By Prof. (Dr) Hitesh D RaviyaEquity Regulations 2026When the University Grants Commission notified the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, it signalled a decisive shift in how Indian universities are expected to deal with discrimination. Equity is no longer framed as an ethical aspiration or a welfare concern. It is now a binding institutional obligation with timelines, reporting duties, and penalties. For a sector long accused of ignoring structural exclusion, this intervention appears overdue. Yet the breadth and intensity of the framework raise important questions about implementation, institutional autonomy, and campus culture.Equity moves from intent to enforceable dutyThe most consequential change introduced by the 2026 regulations is the transformation of equity from a stated value into an enforceable duty. Every higher education institution is explicitly required to eradicate discrimination and actively promote equity among students, faculty, and staff. The language is unambiguous. No institution may permit or ignore discriminatory practices, and responsibility is fixed squarely on the head of the institution.This marks a departure from earlier frameworks where equity cells often existed only to satisfy formal requirements. By making the institutional leadership directly accountable, the regulations aim to correct a long-standing gap between policy and practice. The shift recognises that discrimination persists not merely because of individual prejudice, but because institutions fail to intervene decisively. However, it also places enormous pressure on administrators who may lack training or resources to handle complex social conflicts.An elaborate architecture that risks bureaucratic overloadThe regulations mandate an extensive internal structure: Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees, Equity Helplines, Equity Squads, and Equity Ambassadors across departments, hostels, and facilities. This distributed system is designed to ensure that discrimination is detected early and addressed swiftly, even in informal campus spaces where oversight has traditionally been weak.While the intention is comprehensive coverage, the risk is bureaucratic inflation. Many institutions, particularly small colleges, may struggle to staff multiple bodies meaningfully. There is also the danger that committees become symbolic, focused on documentation rather than resolution. Equity requires credibility and trust, not merely organisational charts. Without careful integration into existing governance systems, the architecture may overwhelm institutions instead of empowering them.Speedy grievance redressal versus procedural fairnessOne of the strongest features of the regulations is the emphasis on time bound action. Equity Committees are expected to meet within twenty four hours of receiving information, complete inquiries within fifteen working days, and trigger institutional action within a week thereafter. For complainants who have historically faced delays and silence, this urgency represents a significant improvement.However, discrimination cases are rarely straightforward. They involve power relations, contextual behaviour, and subjective experiences that require careful examination. If institutions prioritise speed over due process, decisions may appear arbitrary or biased, inviting further conflict. The regulations assume a level of procedural competence that is uneven across the higher education system. Without systematic training in inquiry methods and principles of natural justice, quick timelines may compromise fairness.Transparency through reporting, with privacy concernsMandatory biannual reporting is another major innovation. Institutions must publicly disclose demographic composition, student dropout rates, complaints received under the regulations, and their current status. This move pushes equity into the realm of measurable outcomes rather than rhetorical commitment. Patterns of exclusion that were previously hidden can now be scrutinised by stakeholders.Yet transparency carries risks. Demographic data and complaint statistics can expose vulnerable groups if not handled carefully, especially in smaller institutions. There is also the temptation for universities to manage appearances by underreporting or reclassifying grievances. Transparency is effective only when paired with ethical data governance and independent oversight. Otherwise, reporting may become another exercise in compliance without genuine accountability.Strong penalties and the culture of fearThe enforcement provisions give the regulations their sharpest edge. Non-compliant institutions may face severe consequences, including exclusion from funding schemes, loss of permission to run degree programmes, and removal from recognised lists. These are not symbolic sanctions. They threaten institutional survival.Such deterrence may be necessary in a system where earlier advisories were routinely ignored. At the same time, excessive fear can distort behaviour. Universities may adopt defensive strategies, prioritising risk avoidance over open dialogue. Faculty and administrators might treat equity as a legal hazard rather than a shared responsibility. A culture driven primarily by fear rarely produces deep social change.The real challenge is cultural transformationUltimately, the success of the 2026 regulations will not be determined by the number of committees formed or reports uploaded. It will depend on whether institutions internalise equity as part of their academic mission. Rules can compel action, but they cannot manufacture empathy or trust.Universities must invest in training, counselling support, and continuous dialogue alongside compliance. Equity Ambassadors and Squads must be seen as sources of support, not surveillance. Leaders must balance firmness with fairness, and transparency with confidentiality. If implemented thoughtfully, the regulations could mark a turning point in campus governance. If reduced to box ticking, they risk deepening mistrust.In the coming months, universities will be judged not by how quickly they announce new committees, but by how sensitively they handle their first serious cases under the regulations. Early decisions will set precedents and shape campus perception. If students experience protection without intimidation, and faculty experience fairness without presumption of guilt, confidence in the system will grow. If, instead, the process feels opaque or punitive, resistance will harden. The regulations offer a framework, not a guarantee. They demand maturity, ethical leadership, and institutional courage. Indian higher education now stands at a crossroads where equity can become either a lived reality or another administrative slogan. The difference will be made not in gazette notifications, but in everyday academic life. The moment calls for wisdom, restraint, and commitment beyond compliance, ensuring justice strengthens learning, not fear.The author Prof Hitesh D. Raviya, Ph.D., Associate Dean, Faculty of Arts; Professor and Head, Department of English; Chairperson, Board of English Language and Literature; Principal (OSD), Baroda Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya; Director, Communication Cell; and OSD. (Public Relations and Communication), The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara, Gujarat, India.DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author and ETEDUCATION does not necessarily subscribe to it. ETEDUCATION will not be responsible for any damage caused to any person or organisation directly or indirectly.
Published On Feb 11, 2026 at 12:55 PM IST
Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals.
Subscribe to Newsletter to get latest insights & analysis in your inbox.
All about ETEducation industry right on your smartphone!
