LATEST ARTICLES

AI Tools as Proxies for Teaching

Manashjyoti Hazarika
-
0
AI Tools as Proxies for Teaching

AI tools are beginning to appear in parts of the education system, unevenly and without a single, shared model of use. Some institutions experiment with automated grading or feedback systems; others rely on AI to monitor engagement, flag patterns, or assist with course planning. In many classrooms, teaching remains unchanged. In others, tools shape how certain tasks are handled. This unevenness is not a flaw—it is how most technologies enter education.

What matters, however, is not the speed or scale of adoption, but the direction it sets. Where AI tools are introduced, they tend to influence how teaching is organised and evaluated. Tasks that align easily with system outputs become more visible. Signals generated by tools—completion rates, engagement indicators, standardised feedback — begin to carry weight in discussions about teaching effectiveness.

This does not happen because anyone decides to redefine teaching. It happens because systems reward what they can register. Over time, teaching adapts to those signals, even when the tools were introduced only to assist. 

The question is not whether AI belongs in the classroom, but how teaching changes once AI tools start influencing what is tracked and evaluated.

Also Read:

How AI Is Entering Teaching

AI is entering teaching through specific, limited functions rather than wholesale redesign. 

In some institutions, tools assist with grading objective assessments, generating draft feedback, or identifying patterns in student participation. In others, AI appears indirectly through learning management systems that flag inactivity or predict academic risk. 

Many classrooms remain untouched. 

The result is not a uniform shift, but a patchwork of uses shaped by institutional capacity, leadership priorities, and administrative pressure.

This uneven entry matters because it sets expectations incrementally. AI does not arrive as a pedagogical philosophy; it arrives as a solution to particular problems – time constraints, large cohorts, or reporting requirements. Teaching absorbs these tools task by task.

Why Institutions Are Turning to AI Tools

Institutions turn to AI tools for reasons that have little to do with teaching theory. 

Scale, consistency, and oversight are recurring concerns in large education systems. AI tools promise to handle repetitive tasks reliably, produce records that can be reviewed, and reduce dependence on individual discretion. From a leadership perspective, these are practical advantages.

AI also fits neatly into accountability frameworks. 

It generates outputs that can be documented, compared, and shared. In environments where leadership is expected to demonstrate efficiency and control, tools that make activity visible are easier to justify than investments in less tangible aspects of teaching.

Which Teaching Tasks Are Automated First

The tasks that move first are those that are easiest to standardise. 

Grading multiple-choice assessments, generating template feedback, tracking attendance, and monitoring platform engagement are common entry points. These tasks already follow rules and patterns, making them suitable for automation.

More interpretive aspects of teaching – discussion, mentorship, contextual judgment – are less easily captured and therefore remain largely manual. 

The early pattern of automation reflects not a view about what matters most in teaching, but what can be translated into system logic with minimal friction.

How Tools Begin to Influence Teaching Decisions

Once tools are in use, they begin to shape choices indirectly. Teaching decisions start taking into account what the system can support or highlight. Assessment formats may shift toward those that align better with automated grading. 

Course pacing may adjust to engagement thresholds set by platforms. Feedback may become more uniform because tools reward consistency.

These shifts are rarely mandated. They emerge as adaptations to the environment created by tools. Over time, teaching practice aligns itself with what systems register easily, even when alternative approaches might better serve learning.

Which Parts of Teaching Show Up in Reports — and Which Don’t

System-generated reports tend to surface activity that is countable: submissions, logins, completion rates, attendance, and response times. These indicators travel upward easily, forming the basis of reviews, meetings, and performance discussions.

What does not show up as clearly are slower or less visible aspects of teaching: conceptual confusion resolved through conversation, intellectual risk-taking, or the gradual development of confidence. These elements remain central to learning but peripheral to reporting. The imbalance does not remove them from practice, but it does remove them from institutional attention.

How Teachers and Students Adjust to These Signals

Teachers adapt by aligning their practices with what is recognised and recorded. Students, in turn, learn what the system responds to. Engagement becomes something to demonstrate. Feedback becomes something to satisfy. Both groups adjust not because they are instructed to do so, but because patterns of recognition become apparent over time.

This adjustment is often pragmatic. When time and attention are limited, responding to visible signals feels safer than investing in work that remains largely unseen. Adaptation becomes a rational response to the environment.

What Changes When Teaching Is Viewed Through System Outputs

When system outputs become a primary reference point, conversations about teaching shift. Effectiveness is discussed using indicators rather than experience. Improvement is framed as optimisation rather than reflection. Responsibility is distributed across tools, processes, and dashboards rather than held within the teaching relationship.

Teaching continues, but it is increasingly interpreted through summaries rather than stories, trends rather than context. Leadership decisions follow what can be reviewed at a distance.

Why This Shift Is Easy to Miss

This shift attracts little attention because nothing dramatic is removed. Teachers remain in classrooms. Students continue to attend courses. AI tools are described as assistance, not replacement. Each change appears reasonable in isolation.

It is only over time that the cumulative effect becomes visible: teaching increasingly shaped by what systems can register, and learning discussed through what tools can show. Because the transition is gradual and framed as improvement, it rarely appears as a change worth questioning.

Who Decides for Students? The Problem with Higher Education Regulation

Manashjyoti Hazarika
-
0
Who Decides for Students? The Problem with Higher Education Regulation

In January 2026, the UGC notified the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, a legally enforceable framework aimed at combating caste-based discrimination and making equity mechanisms compulsory in colleges and universities across India. 

What was intended as a corrective step to strengthen campus inclusion has instead sparked a national debate – with student protests, political resignations, and even a Supreme Court challenge on the definitions and scope of these rules. 

