New Delhi. Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi has expressed sturdy objection to the University Grants Commission (UGC) Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026. They have raised questions about its scope, readability and selective enforcement, and warned that poorly drafted rules may improve tensions on college campuses.
Responding to the UGC’s January 2026 notification, MP Priyanka Chaturvedi raised considerations over unequal authorized safety on social media platform ‘X’. He wrote, “While caste discrimination of any kind on campus is wrong, India has seen students suffer its consequences. Shouldn’t the law be all-inclusive and guarantee protection to all? Why this discrimination in law enforcement?”
He additionally questioned the lack of safeguards towards abuse, asking, “What happens in false cases? How is one determined to be guilty? How is discrimination defined — by words, deeds or thought?” She mentioned, “The implementation of the law should be clear, accurate and uniform for all. Therefore, instead of creating a bad atmosphere on campus, I would urge that the UGC notification be either withdrawn or amended.”
UGC’s Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026 goals to strengthen anti-discrimination mechanisms in greater schooling establishments. These rules mandate the formation of fairness committees, equal alternative centres, helplines and monitoring squads in schools and universities.
He mentioned these outline discrimination broadly, encompassing overt acts in addition to implicit bias and systematic exclusion.
According to the UGC, these rules had been made in response to studies of a 118 % improve in discrimination complaints between 2019 and 2023, with a specific focus on defending Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.
However, there have been combined reactions to this notification. People from the normal class have criticized these rules, calling them a one-sided framework and arguing that there’s insufficient safety for the accused and that higher caste college students could also be unfairly focused.
On the different hand, supporters of these rules have described them as essential corrective measures to handle historic marginalization, and have burdened that these rules are not reverse discrimination. The rules additionally search to result in institutional accountability by inserting the duty on heads of establishments to handle complaints of harassment and guarantee compliance with the rules by means of common monitoring.