A student-led academic platform, Samwaad, organised a public lecture on the recently proposed UGC Equity Regulations 2026 at Shivaji Park, University of Lucknow, on 7th February, Friday. The lecture was delivered by Professor Ravikant Chandan (Department of Hindi), and witnessed participation from a large number of students across departments.
Speaking at the event, Professor Chandan emphasised that the UGC Equity Regulations must be read and understood in their entirety, including arguments from both supporters and critics, instead of being reduced to misinformation or fear-mongering. He pointed out that while the Constitution abolished untouchability, the continued reality of caste-based discrimination made it necessary to enact the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in 1989, clearly indicating that constitutional ideals alone are insufficient without concrete institutional mechanisms.
Referring to the UGC Regulations of 2012, Professor Chandan noted that in the last 13 years, only around 15,000 complaints were registered under those provisions. He highlighted that the 2012 Regulations clearly identified 22 categories of caste-based harassment and discrimination, many of which are absent or inadequately addressed in the current draft regulations. He stressed that the fear being spread about immediate and arbitrary action under the new regulations is misleading, as even now a 10-member committee will first assess whether a complaint merits further action.
Professor Chandan also addressed concerns regarding the composition of the inquiry committee, clarifying that claims about exclusion of general category members are false. As per the proposed structure, the committee will include the head of the institution and senior professors, ensuring institutional accountability rather than arbitrary intervention.
Highlighting the structural exclusion within higher education, he pointed out that despite reservation policies, representation of SC/ST communities in higher educational institutions remained close to zero for nearly 50 years, and even today a large number of reserved posts remain vacant across categories. He identified the growing use of the National Faculty Selection (NFS) system as a new tool that enables institutions to keep reserved posts unfilled.
Drawing attention to everyday caste discrimination, Professor Chandan remarked that even in a city like Lucknow, individuals are routinely asked their full names while searching for rental accommodation, revealing how caste continues to operate socially and materially. He questioned the contradiction of denying caste-based discrimination while simultaneously mobilising caste identities for electoral politics and ministerial positions.
He also underlined that students are pushed to suicide not because complaint mechanisms exist, but because often they do not have access to effective grievance redressal at all.
Referring to cases such as Rohith Vemula, Darshan Solanki, and Payal Kanvi, he argued that the absence of credible institutional protection deepens alienation among marginalised students.
Professor Chandan further argued that caste is a system sustained over thousands of years and cannot be dismantled overnight. He reflected on Ambedkar’s effort to liberate consciousness from imposed inferiority and Gandhi’s attempt to challenge notions of inherited superiority, noting that both sought equality by confronting different aspects of the same oppressive structure.
He called for expanding the scope of the regulations beyond individual institutions, ensuring their implementation across departments, and clearly identifying activities that constitute discrimination and harassment. He also suggested that while the regulations may include students from the general category, they must contain clear identification mechanisms to prevent misuse and ensure accountability.
The lecture also raised concerns about the broader restructuring of higher education, particularly the weakening of UGC’s funding authority and the creation of a Higher Education Financing Agency that provides loans instead of grants, pushing public institutions further towards market dependence.
The event concluded with an open discussion among students, who welcomed the opportunity to engage critically with a policy that directly affects access, equity, and justice in higher education. Samwaad reiterated the importance of creating democratic academic spaces where students can discuss public policy without fear or intimidation.
Furthermore, a video shared on Instagram by Shantam, a member of Team Samwaad, brought forward some information about a problem faced by the organisation in setting up this session. Prior to the study session, the team faced an unexpected administrative hurdle. Although the gathering was intended to be a small, informal academic discussion on the UGC Equity Regulation Act, conducted in an open campus space without elaborate arrangements, concerns were raised by the University administration.
The organisers had informed the University Proctor in advance and submitted a formal notice to the Registrar’s office. According to the team, this notice was meant to keep the administration informed, as they believed that under the University Code of Conduct, such small academic discussions do not require prior permission. However, the Proctor responded by stating that without explicit permission, the event could neither be conducted nor advertised.
The team viewed this response as arbitrary, maintaining that their proposed session fell within permissible campus activities. They also contextualised the issue within a broader concern about equitable access to university spaces. It was pointed out that on the same day, other student organisations had reportedly been granted access to university halls for their events, which, according to the organisers, reflected unequal treatment.
Despite these challenges, the issue brought attention to ongoing debates around student participation, access to campus spaces, and the boundaries between administrative regulation and academic dialogue. The situation underscored larger questions about fairness and the conditions under which student-led discussions are allowed to take place within the university.