This episode reveals something deeper than disagreement over legal language. 

It exposes a regulatory crisis – a pattern in which students are affected by policy decisions yet are rarely treated as active participants in policy-making itself. 

The result is not only confusion on campuses but a growing sense among students that their needs, perspectives, and lived realities sit outside the frame of decision-making.

Also Read:

Who Frames Policy — and Whose Voice Gets Counted?

Higher education regulation in India is shaped by committees, government ministries, and expert groups operating largely outside the daily academic life of students. 

The UGC, a statutory body under the Union education ministry, is tasked with guiding standards and promoting quality; its regulatory actions are often responses to judicial directions, court orders, and institutional reviews. 

But there is no formal mechanism by which students – the very people central to the educational experience – are systematically consulted before such decisions are taken. In the current case, debates about definitions, enforcement, and institutional burden have dominated institutional and legal discourse, but there has been little space for students’ voices to shape the construction of the regulations themselves. The students protesting or challenging the rules are doing so not as part of a built-in consultative process, but in reaction to proposals already finalised.

Who Takes Responsibility When Things Go Wrong?

One of the persistent problems in the regulatory ecosystem is a diffusion of responsibility. When controversy arises, institutions point to the regulator; regulators point to courts or higher orders; and students are left to navigate unpredictability in their own academic lives.

In the present UGC case, this fragmentation is visible: while the government defends the equity rules as aimed at inclusion, some student groups and commentators argue they could be misused or have unintended consequences. 

When protests escalate — from student demonstrations to political resignations – there is no clear channel to assess responsibility for the oversight that led to those reactions.

Do Students Have a Voice Before Policies Are Made?

Mechanisms for student input exist in some institutional settings — student unions, grievance cells, academic councils — but there is no structured bridge from campus-level representation to national regulatory processes. Current regulations are debated in conferences, legal forums, and ministry briefings; students often learn about the changes only after they are notified.

The protests that have erupted — from Lucknow University students voicing concern about discrimination to groups in Delhi urging the UGC to reconsider — reflect a desire to be heard, but they are reactive, not institutionalised participation. 

How Policy Is Expected to Work — Vs. How It Is Experienced

In theory, a regulation like the UGC’s equity framework should clarify how discrimination is understood, what responsibilities institutions have to prevent and redress it, and how compliance will be monitored. It should also signal that every student, irrespective of background, can expect a campus free from bias. 

In practice, however, the shift from advisory to enforceable regulations — broader definitions, structured reporting mechanisms, formal equity committees — has triggered confusion about scope, safeguards, and unintended consequences. Critics argue that certain provisions may lack adequate protections for students who are accused but not found culpable, or that narrow definitions could exclude people outside specified categories. 

This difference between policy design and lived experience matters. A regulation can have good intentions, yet be difficult to operationalise in diverse institutional contexts with uneven capacities and deep social fault lines.

How Can Students Push Back?

When students feel a guideline is discriminatory or poorly designed, their options are limited. 

They can protest on campuses and in public spaces, seek media attention, or pursue legal challenges through the courts. Indeed, a plea has already been filed in the Supreme Court against certain definitions in the new UGC framework. 

But these are reactive channels — slow, adversarial, and uncertain. What is missing is a proactive channel that brings student perspectives into regulatory formulation before decisions are final.

Why Politics Intersects With Education Policy

The UGC debate has not stayed confined to academia. Political leaders have weighed in, public figures have resigned citing bias, and national discourse has turned the regulations into a broader symbol of inclusion versus exclusion. 

Education policy does not exist in a vacuum.

It intersects with social hierarchies, affirmative action, and constitutional values. But when political reactions overshadow careful deliberation, the original policy goals — inclusion, equity, dignity — can become lost in broader culture wars.

Can We Minimise Politics in Education Policy?

Completely detaching education from politics is neither feasible nor desirable; public policy inherently reflects social values and collective priorities. But the current situation shows a need for better processes:

  • Early and structured student consultation on draft regulations
  • Clear impact assessments that speak directly to student concerns
  • Transparent implementation timelines and feedback mechanisms
  • Dedicated platforms for ongoing dialogue between regulators and the campus community

Such measures will not remove politics from policy — but they can ensure policies are shaped with the people they affect most.

Conclusion

The UGC’s equity regulations emerged from a concern about discrimination and inclusion. Yet the reaction to their introduction highlights not simply disagreement over substance, but a systemic gap in how higher education regulation is made and communicated. When students, who are central to education, are left out of decision-making processes, uncertainty and distrust fill the vacuum left by silence.

A regulation crisis is not only a crisis of rules, but a crisis of participation and voice. If higher education policy is to be credible, it must be responsive to students, not just reactive to controversy.

Student protests, resignations and court challenge intensify UGC rule debate; Government on the defensive

Manashjyoti Hazarika
-
0
Student protests, resignations and court challenge intensify UGC rule debate; Government on the defensive

The controversy surrounding the University Grants Commission’s Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026 entered a sharper phase on Tuesday as student protests spread, legal challenges reached the courts, and prominent public figures weighed in, intensifying pressure on the government over the implementation of the new framework.

The regulations, notified earlier this month, are purportedly aimed at strengthening anti-discrimination mechanisms across universities and colleges by mandating Equal Opportunity Centres, institutional equity committees, helplines and reporting structures. The UGC has positioned the rules as a long-overdue attempt to address caste- and identity-based discrimination in higher education. However, critics argue that the framework is vague, potentially overbroad, and risks institutionalising suspicion rather than resolving grievances.

