Uproar intensifies against new UGC equity regulations
Opposition to the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) new regulations to promote equity on higher education campuses intensified on Monday, January 26, 2026; Critics questioned the 2026 rules’ definition of “caste-based discrimination” and alleged that they were biased against “general category” students by failing to provide safeguards against “false complaints”.
Mrityunjay Tiwari, a postdoctoral researcher at Banaras Hindu University in Uttar Pradesh, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equality in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2026. His lawyer Neeraj Singh said: Hindu“We are trying to raise the issue in court tomorrow (Tuesday).”
Political opposition to the regulations also increased. Rajya Sabha MP Priyanka Chaturvedi took to social media to call for the regulations to be “withdrawn or amended where necessary”. He asked whether the provisions should be “comprehensive and provide equal protection to everyone” and continued: “So why this discrimination in the application of the law? What happens in case of false accusations? How will criminality be determined? How should discrimination be defined by word, deed, perception?”
Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Janata Party MLC Devendra Pratap Singh wrote to the UGC, saying it “should not be concerned with making general category students feel unsafe but with protecting discrimination against Dalits and backward class students”. “Framed regulations may widen the caste-centric divide and disrupt social balance,” he wrote in the letter, adding that equality is necessary but should not marginalize any section of students.
Student groups also joined the opposition. The student union of Kumaun University in Nainital, Uttarakhand, submitted a letter to the UGC stating that the regulations were against the “principle of natural justice”. In a letter sent through the University Vice-Chancellor, the student union said that these regulations could upset the “balance” on university campuses and create an environment of “fear and mistrust”, which could potentially lead to “abuse” of the regulations.
Amid mounting criticism, Nishikant Dubey, BJP MP from Jharkhand, said on social media that “all misconceptions” about the new regulations will be cleared soon, adding that it was the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Government that introduced a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) among “poor Savarnas”. “As long as Modi ji is there, no harm will come to the children of the upper castes,” he said.
The UGC published the 2026 regulations on January 13, updating the 2012 regulations on the same subject. The revised rules defined “caste-based discrimination” as discrimination against members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes “solely on the basis of caste or tribe” and further removed the provision on penalties for false complaints that was present in a draft circulated in 2025.
These are among the main issues raised by opponents of regulation, arguing that the definition excludes students from the general category. They also said this would create a presumption of guilt against them.
However, even as backlash against the regulations intensified, some anti-caste activists argued that the new regulations did not strongly enough protect Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes from the discrimination they faced.
Nethrapal, a serving IRS officer, expressed this position in a thread titled “X”, saying that the 2026 regulations are missing certain types of discrimination that SC, ST and OBC students face during certain higher education processes such as admission, interviews and oral exams. He also alleged that omnibus equality committees cannot adequately address certain discriminations faced by SC/ST students.
But Mr. Tiwari, in his petition to the Supreme Court, argued that this definition was based on an “untenable presumption” that caste-based discrimination is one-way, adding that “by design and implementation” the definition “makes legal recognition of victimization available to certain reserved categories” by excluding general or upper castes from protection “from the discrimination to which they are subjected”.
Meanwhile, Bareilly City Magistrate Alank Agnihotri, 2019 batch Provincial Services Officer, resigned on Monday, January 26, 2026, citing dissatisfaction with UGC regulations, even as nearly a dozen local BJP members in Lucknow tendered their resignation from the party.
It was published – 26 January 2026 23:22 IST
