Why UGC Guidelines Cannot Be “Caste Neutral”, Says Lawyer Who Fought Them

The debate around UGC’s new guidelines has taken a sharper turn after a lawyer who actively fought for them explained why “caste-neutral” rules don’t work in Indian universities.

In a detailed explanation that’s now circulating widely among students, educators, and policy creators, the lawyer argued that treating everyone as equal on paper ignores how unequal access already is in reality. According to them, caste-neutral frameworks often end up protecting existing hierarchies rather than dismantling them.

The argument is simple but uncomfortable. Universities are not blank slates. Students arrive with vastly different social capital, language comfort, financial security, and institutional familiarity. Guidelines that ignore this context may look fair, but they often fail those who need protection the most.

In simple terms: equal rules don’t create equal outcomes when starting points are unequal.

Why this matters: For Gen-Z students, especially those from marginalised backgrounds, university policies decide safety, voice, and survival on campus. Whether it’s grievance redressal, discrimination complaints, or representation, rules that avoid naming caste can quietly weaken accountability.

Creators discussing the issue are also pointing out a power gap. Those who benefit from “neutral” systems rarely experience their blind spots. Meanwhile, students facing discrimination are asked to prove harm within structures not designed to see it clearly.

UGC guidelines aim to standardise protections across institutions. But this debate shows that intent alone isn’t enough. Without acknowledging caste realities, policies risk becoming symbolic — strong on paper, fragile in practice.