Also Read:

What changed today

On January 27, the debate moved beyond policy disagreement into a broader public confrontation. Students at several campuses, including Lucknow University, staged protests questioning both the intent and the operational clarity of the regulations. Protesters argued that the rules could create social friction on campuses and place disproportionate administrative power in the hands of committees without adequate safeguards.

At the same time, the matter reached the judiciary, with a Public Interest Litigation filed before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the constitutional validity of the regulations. Petitioners contend that while the stated objective of equity is legitimate, the current structure lacks balanced grievance redressal and may undermine principles of natural justice.

Adding to the sense of escalation was the resignation of a senior district-level official in Uttar Pradesh, who publicly criticised the regulations and described them as socially divisive. The resignation has been widely cited by critics as evidence that unease over the rules is no longer confined to students or academics.

Government response so far

While no statement has come directly from the Prime Minister’s Office, the Union government has moved to contain the fallout by signalling that clarifications will be issued to address what it describes as “misinterpretations” of the regulations. Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan has maintained that the rules are intended to ensure fairness and dignity for all students, and that their implementation will be balanced. However, officials acknowledge that the speed and scale of the backlash have forced the government into a more reactive posture.

Opinion makers and political voices

The issue has also drawn in public intellectuals and political leaders. Poet and commentator Kumar Vishwas posted on social media expressing anguish over what he described as the emotional and social consequences of the regulations, aligning himself with calls for a rethink.

Rajya Sabha MP Priyanka Chaturvedi questioned the manner in which the regulations were framed and flagged concerns over consultation and clarity, amplifying demands for greater transparency and parliamentary scrutiny.

Social media buzz

On X, the debate has remained heated throughout the day, with hashtags calling for rollback or review trending alongside posts defending the intent of the regulations. Journalist Ajeet Bharti and others framed the issue as part of a wider conversation on governance, trust in institutions and the balance between protection and over-regulation. Video clips and updates shared by ANI from protest sites further fuelled online discussion.

Supporters of the regulations argue that the backlash reflects discomfort with accountability mechanisms rather than genuine flaws in the policy. Critics counter that the absence of detailed operational guidelines has left too much room for subjective interpretation.

What lies ahead

With protests ongoing, judicial scrutiny now underway, and political attention intensifying, the UGC equity regulations appear set to remain under the spotlight in the coming days. Whether the government chooses to amend, clarify or simply defend the framework as it stands will likely determine whether the debate cools — or hardens further — across campuses and beyond.

The UGC controversy is loud — but nothing has changed for students (yet)

Manashjyoti Hazarika
-
0
The UGC controversy is loud — but nothing has changed for students (yet)

Over the past few weeks, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has been at the center of intense public discussion. News coverage, political reactions, opinion pieces, and social media debates have brought the Commission’s latest regulations into sharp focus.

For students, this raises a practical and immediate question:

Does this affect me right now — in class, on campus, or in how rules are applied?

At the time of writing, there is no confirmed, system-wide change in how student rules are being implemented. What exists instead is a high volume of interpretation alongside limited student-facing explanation.

Understanding this gap — between discussion and instruction — is essential to making sense of the current moment.

Also Read:

What we actually know so far

There are a few things that can be stated without speculation.

  • UGC regulations have triggered public and political controversy.
  • Competing interpretations of these regulations are circulating widely.
  • No authoritative clarification has been issued that explains how colleges are expected to operationalise these rules immediately.
  • Students are learning about the issue primarily through news reports and social media, not through direct, student-facing explanations.

This is the current state of affairs: high visibility, low procedural clarity.

What has not been clearly communicated to students

Equally important is what has not been made explicit so far.

There has been no general, system-wide communication explaining:

  • whether students are expected to change classroom behaviour,
  • whether existing conduct rules are being expanded,
  • how complaints or safeguards would work in practice,
  • or whether any part of academic life is being altered immediately.

This does not mean answers won’t come later.

It simply reflects the present moment: students have not been formally addressed.

Why this gap matters — even without enforcement

The absence of clear instruction does not mean the controversy has no effect.

Students are currently exposed to:

  • sharply framed claims,
  • emotionally loaded interpretations,
  • and predictions about consequences — often without context or caveats.

When this happens without official explanation, students are left doing the hardest part themselves: deciding what is real, what is exaggerated, and what applies to them.

That uncertainty is not imagined. It is a direct result of silence where clarity is expected.

What can be said — and what should not be assumed

In a situation like this, precision matters.

What can reasonably be said

  • There is no publicly confirmed, immediate change in student rules.
  • No formal instructions addressed to students have been issued.
  • There is no evidence of uniform enforcement across institutions.

What should not be assumed

  • That colleges are endorsing or resisting the regulations.
  • That enforcement is imminent or inevitable.
  • That students are already subject to new disciplinary standards.

Staying within these bounds is important — especially when anxiety is already high.

What students should pay attention to now

Instead of reacting to every new interpretation, students are better served by watching for specific, verifiable developments:

  • formal notices or circulars from their institution,
  • updates to student handbooks or codes of conduct,
  • clearly described complaint or grievance procedures,
  • official explanations that address students directly.

These are the points where public debate becomes real policy.

What types of EdTech platforms are Indian educational institutions actually using today?

Manashjyoti Hazarika
-
0
What types of EdTech platforms are Indian educational institutions actually using today?

When people talk about EdTech in Indian educational institutes, it’s often imagined as a single, powerful digital platform running the institution.

That’s not how it works in reality.

Most colleges and schools use a combination of platforms, each solving a very specific institutional problem — teaching, exams, administration, or compliance. These systems often don’t talk to each other smoothly, but together they form the everyday digital experience of higher education.

To understand this properly, it helps to stop asking “Which platforms are colleges using?”
and instead ask:

What problem was the institution trying to solve when it adopted this tool?

