UGC’s equity regulations risk turning campuses into DEI laboratories that India can’t afford
The University Grants Commission’s Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, notified on January 13, arrives at a moment when the global experiment with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is visibly collapsing. These regulations mandate Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees chaired by vice-chancellors with reserved representation, 24/7 helplines, mobile Equity Squads patrolling campuses, demographic audits, and Equity Ambassadors in every department and hostel. Framed as a decisive intervention against caste discrimination faced by SCs, STs and OBCs, while loosely gesturing at gender, religion and disability, the intent appears noble. The design, however, is deeply troubling. What the UGC has proposed is not a modest reform but a sweeping bureaucratic architecture that closely resembles Western DEI frameworks, models that promised inclusion but instead delivered polarisation, litigation, and institutional paralysis. India is at risk of importing a failed ideological export at precisely the wrong moment. Globally, DEI is in retreat. In the United States, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, launched in May 2025, has begun probing race-based preferences in federally funded institutions under the False Claims Act. More than 35 major corporations, including Walmart, Ford, Meta and McDonald’s, have rolled back DEI programmes amid shareholder lawsuits, declining productivity, and internal unrest. High-profile scandals involving financial improprieties in DEI offices have further eroded credibility. Even Europe and parts of Asia have quietly moderated DEI rhetoric to avoid regulatory and commercial fallout, recognising that rigid identity frameworks often fracture diverse societies rather than heal them. The UGC’s regulations mirror precisely this flawed logic. By instituting enforcement squads, anonymous complaint mechanisms, punitive audits and grant-linked penalties, the Commission has moved far beyond its statutory remit under the UGC Act, 1956, which limits it to maintaining academic standards and coordination. These rules verge on executive and quasi-judicial overreach, particularly for state universities that require legislative adoption under India’s federal structure. Legal challenges are inevitable, and uneven enforcement across States could fracture the higher education system itself. More worrying is the asymmetry built into the framework. The regulations explicitly protect only certain categories, with no equivalent safeguards against false or malicious complaints. India has already witnessed the consequences of such imbalance under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, where courts have repeatedly intervened to curb misuse and restore due process. Anonymous complaints, “vulnerable area” patrols, and committee structures weighted by reservation invite grievance weaponisation. In a university setting, even unsubstantiated allegations can irreparably damage academic careers, reputations and mental health. The social consequences could be corrosive. Campuses thrive on trust, debate and informal interaction. A regime of constant monitoring risks converting universities into grievance factories, chilling speech, encouraging self-censorship, and hardening identity boundaries. Rather than reducing caste consciousness, institutionalising it through audits and reporting mechanisms may entrench precisely what constitutional jurisprudence has sought to dismantle. Articles 14 and 15 emphasise equality before law, while Indra Sawhney warned against permanent group entitlements disconnected from present disadvantage. The economic implications are no less serious. India’s demographic dividend depends on a globally competitive higher education ecosystem. Any perception, real or imagined, that merit is being diluted will accelerate brain drain, weaken flagship institutions, and deter research investment. Bureaucratised equity does not produce inclusion; it produces mediocrity. Equity cannot be enforced through permanent suspicion. It must be built through fair opportunity, due process, and universal capability-building. The UGC should pause implementation, pilot reforms transparently, restore symmetry in safeguards, and shift focus to needs-based assistance, academic mentoring, and institutional accountability, rather than identity policing. The world is already learning from DEI’s collapse. India would be wise not to repeat the experiment on its campuses. The UGC’s 2026 regulations risk not ending discrimination, but institutionalising distrust, at a time when the nation can least afford it.
The University Grants Commission’s Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, notified on January 13, arrives at a moment when the global experiment with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is visibly collapsing. These regulations mandate Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees chaired by vice-chancellors with reserved representation, 24/7 helplines, mobile Equity Squads patrolling campuses, demographic audits, and Equity Ambassadors in every department and hostel.
Framed as a decisive intervention against caste discrimination faced by SCs, STs and OBCs, while loosely gesturing at gender, religion and disability, the intent appears noble. The design, however, is deeply troubling.
What the UGC has proposed is not a modest reform but a sweeping bureaucratic architecture that closely resembles Western DEI frameworks, models that promised inclusion but instead delivered polarisation, litigation, and institutional paralysis. India is at risk of importing a failed ideological export at precisely the wrong moment.
Globally, DEI is in retreat. In the United States, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, launched in May 2025, has begun probing race-based preferences in federally funded institutions under the False Claims Act. More than 35 major corporations, including Walmart, Ford, Meta and McDonald’s, have rolled back DEI programmes amid shareholder lawsuits, declining productivity, and internal unrest. High-profile scandals involving financial improprieties in DEI offices have further eroded credibility. Even Europe and parts of Asia have quietly moderated DEI rhetoric to avoid regulatory and commercial fallout, recognising that rigid identity frameworks often fracture diverse societies rather than heal them.
The UGC’s regulations mirror precisely this flawed logic. By instituting enforcement squads, anonymous complaint mechanisms, punitive audits and grant-linked penalties, the Commission has moved far beyond its statutory remit under the UGC Act, 1956, which limits it to maintaining academic standards and coordination. These rules verge on executive and quasi-judicial overreach, particularly for state universities that require legislative adoption under India’s federal structure. Legal challenges are inevitable, and uneven enforcement across States could fracture the higher education system itself.
More worrying is the asymmetry built into the framework. The regulations explicitly protect only certain categories, with no equivalent safeguards against false or malicious complaints. India has already witnessed the consequences of such imbalance under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, where courts have repeatedly intervened to curb misuse and restore due process. Anonymous complaints, “vulnerable area” patrols, and committee structures weighted by reservation invite grievance weaponisation. In a university setting, even unsubstantiated allegations can irreparably damage academic careers, reputations and mental health.
The social consequences could be corrosive. Campuses thrive on trust, debate and informal interaction. A regime of constant monitoring risks converting universities into grievance factories, chilling speech, encouraging self-censorship, and hardening identity boundaries. Rather than reducing caste consciousness, institutionalising it through audits and reporting mechanisms may entrench precisely what constitutional jurisprudence has sought to dismantle. Articles 14 and 15 emphasise equality before law, while Indra Sawhney warned against permanent group entitlements disconnected from present disadvantage.
The economic implications are no less serious. India’s demographic dividend depends on a globally competitive higher education ecosystem. Any perception, real or imagined, that merit is being diluted will accelerate brain drain, weaken flagship institutions, and deter research investment. Bureaucratised equity does not produce inclusion; it produces mediocrity.
Equity cannot be enforced through permanent suspicion. It must be built through fair opportunity, due process, and universal capability-building. The UGC should pause implementation, pilot reforms transparently, restore symmetry in safeguards, and shift focus to needs-based assistance, academic mentoring, and institutional accountability, rather than identity policing.
The world is already learning from DEI’s collapse. India would be wise not to repeat the experiment on its campuses. The UGC’s 2026 regulations risk not ending discrimination, but institutionalising distrust, at a time when the nation can least afford it.
