By Sakshi Jha | Student, Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Jammu
The public is once again debating India’s higher education system. Both hope and anxiety have been sparked by the proposed UGC Bill 2026, which aims to improve institutional safeguards against discrimination and advance equity on college campuses. A rising number of students, instructors, and parents especially from the general category express anxiety about how the new framework may function in practice, despite the fact that many applaud its stated goal of making higher education venues more inclusive and safe for historically marginalized communities. The core of the current dispute is this discrepancy between intention and perception.
There is no question that discrimination based on caste still occurs in Indian universities. Social hierarchies frequently influence daily experiences in subtle and overt ways, from interactions in the classroom to hostel life and administrative procedures. It is indisputable that the state must establish robust institutional safeguards against exclusion in this situation. By requiring equitable committees, grievance redressal systems, and time-bound inquiry procedures, the UGC Bill 2026 aims to address this fact. It is hard for me as a journalism student to overlook the moral necessity of these changes.
However, good intentions by themselves do not always result in just consequences. The Bill’s lack of explicitly stated protections against abuse is one of the biggest issues with it. Any system that gives people the ability to register complaints must guarantee due process protection for those who are accused. Accusations themselves run the potential of becoming punishment in the absence of clear standards of proof, unbiased investigations, and measures to discourage malicious or false reports. This makes a lot of general category kids feel vulnerable because identity seems to come before personal behaviour.
These fears shouldn’t be written off as hatred against social justice. Instead, they reveal a more fundamental issue with procedural justice. For equity to be relevant, it must function in a framework where everyone is treated equally under the law. Despite its good intentions, a perceived one-sided framework may foster distrust and animosity rather than unity. Universities are social places where trust is necessary for intellectual interaction, not just places to learn. The issue of representation in equity bodies is another aspect of the discussion. Critics contend that grievance redressal processes must also reflect broader inclusivity, even if it is imperative to ensure that historically marginalized people have proper participation. When decision-making processes are perceived as impartial and balanced, they acquire credibility. Students’ trust in institutional justice may decline if they think that results are decided by identification rather than facts.
The discussion also brings up a more general issue regarding the definition of disadvantage in Indian higher education. While caste is still a major factor in inequality, it is not the sole one. All social groups are affected by poverty, geographical backwardness, inadequate education, and being a first-generation learner. Many students from diverse backgrounds suffer from severe economic and educational disadvantage, but they believe that current policy frameworks do not adequately acknowledge their difficulties. The layered and overlapping structure of disadvantage would be recognized by a more nuanced view of equity.
However, it is incorrect and ineffective to frame the problem as a battle between communities. The true difficulty is creating systems that safeguard the weak without creating new threats. Establishing fair, open, and evidence-based procedures should be the goal rather than substituting one alleged bias with another. Thus, careful recalibration is necessary at this time.Policymakers must hold further consultations with state governments, educators, students, and university officials prior to finalizing the bill. It is crucial to have precise rules on inquiry processes, proof standards, appeal processes, and sanctions for false complaints. Accountability can be further strengthened through regular public review and operational transparency.
Institutions and the democratic culture of society are shaped by higher education policy. Young people should be able to question, disagree, and cohabit with respect in universities. Opaque or forced reforms run the risk of undermining this culture. On the other hand, thoroughly thought out and participatory reforms can increase institutional legitimacy and foster greater confidence. A more equitable learning environment is promised under the UGC Bill 2026. Depending on how delicately it is worded and carried out, it may or may not fulfil this promise. Equity must be based on fairness, trust, and communication rather than just coercion.
True inclusion occurs when all students, regardless of background, feel safe, respected, and assured that the system will treat them fairly, rather than when one group feels protected and another feels targeted. The UGC Bill must ultimately aim to achieve that balance.
More Stories
Arunachal University is its flagship
Arunachal Undergoing major transformation in the education sector: CM
Modi hails India’s 2026 QS word University Rankings