Once you do that, the ecosystem becomes much clearer.

Also Read:

1. Learning Management Systems (LMS):

Teaching infrastructure vs learning experience

Learning Management Systems are often described as the “heart” of digital education.

In Indian colleges, however, LMS platforms are used less to improve teaching practice and more to manage notes, assignments, attendance, and marks.

The most widely used LMS across public universities and affiliated colleges is Moodle. Its dominance has little to do with pedagogy and a lot to do with:

  • zero licensing cost,
  • the ability to host it on college servers,
  • flexibility to customize it to local rules.

Commercial LMS platforms such as Blackboard and Canvas are typically found in:

  • private universities,
  • autonomous institutions,
  • well-funded professional institutes.

These platforms offer cleaner interfaces, analytics, and support — but at a cost that most public institutions cannot justify.

Key contrast

  • In theory, LMSs are meant to enable active learning.
  • In reality, they are mostly used for content distribution and record-keeping.

Student experience

For most students, the LMS is simply the place where notes are uploaded, assignments are submitted, and marks eventually appear.

Discussion forums, peer learning tools, and feedback features exist but are rarely used at scale, largely because:

  • faculty are overloaded,
  • classes are large,
  • incentives reward completion, not experimentation.

2. Video conferencing platforms:

Emergency tools that became permanent

Unlike LMSs, video platforms were never designed for education — and yet they became central to it.

Indian colleges overwhelmingly rely on:

  • Zoom
  • Microsoft Teams
  • Google Meet

They are used for:

  • online classes,
  • hybrid teaching,
  • guest lectures,
  • timetable disruptions.

Why these tools stuck

  • Students already knew how to use them.
  • They required minimal training.
  • Institutions could deploy them quickly at scale.

But here’s the tension
These platforms assume:

  • private physical space,
  • stable internet,
  • small group interaction.

Indian classrooms often offer none of these.

Contrast

  • In elite institutes, these tools support interactive seminars.
  • In large colleges, they often become one-way broadcast channels — digital lecture halls with muted microphones and cameras off.

3. Online exam and assessment platforms:

Trust, control, and anxiety

If teaching platforms are visible, assessment platforms are consequential.

Post-2020, many colleges adopted specialised tools for:

  • online exams,
  • remote proctoring,
  • large-scale testing,
  • audit trails.

One of the most prominent players in India is Mercer | Mettl, used by universities, professional colleges, and recruitment bodies.

These platforms promise:

  • standardisation,
  • identity verification,
  • reduced malpractice,
  • defensible results.

Institutional logic
For colleges, these tools provide protection:

  • against legal challenges,
  • against allegations of unfairness,
  • against regulatory scrutiny.

Student reality
For students, these platforms introduce:

  • surveillance,
  • high-stakes technical dependence,
  • unequal testing conditions at home.

Key contrast

  • Offline exams rely on human invigilation and trust.
  • Online exams rely on software, algorithms, and logs — shifting power away from discretion and toward systems.

This is where EdTech most visibly reshapes the student–institution relationship.

4. Campus management & ERP systems:

The invisible core of the university

If there is one category that truly runs the institution, it is the campus ERP.

These systems manage:

  • admissions,
  • fees,
  • attendance records,
  • marks and transcripts,
  • degree issuance,
  • NAAC and regulatory reporting.

Widely used Indian platforms include MasterSoft and MyLeadingCampus, among many others.

Students often encounter these platforms only when:

  • downloading hall tickets,
  • checking results,
  • requesting transcripts.

Yet these systems decide:

  • whether credits are recorded correctly,
  • whether a semester “counts”,
  • how quickly errors can be corrected.

Contrast

  • LMSs affect day-to-day academic life.
  • ERPs affect long-term academic fate.

And unlike LMSs, students have almost no visibility or agency here.

5. National and external course platforms:

Credits, credentials, and legitimacy

Many colleges now integrate courses from external platforms to:

  • expand offerings,
  • manage faculty shortages,
  • signal alignment with national priorities.

The most important of these is SWAYAM, which allows approved online courses to be credited toward degrees.

Private institutions may also partner with:

  • global MOOC platforms,
  • industry certification providers,
  • skill-focused course vendors.

Two very different uses

  • In some colleges, these courses genuinely expand choice.
  • In others, they function as compliance tools — filling credit requirements with minimal integration.

Student confusion
Students often struggle to understand:

  • which courses count,
  • how credits transfer,
  • why some online courses matter and others don’t.

How EdTech is designed to work — and how it works in practice

What it is calledWhat it actually means in practice
Digital campusA collection of disconnected systems that don’t fully integrate
Online learningMostly content uploads, attendance tracking, and submissions
Tech-enabled examsRisk management through software, logs, and surveillance
Student portalAdministrative database, not a learning interface
Skill integrationPartial outsourcing of teaching and external platforms

The big picture (and why this matters)

Indian colleges are not behind because they lack EdTech.

They are constrained because EdTech has been adopted piecemeal, under pressure, without a student-centred design logic.

Each platform solves one institutional problem — but students experience fragmentation.

Multiple logins.
Multiple rules.
Multiple interfaces.
Little explanation.

Understanding this ecosystem clearly is the first step toward questioning whether it actually serves learning — or merely manages scale and compliance.

UGC equity rules trigger widespread protests, online outrage

Manashjyoti Hazarika
-
0
UGC equity rules trigger widespread protests, online outrage

The University Grants Commission’s newly notified Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026 have triggered widespread protests, sharp political criticism and a surge of online outrage, with student groups, academics and commentators questioning the scope, safeguards and intent of the new rules.

