Digvijaya Singh responds amid UGC equity row:Says, ‘Removal of punishment for false cases was UGC’s decision’; claims misinformation being spread widely

Discontent is growing across university campuses nationwide over the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) newly notified Equity Regulations 2026, with protests particularly visible among a section of General category students and teachers. Amid the controversy, senior Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Digvijaya Singh has issued a detailed clarification, stating that several claims being made in the public domain about the role of the Parliamentary Standing Committee are misleading and factually incorrect. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, amid growing protests and criticism across the country. The new regulations, notified on January 23, were challenged by multiple petitioners who argued that they are arbitrary, exclusionary, discriminatory, and violative of the Constitution and the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.

While issuing the interim order, the Court said that the 2012 UGC regulations would continue to remain in force for the time being. The Bench observed that Regulation 3(C), which defines caste-based discrimination, suffers from vagueness and could be misused. “The language needs to be re-modified,” the Court noted. Background: Why the new equity regulations were introduced According to Digvijaya Singh, the process began in February 2025, following initiatives by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, and observations made by the Supreme Court on caste-based discrimination in higher education institutions. In response, the central government and the UGC released draft equity regulations aimed at preventing discrimination on campuses based on caste, social background and other factors. In December 2025, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education examined these draft regulations and presented a unanimous report in Parliament, acknowledging that the intent of the rules was positive but recommending stronger and clearer provisions. What did the Parliamentary Committee recommend? Digvijaya Singh outlined five key recommendations made by the committee: What did UGC accept—and what did it ignore? The UGC released the final Equity Regulations in January 2026. According to Singh, the commission accepted several recommendations, including: However, the UGC did not accept two major suggestions: Objections raised by General category students and teachers A significant portion of the protests has come from general category students and faculty, who have raised two primary concerns: 1. Removal of punishment for false complaints The draft regulations included provisions to penalise false or malicious complaints. These were removed in the final version, raising fears that the rules could be misused for harassment or personal vendetta. 2. Exclusion of general category from the list of victims The regulations mention only SC, ST and OBC communities as victims of caste-based discrimination. Protesters argue this creates the impression that discrimination can only be committed by general category individuals, ignoring the possibility of bias across communities. Digvijaya Singh’s clarification Digvijaya Singh categorically stated that the decision to remove punishment for false complaints was taken solely by the UGC, and had no connection with the Parliamentary Standing Committee. He also clarified that the committee made no recommendation to exclude the general category from the list, and that this decision too rests entirely with the UGC. Singh added that had the UGC accepted the committee’s recommendation to clearly define discrimination with concrete examples, it would have protected marginalised students while also reducing the scope for false or frivolous cases. Who can resolve the deadlock? According to Digvijaya Singh, responsibility for resolving the current impasse lies squarely with the UGC and the Ministry of Education. He warned that unless the confusion surrounding the regulations is addressed through clarification or amendments, campus unrest is unlikely to subside. “The atmosphere in universities will not normalise unless the misinformation is countered and the rules are made transparent,” Singh said, urging authorities to act swiftly.