Union Training Minister Dharmendra Pradhan spoke to the media on the problem of the UGC Fairness laws for the primary time on 27 January 2026. Pradhan sought to guarantee the folks that nobody can be harassed and nobody can be allowed to misuse the UGC tips for ‘fairness’.
That nonetheless does little to repel the widespread fears of their misuse towards the ‘Common Castes’ just because the notification launched on 13 January is obvious that solely the scholars belonging to the SC, ST and OBC communities can declare they had been subjected to “caste-based discrimination”.
For the Training Ministry and the UGC, the rules signify a significant lapse of judgment and the most important controversy associated to their division since 2014.
Dharmendra Pradhan additionally added in his remarks that the present system has arisen out of a course of overseen by the Supreme Courtroom itself. Nevertheless, the present tips weren’t inevitable. The truth is, the UGC itself had provide you with a unique draft of the rules in February 2025.
The case
The UGC Fairness Laws 2026 hint their origins to the deaths of two college students, Rohith Vemula in 2016 and Payal Tadvi in 2019. In each instances, the households of the deceased alleged that they dedicated suicide after being subjected to caste-based discrimination.
In August 2019, Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi—the moms of Rohith and Payal—filed a Public Curiosity Litigation (PIL) within the Supreme Courtroom of India asking that academic establishments put in place anti-discrimination measures.
The petition was represented by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising together with advocates Prasanna S. and Disha Wadekar.
In keeping with studies sympathetic to the petitioners, the PIL didn’t demand fully new laws; as an alternative, it sought strict enforcement of the prevailing College Grants Fee (Promotion of Fairness in Larger Instructional Establishments) Laws, 2012. These guidelines required universities to determine Equal Alternative Cells to deal with complaints of discrimination, notably towards Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) college students.
The petitioners highlighted alleged caste bias in admissions, evaluations, hostel allotments, and campus life, coupled with what they claimed was the near-total failure to implement the 2012 framework—no significant monitoring, sparse Equal Alternative Cells, and nil integration with accreditation our bodies like NAAC.
The Supreme Courtroom issued notices in 2019, however the matter languished till January 2025, when Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan rebuked the UGC for non-compliance and demanded knowledge on cells, complaints, and actions. In response, the UGC indicated it was drafting up to date laws.
The 2025 tips
By February 2025, it launched the College Grants Fee (Promotion of Fairness in Larger Training Establishments) Laws, 2025 draft for public session.
This doc stands out as a balanced and pragmatic effort in accommodating the considerations of petitioners whereas not permitting caste identities and divisions to turn out to be the dominant motif of Indian academic establishments.
Removed from a radical overhaul some feared, the draft struck a cautious steadiness between strengthening protections and preserving institutional autonomy, equity, and due course of for all events.
The February 2025 draft retained the core give attention to caste-based discrimination towards SC/ST college students, aligning immediately with the PIL’s emphasis with out increasing into unrelated classes in a sweeping method.
It modernized language by defining discrimination as “unfair, differential, or biased therapy” based mostly on caste or tribe identification. Whereas critics decried this as vaguer than the 2012 guidelines’ detailed record of prohibited acts (resembling breaching quotas, biased grading, or segregation in messes), the streamlined phrasing really allowed flexibility for establishments to interpret and apply the rule contextually, lowering the danger of overly legalistic paralysis.
A very wise characteristic was the introduction of penalties for demonstrably false or malicious complaints. The draft said that anybody submitting a false declare of discrimination may face a advantageous decided by the Fairness Committee.
This provision was not punitive towards real victims however a mandatory safeguard towards abuse—a standard concern in grievance mechanisms worldwide. In environments the place private rivalries, educational competitors, or factionalism can color perceptions, such a deterrent helps protect credibility and prevents the system from being weaponised, guaranteeing assets stay targeted on actual cases of bias.
The draft’s method to ‘fairness committee’ composition, although criticized, mirrored pragmatic realism. Fairness Committees had been to be chaired by the pinnacle of the establishment (a typical governance follow to make sure accountability on the prime) and embrace roughly ten members, with not less than one from an SC or ST background.
The construction inspired broad stakeholder inclusion—school, college students, and administrative employees—fostering collective duty fairly than adversarial silos.
Importantly, the draft prevented the temptation to impose one-sided penalties on alleged perpetrators with out due inquiry. It emphasised procedural equity: complaints could be investigated by the committee, with alternatives for each side to current proof.
This mirrored ideas of pure justice enshrined in Indian legislation, stopping hasty punishments that might break careers or reputations on unproven allegations.
The absence of computerized extreme sanctions (suspension, expulsion, or felony referral) for each grievance mirrored a measured method—prioritizing decision, mediation, and reform over retribution.
The draft inspired consciousness packages, sensitization workshops, and annual reporting on fairness measures, laying groundwork for cultural change with out micromanaging campuses. It additionally preserved institutional discretion in dealing with delicate issues, recognising that universities differ broadly in measurement, location, and tradition.
By not imposing inflexible, uniform constructions (resembling obligatory half-SC/ST/OBC committees or computerized appeals to nationwide commissions at each stage), the draft prevented overburdening smaller establishments whereas nonetheless creating enforceable obligations.
Total, the February 2025 draft represented a mature response to a delicate challenge. It accommodated the PIL’s calls for for stronger mechanisms with out discarding ideas of equality earlier than the legislation. It protected weak college students whereas incorporating checks towards misuse, guaranteeing the system would command legitimacy throughout communities. In a polarized discourse, this draft managed to be preventive with out being punitive, inclusive with out being exclusionary, and forward-looking with out being utopian.
Many observers, even amongst critics, acknowledged that—with refinements based mostly on the 391 public strategies obtained—it may have turn out to be a mannequin for anti-discrimination coverage in schooling.
But this promise unraveled dramatically.
Off the rails
The petitioners protested the February 2025 draft and in a September 15, 2025, Supreme Courtroom listening to, Indira Jaising pressed for ten core reforms, together with: grievance committees with substantial marginalized illustration and grant withdrawal for non-compliance. The bench set an eight-week deadline for finalisation, warning it might study any main omissions.
When the ultimate UGC (Promotion of Fairness in Larger Training Establishments) Laws, 2026 had been gazetted on January 13, 2026, the shift was stark.
It included a number of of Jaising’s factors—bans on discrimination with debarment powers (Part 11), express anti-segregation clauses (Part 7(d)), various Fairness Committee illustration together with OBCs/PwDs/ladies (Part 5(7)), confidentiality and anti-retaliation safeguards, institutional head duties (Part 4(3)), obligatory counseling (Part 7(f)), and proactive Fairness Squads and Ambassadors—whereas abandoning the 2025 draft’s steadiness.
Crucially, the ultimate model narrowed “caste-based discrimination” to acts solely towards SCs, STs, and OBCs, creating uneven protections. Common class people lack equal safeguards towards potential misuse. The draft’s safeguard towards false complaints vanished fully. This one-sided tilt dangers encouraging vexatious claims, undermining due course of, and alienating massive sections of the tutorial group.
Nationwide outrage ensued, with critics labeling the foundations divisive and constitutionally suspect for violating equal therapy.
The February 2025 draft confirmed the Training Ministry and UGC may craft wise, non-discriminatory coverage. The post-September pivot—whether or not by way of capitulation, strain, or inside missteps—produced a framework that prioritizes selective enforcement over common equity.
What started as a mandatory reform has turn out to be a cautionary story of misplaced alternative, turning fairness into division. True justice in schooling calls for protections that bind everybody equally—not devices that erode the very precept they declare to uphold.