Within days of the notification, social media platforms were flooded with criticism, calls for rollback and protest appeals, as students across several campuses raised concerns over what they described as vague definitions of discrimination, lack of safeguards against misuse and fears of arbitrary action.

Several student groups have announced demonstrations, while legal challenges have also begun to surface, indicating that the controversy may soon move from campuses and online platforms to the courts.

Also Read:

Students flag fear, lack of safeguards

Students opposing the regulations argue that the rules, while aimed at preventing discrimination, could create a climate of fear on campuses if implemented without adequate procedural safeguards.

“This will make every academic disagreement vulnerable to being turned into a formal complaint,” one student activist said in a post widely shared online. “There is no clarity on safeguards against false or malicious complaints.”

Another student wrote on X, “Equity cannot come at the cost of due process. Universities should be spaces for debate, not surveillance.”

Critics have pointed out that the final regulations do not explicitly spell out penalties for false complaints, a provision that existed in earlier drafts, raising concerns about misuse.

Social media backlash intensifies

The regulations quickly became a trending topic on social media, with hashtags calling for a rollback gaining traction. Former civil servants, industry leaders and commentators also joined the debate, questioning the breadth of the regulations and the powers vested in institutional committees.

Mohandas Pai, former CFO of Infosys, said in a post that the rules could “damage trust on campuses” and urged the government to review them. Commentator Anand Ranganathan called the regulations “deeply flawed” and warned of “institutional overreach”.

Several posts also questioned whether universities were equipped to implement the rules fairly and uniformly, given wide variations in institutional capacity.

Political criticism, autonomy concerns

The controversy has also drawn political reactions, with opposition leaders accusing the Centre of centralising control over universities and undermining institutional autonomy.

Some leaders argued that while discrimination must be addressed, the regulations risk bypassing established legal processes. “Any mechanism dealing with sensitive complaints must be balanced with due process and natural justice,” a senior opposition leader said.

Legal challenge takes shape

Amid growing backlash, a Public Interest Litigation has been filed challenging the regulations, according to legal commentators and social media updates. The petition is understood to question the constitutionality of the rules, particularly on grounds of equality before law, due process and academic freedom.

While the matter is yet to be listed for detailed hearing, the legal challenge adds another layer to the intensifying pushback against the regulations.

UGC defends intent

The UGC, meanwhile, has defended the regulations, stating that they are intended to strengthen mechanisms to prevent discrimination and ensure safer campuses for students from marginalized communities.

Officials have maintained that higher education institutions are required to follow principles of fairness and transparency while implementing the rules, and that the objective is not punitive but preventive.

A divided campus landscape

Even as protests grow, some student groups and faculty members have welcomed the regulations, arguing that discrimination on campuses remains a reality and that stronger institutional mechanisms are long overdue.

“This debate should not erase the experiences of students who face discrimination daily,” a faculty member from a central university said. “The challenge is to implement equity without compromising fairness. ”As universities prepare to operationalize the new rules, campuses remain sharply divided, with protests, petitions and public debate continuing to escalate, turning the UGC’s equity push into one of the most contentious education policy flashpoints in recent years.

Why the UGC Guidelines Risk Harming General Category Students

Manashjyoti Hazarika
-
0
Why the UGC Guidelines Risk Harming General Category Students

In January 2026, the University Grants Commission (UGC) notified its Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, a sweeping set of rules aimed at eliminating caste-based discrimination and promoting inclusion across colleges and universities nationwide.

The regulations mandate institutional mechanisms such as Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees, and 24×7 helplines to address discrimination complaints based on caste, religion, gender, disability, and social background.

What should have been a conversation about fairness has swiftly become a flashpoint. 

Critics — including student groups and social organisations — argue that the final rules, while well-intended, raise serious concerns over procedural fairness, constitutional equality, and the lack of clear safeguards against misuse or false complaints.

Most importantly, the debate has revealed an unsettling gap: the regulations’ may inadvertently expose general-category students to asymmetric risk in grievance processes that prioritise speed and compliance over due process and protections against wrongful allegations.

This is not a distant policy abstract. It is a regulatory shift that directly affects students’ lives and careers — and the absence of strong procedural safeguards calls for serious scrutiny.

Latest Updates:

  • To visit UGC portal – Click Here
  • Read official UGC New Guidelines (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education) – Click Here

What the regulations mandate — and why safeguards matters

Under the new framework issued by the UGC, institutions are required to establish multiple structures to address discrimination complaints — including Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees, grievance mechanisms, reporting timelines, and institutional accountability provisions. On paper, these measures appear comprehensive and responsive.

The problem is not that colleges are being asked to set up committees or helplines. The real problem is that the rules do not clearly explain what happens to a student once a complaint is made.

The regulations do not spell out basic things a student would want to know: How is a complaint checked? What proof is required? How long can an inquiry continue? Can a student continue classes and exams while the case is ongoing? What protection exists if the allegation turns out to be false or exaggerated?

For a student, this uncertainty is not theoretical. A case that drags on can delay exams, affect recommendations, damage reputation, and stall careers. When rules leave these questions unanswered, students are left exposed — not because they have done something wrong, but because the system does not clearly protect them.

What this can look like in real life (illustrative examples)

(All examples are hypothetical)

Example 1: A complaint with no clear timeline

A student is named in a discrimination complaint filed through the institution’s mandated equity mechanism.

The rules require the college to act, but do not clearly specify how long the inquiry can run.

The student continues attending classes, but:

  • exam permissions are delayed
  • recommendation letters are withheld
  • internships are put on hold

Months pass without resolution. Even if the complaint is eventually dismissed, the academic year is already lost.

The damage is not disciplinary.
It is temporal and irreversible.

