UGC’s new regulations on equity in higher education are intended to restrict caste-based bias on campuses. The objective is necessary and long overdue. However, in practice, many general-category students argue that the framework tilts unevenly and lacks basic protections. Critics point out that while the rules explicitly prioritize historically disadvantaged groups in investigations, they contain no safeguards against false or malicious allegations, nor any guidance on filtering out complaints driven by personal vendettas, academic rivalry, or non-caste disputes. A draft proposal to penalize false complaints was ultimately removed, leaving the system without any restriction against misuse.
As a result, anxiety among general-category students has grown noticeably. Across campuses and online spaces, students have expressed fear that the rules may operate unfairly. A recurring concern is that false complaints can be filed without consequence, creating a climate of uncertainty. Student groups have also highlighted that Equity Committees include mandatory representation from protected categories but offer no guaranteed representation for the general category. This structural imbalance has reinforced perceptions of a one-sided process, where the accused is often viewed as guilty by default once a complaint is made.
The procedural design of the regulations further deepens these concerns. Complaints are required to be acted upon rapidly, with committees convening within hours and reports expected within days. While speed can benefit genuine victims, the combination of tight timelines and broad definitions of “discrimination” leaves little room for careful fact-finding or contextual assessment. More troubling is the absence of interim protections for the accused. There is no provision for confidentiality during inquiries, no counselling support, and no clear mechanism to repair reputational damage if an allegation is eventually found to be baseless. Even the initiation of an inquiry can have lasting psychological, academic, and professional consequences in close-knit campus environments.
Without checks on false allegations, innocent students face severe fallout. Allegations alone can lead to social exclusion, academic disruption, suspended opportunities, and intense mental stress. In some cases, students may even face criminal scrutiny under related legal provisions during the inquiry process. Since filing a complaint carries little risk for the complainant, but defending against one can derail a career, the system places disproportionate costs on the accused.
Legal and constitutional observers argue that such imbalances conflict with basic principles of fairness and natural justice. Broad and vague definitions, combined with the absence of penalties for bad-faith complaints, make it possible to weaponize identity-based rules to settle non-caste disputes. Appeals mechanisms offer limited relief, as they focus on procedural correctness rather than undoing the damage caused during the inquiry itself. Even when a student is cleared, stigma, lost opportunities, and emotional harm often remain unaddressed.
At present, institutions lack clear guidance on protecting students who are wrongly accused. Although the framework provides for oversight reviews, these processes rarely compensate for reputational or academic loss. Many general-category students therefore argue that the regulations require urgent amendment. Suggested reforms include penalties for proven false complaints, neutral representation on equity committees, and guaranteed confidentiality until allegations are substantiated.
Ignoring these concerns risks deepening isolation and mistrust on campuses. A policy meant to promote equity should not function at the cost of procedural justice. True fairness in higher education demands systems that protect victims of discrimination while also safeguarding innocent individuals from irreversible harm.
