC guidelines, if a case is registered, the institution is required to submit a clear report within a span of thirty days. This requirement has changed working systems in many places and forced administrations to act. Accountability makes institutions uncomfortable, and that discomfort is often projected as “overreach” or “misuse.”

But does this mean UGC is favoring any particular community? Absolutely not. The reality is far more painful. We have lost the lives of more than 114 students from top institutions like IITs and IIMs over the years. These are not random numbers. These are young lives lost in spaces that are supposed to represent the best of Indian education.

“We have lost the lives of more than 114 students from top institutions like IITs and IIMs over the years.”

Yet, some groups continue to spread narratives that laws are being misused. Such narratives do not come from evidence; they come from discomfort with accountability.

This debate is not about favoring one community over another. It is not about creating fear or targeting anyone. It is about acknowledging that discrimination exists, that previous guidelines were poorly implemented, and that institutions must be held accountable in a structured manner. The Promotion of Equity Regulations is not perfect, and it does raise questions about procedural clarity and due process. But rejecting it without understanding UGC’s history, intent, and data only delays the conversation we should have had decades ago.