Example 2: Unclear standards of proof

Under the guidelines, institutions must respond promptly to complaints, but what constitutes sufficient evidence is not clearly defined.

In practice, this can mean:

  • statements are treated as sufficient to initiate action
  • informal conversations are pulled into records
  • context is evaluated inconsistently across institutions

For students, this creates fear around everyday interaction — not because wrongdoing is widespread, but because the rules do not clearly state what protects them from overreach.

Example 3: Process itself becomes the punishment

Even without any formal finding, a student under inquiry may face:

  • restricted access to labs or group work
  • informal social isolation
  • loss of academic confidence
  • pressure to “stay quiet” until the case ends

The guidelines focus on setting up complaint channels, but say little about protecting students from harm during the process itself.

When that protection is missing, the process becomes the penalty.

Example 4: Unequal ability to navigate the system

Some students have:

  • legal guidance
  • family support
  • institutional familiarity

Others don’t.

A general-category student from a modest background may not know:

  • how to respond formally
  • when to appeal
  • what rights they have during inquiry

In such cases, the system rewards familiarity, not fairness — even when no one intends it to.

Example 5: Long-term impact beyond campus

The guidelines do not address what happens after a case concludes.

There is no clear guidance on:

  • record sealing
  • disclosure obligations
  • reputational repair

For a student applying for jobs or higher studies, even a closed inquiry can cast a shadow — not because of guilt, but because the system does not specify how students are restored once cleared.

Where safeguards fall short

Any grievance-based regulatory system must answer a few fundamental questions clearly and publicly. In the present case, those answers are either absent or insufficiently specified.

There is little clarity on:

  • evidentiary thresholds for initiating or sustaining complaints
  • safeguards against prolonged or unresolved inquiries
  • protections for students during the pendency of allegations
  • consequences for demonstrably malicious or frivolous complaints
  • time-bound closure mechanisms that limit reputational damage

In systems where identity-linked complaints carry heightened sensitivity — as they inevitably do in caste-related matters — the absence of these safeguards is not a minor oversight. It shifts the balance from justice to vulnerability.

The issue is not that complaints will be misused at scale.
The issue is that policy must be designed for edge cases, because edge cases are where irreversible harm occurs.

Why general-category students face asymmetric risk

Higher-education policy does not operate in a vacuum. Students enter institutions with unequal levels of protection, support, and recourse.

General-category students, particularly those from middle- or lower-income backgrounds, typically rely on:

  • predictable rules
  • merit-based progression
  • neutral procedures
  • time-bound resolution

They often lack:

  • institutional advocacy
  • legal familiarity
  • social or political buffers
  • alternative pathways if processes stall

When grievance mechanisms are designed around identity categories without equally strong procedural symmetry, exposure to risk becomes uneven. Even without wrongdoing, students can find themselves navigating prolonged uncertainty — academic disruption, reputational shadow, delayed progression — with consequences that extend far beyond campus.

Careers are time-sensitive.
So are lives.

Regulation that ignores this reality does not merely inconvenience students; it places them inside systems that do not adequately protect them.

How regulation unintentionally deepens caste polarisation

One of the most damaging side effects of poorly safeguarded regulation is not misuse, but mutual suspicion.

When identity becomes central to grievance processes without transparent procedural balance:

  • students begin to see one another through regulatory categories
  • fear replaces trust in everyday academic interaction
  • silence replaces dialogue
  • compliance replaces community

This is how policy — unintentionally — pits groups against one another, even when its stated goal is equity.

A well-designed system reduces tension by strengthening process.
A weakly designed one amplifies it by forcing identity into adversarial roles.

That outcome serves no one.

Political responsibility cannot be deflected

Regulatory design is not an abstract exercise. It is a leadership responsibility.

When frameworks are introduced without sufficient safeguards, the burden does not fall on policymakers or regulators. It falls on institutions scrambling to comply — and more critically, on students who must live inside the consequences.

Political leadership cannot escape this accountability. Announcing intent is not the same as designing protection. Moral signalling is not a substitute for procedural rigour.

Students do not receive compensation for policy corrections.
They absorb the cost in lost time, damaged confidence, stalled careers, and psychological strain.

That is the price of poorly anticipated consequences.

What a safeguard-first approach would require

A serious regulatory response to discrimination would prioritise:

  • explicit evidentiary standards
  • symmetrical protections for complainants and the accused
  • fast, reviewable, and time-bound inquiry processes
  • clear appeal mechanisms independent of institutional pressure
  • public reporting on outcomes, not just structures

Equity without safeguards is not justice.
It is exposure.

Until regulatory frameworks demonstrate equal commitment to protection, due process, and reversibility, they will continue to create risk — especially for those with the least capacity to absorb it.

Closing statement

Caste-based discrimination must be confronted decisively.

But confronting injustice does not require abandoning safeguards.

When regulation relies on supposed good intentions rather than clear rules and safeguards, it does not strengthen equity – it creates uncertainty. And in higher education, uncertainty does not fall evenly. It falls hardest on students whose only protection is the system itself.

That is the failure this controversy has revealed — and it cannot be ignored.

When systems start standing in for learning

Manashjyoti Hazarika
-
0
When systems start standing in for learning

When institutions adopt a new tool, platform, or process, the decision is rarely casual. It usually comes after months of discussion, vendor presentations, internal debates, and pressure to demonstrate progress. 

A new system promises order, visibility, or consistency, and the decision to adopt often feels careful and justified.

However, what tends to get less attention is what happens afterward. Once the tool is in place, focus shifts to whether it is being used, whether processes are followed, and whether the transition appears smooth. These are reasonable concerns, but they quietly replace a more demanding question: has anything about learning actually improved?

