New Delhi, 25th March 2026. Hundreds of members and leaders of the DOMA (Dalit, OBC, Minorities, and Adivasi) Parisangh held a protest today at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi to demand the implementation of the UGC Regulations, 2026.
Its Chairman, Dr. Udit Raj (Ex. MP), at the outset said that the UGC Regulations, 2026 have been misunderstood, and confusion and rumours have conveyed the wrong message. It is being falsely claimed that the Equity Committee will be headed by SC, ST and OBC members who will discriminate against general category students, which is completely incorrect. He clarified that in a committee of 10 members, the regulations only provide a guideline that SC, ST, OBC, women and persons with disabilities should have representation.
He further stated that organisations backed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) have started agitation against it.
He also said that it was most unfortunate that BSP supremo Mayawati immediately criticised the regulations, which encouraged the agitation. Not only this, she also welcomed the stay granted by the Supreme Court of India.
The DOMA Confederation has started its agitation from Jantar Mantar and will take it nationwide until the regulations are implemented. A brief history of these regulations is being mentioned to clarify the misgivings.
The UGC Regulations, 2026, cannot be understood as a spontaneous or independent policy initiative of this government. Their origins lie in the earlier UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, which already recognised the problem of discrimination within universities but suffered from near-zero implementation and limited enforcement mechanisms.
The 2026 UGC Regulations are the result of sustained litigation initiated in 2019 by two mothers, Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi, who lost their children to caste-based discrimination in higher education institutions. They approached the Supreme Court seeking effective implementation of the 2012 Regulations and the creation of a more robust institutional framework to address discrimination on campuses. The petition was drafted and filed by Advocate Disha Wadekar, with Ms. Indira Jaising appearing as arguing counsel.
During the course of proceedings, the Supreme Court directed the UGC to place on record comprehensive data regarding the implementation of the 2012 Regulations across universities. The material revealed significant gaps and widespread non-compliance. In response, the UGC submitted before the Court that it would constitute a committee to revisit and strengthen the regulatory framework.
A draft of the revised regulations was subsequently prepared and placed before the Court. The petitioners, particularly the mothers, identified several deficiencies in the draft and proposed substantive changes. These included measures to prevent segregation within campuses, the creation of more representative Equity Committees, the establishment of stronger monitoring mechanisms, and the incorporation of clear consequences for institutional non-compliance.
By its order dated 15 September 2025, the Supreme Court took these suggestions on record and directed the UGC to notify the revised regulations expeditiously. The UGC Regulations, 2026, were thus ultimately notified in compliance with, and pursuant to, judicial directions—reflecting a process driven not by executive initiative alone, but by constitutional litigation and sustained demands for accountability within universities.
There has been continuous injustice in UPSC interviews against Dalit, Adivasi, and OBC candidates. A ten-year analysis has already established that they are awarded lower marks.
Dr. Udit Raj has demanded that the method of the Personality Test needs to be changed. He himself was an IRS officer, and if he had been given marks similar to those awarded to general category candidates in the UPSC interview, his rank could have been higher.
The Ministry of Personnel has given a misleading response in Parliament, claiming that the interview board is not aware of the candidate’s background.