Editorial

The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, represents a prudent and timely intervention in a matter fraught with profound social and constitutional implications. Notified on January 13, 2026, these regulations aimed to strengthen mechanisms against discrimination in higher education, building on the 2012 framework by mandating Equal Opportunity Centres (EOCs), equity committees, and focused protections—particularly for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) students facing caste-based hostility. The intent aligned with the National Education Policy 2020’s emphasis on inclusion and equity, addressing persistent issues like campus discrimination that have tragically led to suicides and alienation among marginalized students.

However, the regulations sparked immediate backlash and legal challenges. Petitioners argued that the definition of caste-based discrimination in key provisions (such as Regulation 3(c)) appeared one-sided, recognizing grievances primarily from reserved categories while allegedly overlooking potential misuse against general category students, faculty, or staff. Protests erupted on campuses, with accusations of “reverse discrimination” gaining traction, amplified by political narratives. The UGC’s attempt to enforce stricter, binding rules—unlike the more advisory 2012 version—raised fears of vagueness, overreach, and exploitation by “mischievous elements.”

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, hearing multiple writ petitions on January 29, 2026, prima facie found the regulations “vague” and “capable of misuse.” The Court warned that their sweeping language could have “very dangerous impacts,” potentially dividing society along caste lines rather than healing fractures. Invoking Article 142 powers, it placed the 2026 rules in abeyance and directed that the 2012 regulations continue in force interim. Crucially, it instructed the Centre to form a committee of eminent jurists—individuals attuned to “social values” and the “ailments society is facing”—to review and redraft the provisions. This body must balance robust safeguards for historically oppressed groups with safeguards against arbitrary application, ensuring the framework promotes genuine equity without fostering new resentments.

This stay is not a rejection of anti-discrimination efforts but a call for nuance and inclusivity in policy design. India’s campuses reflect broader societal fault lines; rules perceived as favoring one group over another risk eroding trust in institutions meant to foster unity. The 2012 regulations, while less stringent, have provided a workable baseline without the same level of controversy. The Court’s directive for expert redrafting offers a path forward: a revised framework that explicitly prohibits all forms of discrimination—caste, religion, gender, disability—while incorporating fair procedures, diverse representation on committees, and mechanisms to prevent abuse.

Ultimately, true equity demands policies that unite rather than polarize. By pausing implementation and mandating thoughtful reconsideration, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed constitutional values of equality (Article 14) and fraternity. The committee’s work will be pivotal; its recommendations must prioritize evidence-based, balanced reforms that protect the vulnerable without alienating others. Only then can higher education truly become a space for shared progress, not division. The coming months will test whether this judicial nudge leads to wiser governance or prolonged impasse.

India’s hosting of the second India-Arab Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in New Delhi on January 30-31, 2026, marks a significant diplomatic milestone. Co-chaired by India and the UAE, the gathering brings together representatives from all 22 Arab League member states, including Palestine’s Foreign Minister Varsen Aghabekian Shahin, after a decade-long hiatus since the inaugural edition. Preceded by senior officials’ talks on January 30, the meeting underscores New Delhi’s intent to deepen multifaceted ties with the Arab world in areas like economy, energy, education, culture, trade, investment, and counter-terrorism, while also addressing regional stability and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC).

The presence of Palestine’s Foreign Minister amid ongoing calls for India’s involvement in Gaza’s reconstruction highlights the event’s geopolitical sensitivity. Shahin has urged greater Indian participation in rebuilding the war-devastated enclave, emphasizing New Delhi’s longstanding support for the Palestinian cause, continued backing for UNRWA, and potential as a mediator in the Israel-Palestine conflict. India’s observer status in the Arab League and its historical advocacy for a two-state solution position it uniquely to contribute to humanitarian and developmental efforts in Gaza, drawing on its expertise in infrastructure and post-conflict reconstruction.

Yet this outreach occurs against the backdrop of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s anticipated visit to Israel in late February 2026—his first in nearly nine years and his third term. The trip aims to bolster strategic partnerships in defence, technology, agriculture, cybersecurity, and counter-terrorism, building on deepened Indo-Israeli ties since Modi’s landmark 2017 visit. Speculation suggests discussions could include Gaza-related peace initiatives, with India’s balanced diplomacy allowing engagement on both fronts.

This sequencing—Arab ministers in Delhi followed by a likely Israel visit—exemplifies India’s pragmatic multi-alignment foreign policy. New Delhi maintains strong economic and energy links with Gulf states (oil imports, remittances, investments) while advancing security cooperation with Israel. By hosting the Arab forum first, India signals its commitment to Arab partners and the Palestinian issue, countering perceptions of tilting excessively toward Israel. It also reinforces its role as a bridge between West Asia’s divided camps, especially as Gaza’s reconstruction emerges as a global priority requiring inclusive international involvement.

In a polarized region, India’s approach avoids zero-sum choices. It leverages historical goodwill—non-aligned roots, support for Palestinian self-determination—while pursuing strategic interests in defence innovation and economic corridors. The meeting’s success could pave the way for enhanced multilateral cooperation, including business forums and joint initiatives on energy security. Ultimately, this diplomatic balancing act strengthens India’s stature as a reliable global player. By engaging both Arab nations and Israel thoughtfully, New Delhi advances its interests without alienating key partners, fostering dialogue in a volatile landscape where reconstruction, peace, and prosperity remain intertwined challenges.

• SAS Kirmani