Over time, adoption itself starts to stand in for progress. Not because anyone has stopped caring, but because usage is easier to see and defend than learning outcomes, which are slower, messier, and harder to pin down.

Adoption is often treated as improvement, even though the two are not the same.

The situation

An institution identifies a genuine problem: inconsistent teaching quality, low student engagement, poor outcomes, or lack of visibility into performance. Leadership is under pressure – from parents, boards, regulators, or competition – to respond decisively.

A solution is selected. It may be an EdTech platform, a new assessment system, a learning management tool, or a standardized framework. The choice is justified logically: it promises scale, consistency, measurability, or modernization.

Once implemented, the institution moves on.

The decision is considered complete.

The decision

The critical decision is not the adoption itself.

It is the decision to declare success at the point of implementation.

From this moment:

  • Rollout becomes the milestone
  • Usage becomes the metric
  • Compliance becomes evidence
  • Presence becomes proof

The harder question — did learning actually improve? — is postponed, softened, or quietly replaced by proxies.

Why this logic makes sense at the time

This decision is rarely made out of carelessness.

Adoption offers:

  • A clear timeline
  • A visible achievement
  • Documentation for stakeholders
  • Relief from uncertainty

Improvement, by contrast, is:

  • Slow
  • Uneven
  • Difficult to measure
  • Context-dependent

For leaders managing large systems, adoption is legible. Improvement is not.

So the system naturally gravitates toward what can be shown, tracked, and reported.

When learning outcomes remain unexamined

After adoption, institutions tend to rely on indicators that are easy to capture and report. Usage levels, completion rates, log-ins, time spent on a platform, and engagement metrics offer reassurance that the system is active and functioning as intended. 

These measures are useful; they confirm participation and operational stability.

What they do not surface as clearly is whether learning itself has changed. 

Measures of depth of understanding, the ability to transfer concepts across contexts, or the resolution of confusion remain largely invisible. These outcomes are harder to isolate, slower to emerge, and less compatible with standardized reporting. As a result, they are often discussed anecdotally, if at all, rather than examined systematically.

Over time, this creates a gap between what is measured and what matters most. Activity becomes visible evidence, while learning quality remains assumed rather than demonstrated.

What quietly goes missing

The problem is that learning does not change simply because a tool exists.

Teachers may use the platform, but not differently.

Students may log in, but not think more deeply.

Data may accumulate, but not inform judgment.

Over time, the institution becomes busy:

  • Monitoring usage
  • Reviewing dashboards
  • Optimizing processes
  • Expanding scope

Yet outcomes remain stubbornly familiar.

Because the adoption was declared a success early, there is no clear moment to ask uncomfortable questions. The tool is now embedded. The decision is sunk. Revisiting it feels like reopening a settled matter.

So the gap persists quietly.

The unintended cost

When adoption substitutes for improvement, several things happen gradually:

  • Professional judgment weakens – Teachers and staff adapt to the system rather than interrogating whether it serves learning.
  • Responsibility diffuses –  If outcomes don’t improve, the failure feels collective and abstract — not decisional.
  • Learning becomes secondary – Activity, coverage, and reporting take precedence over understanding.

None of this looks like failure.

It looks like stability.

And that is precisely why it lasts.

The real lesson

The core issue is not that institutions adopt tools. They must.

The issue is not adoption itself, but the way it is treated as an endpoint rather than something that still needs to prove it has made a difference.

Every adoption is, implicitly, a claim:

“This will improve learning.”

But claims require testing.

Without deliberate checkpoints — pedagogical, not operational — institutions lose the ability to distinguish between:

  • What is being used
  • And what is actually working

Improvement does not come from installing solutions.

It comes from staying accountable to outcomes after the installation is complete.

What should have been asked instead

Before moving on, leadership could ask:

  • What specific learning behavior do we expect to change?
  • Who is responsible for noticing if it doesn’t?
  • What will we stop doing if this doesn’t help?
  • When will we revisit this decision honestly?

These questions are slower.

They resist closure.

But they are the difference between activity and progress.

Closing thought

Institutions rarely fail because they do nothing.

They fail because they stop examining decisions once they are made.

Adoption feels like movement. 

Improvement requires attention.

Confusing the two is not a moral error — it is a structural one.

AIBE to be held twice a year; Final semester LLB students allowed

Priyanka Dubey
-
0
AIBE to be held twice a year; Final semester LLB students allowed

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has informed the Supreme Court of India that the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) will be conducted twice every year and that final semester law students will be permitted to appear for the exam, subject to clearing their final degree examinations.

The AIBE is a qualifying test that law graduates must pass to obtain a Certificate of Practice (CoP), which is mandatory to practise law in India. 

Until now, the exam was generally conducted once a year, and eligibility was largely restricted to candidates who had completed their law degrees. The submission made before the apex court signals a formal change in both the frequency of the exam and AIBE exam eligibility conditions.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing a writ petition filed by nine final-year law students from Delhi University. The petition challenged the Bar Council of India’s earlier position that did not allow final semester students to appear for the AIBE before completion of their degree. The petitioners contended that this restriction delayed their entry into the legal profession and caused avoidable hardship.

During the hearing, counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India informed the court that the Council had framed new rules addressing the issues raised in the petition. The counsel stated, “The AIBE will be conducted twice a year and the last semester students of LLB will be allowed to sit for the exam subject to their clearing of the final exam.”

In a separate submission, the counsel further stated, “This is the case where (it was sought that) last semester students should be allowed to sit for the AIBE. We have framed the rules. The prayers have been taken care of. The AIBE will be conducted at least twice a year and the last semester students will be allowed to sit for AIBE, subject to them clearing the final (semester) exam.”

After recording these submissions, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition, noting that the grievance raised by the petitioners no longer survived in view of the newly framed rules. The court observed that the regulatory changes introduced by the Bar Council of India sufficiently addressed the concerns regarding eligibility and examination frequency.

The development follows earlier interim directions of the Supreme Court, under which final semester students had been allowed to appear for the AIBE in certain cases while the issue of formal rule amendments was pending. With the latest submission, those interim measures now stand formalised through revised regulations.

The decision to conduct the AIBE exam at least twice a year is expected to provide greater flexibility to law graduates and final semester students in planning their qualification and transition into legal practice. The Bar Council of India has not yet issued a detailed public notification outlining the complete text of the new rules, and further clarifications are expected through official communications.

CBSE Admit Card 2026 (Soon): How to Download Admit Card of CBSE Class 10, 12, Exam-day Instructions

Manashjyoti Hazarika
-
0
CBSE Admit Card 2026 (Soon): How to Download Admit Card of CBSE Class 10, 12, Exam-day Instructions

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) will release the CBSE Admit Card 2026 for Class 10 and Class 12 regular students on its official website, cbse.gov.in, ahead of the board examinations scheduled to begin from February 17, 2026. While the admit cards for private candidates have already been released, regular students will receive their admit cards through their respective schools once CBSE issues them officially.

The admit card is a mandatory document for appearing in the CBSE board exams. It serves as proof of candidature and includes exam centre details, subject-wise exam dates, and important instructions. Students must carry a printed copy of the admit card to the exam centre on every exam day.

The CBSE 2026 Board practical exams are held from January 1 – February 15, 2026.

Latest Updates:

How to Download Admit Card

The process of downloading the CBSE admit card differs for private candidates and regular students, depending on their registration mode.

For Private Candidates

CBSE has already released the admit card for private candidates. These candidates can download the hall ticket directly from the official CBSE portal by entering their application or roll number details.

Steps:

  1. Visit cbse.gov.in
  2. Click on the link for Admit Card for Private Candidates
  3. Enter required login details
  4. Download and print the admit card

For Regular Candidates

CBSE does not provide an online download facility for regular students. Instead, the board sends admit cards to schools.

  • Schools will download admit cards using their login credentials
  • Students must collect the admit card from their school
  • The admit card must be signed and stamped by the school

Information Included in Admit Card

The CBSE admit card contains all essential information related to the examination and candidate identity. Students are advised to carefully check each detail after receiving the admit card.

The admit card includes:

  • Candidate’s name and roll number
  • Date of birth
  • Photograph and signature
  • School name and code
  • Examination centre name and address
  • Subject names and subject codes
  • Exam dates and timings
  • Important instructions for candidates

Any mismatch in details can cause issues on the exam day.

What to Do in Case of Discrepancy

In case a student finds incorrect information on the admit card, immediate action is required.

  • Regular students should report the issue to their school authorities
  • Schools will coordinate with CBSE for correction
  • Private candidates should contact CBSE through official communication channels

Corrections must be completed before the exam date, as entry to the exam centre depends on accurate admit card details.

Exam Schedule (CBSE Board Exams 2026)

CBSE has announced the overall timeline for the Class 10 and Class 12 board exams. Subject-wise dates are available in the official date sheet.

ClassExam Start DateExam End Date
Class 10February 17, 2026March 11, 2026
Class 12February 17, 2026April 10, 2026

Students should refer to the official timetable for subject-specific exam dates.

Download PDFs of Official Datesheets

  • To download the CBSE 2026 revised datesheet for Class X – Click Here
  • To download the CBSE 2026 revised datesheet for Class XII – Click Here

Exam Pattern

CBSE conducts board exams in a written format, following the syllabus and assessment scheme released by the board.

Class 10

  • Written theory papers
  • Combination of objective, short-answer, and long-answer questions
  • Internal assessment marks included

Class 12

  • Written exams across Science, Commerce, and Humanities streams
  • Theory and practical components where applicable
  • Subject-specific marking schemes

The detailed exam pattern is available in CBSE’s official syllabus documents.

Exam-Day Guidelines

CBSE issues clear instructions for exam day to ensure smooth conduct of the examinations. Students must follow these guidelines strictly.

Allowed Items

  • Printed CBSE Admit Card 2026
  • School ID card
  • Transparent water bottle
  • Stationery items i.e., Transparent Pouch, Geometry/Pencil Box, Blue/Royal Blue Ink/Ball Point/Gel Pen, Scale, Writing Pad, and Eraser
  • Analogue Watch, Transparent Water Bottle. 
  • Metro Card, Bus Pass, Money.  

Barred Items

  • Mobile phones
  • Smart watches
  • Electronic gadgets
  • Notes or study material
  • Calculators (unless permitted for a subject)
  • Any eatable item opened or packed, except for diabetic students
  • Other items like Wallet, Goggles, Handbags, Pouches, etc

Documents Required

  • Admit card
  • School ID card (for regular students); Any Govt. Issued Photo Identity Proof (for Pvt. Students) 

Reporting and Entry

  • Reach the exam centre at least 30 minutes before reporting time
  • Entry gates usually close 15–20 minutes before the exam begins
  • Late entry may not be allowed

Do I Need to Preserve the Admit Card After the Exam?

Yes. Students are advised to keep the admit card safely even after the examinations are over.

The admit card may be required for:

  • Checking board results
  • Applying for re-evaluation or verification
  • College admission and counselling
  • Document verification

Students should preserve the admit card until the entire admission process is completed.

CBSE Board Exam Dress Code 2026

  • For Regular Students – School Uniform  
  • For Private Students – Light Clothes

123...43Page 1 of 43