Concerns Over the Notification of New UGC Rules

 

The new rules notified by the University Grants Commission (UGC) on 13 January 2026 have generated significant debate and criticism, particularly among some students from the general category. Several groups argued that the framework could unintentionally create perceptions of reverse discrimination. Protests were reported outside the UGC office in Delhi and in other parts of the country, led by organisations such as the “Savarna Sena.” Their principal concern was that the rules did not clearly specify a parallel grievance-reporting mechanism for general category students and might lead to an increase in complaints and administrative complications. The situation, however, stabilised after the Supreme Court granted an interim injunction.

Critics contend that the rules appear to have been notified without sufficiently wide consultation or careful evaluation of their broader social and institutional impact. One major objection is the expansion of coverage to include additional OBC categories without a publicly presented body of evidence demonstrating widespread systemic discrimination in every newly included group. Opponents argue that existing UGC regulations already provide mechanisms to address harassment and discrimination, and that strengthening implementation may have been preferable to expanding the regulatory scope.

Some commentators also question whether the policy debate has relied too heavily on a limited number of high-profile cases, where facts and conclusions remain contested or complex. They suggest that policymaking in this sensitive area should be grounded in comprehensive data, transparent review, and stakeholder consultation across communities.

At the same time, supporters of broader protections argue that discrimination can exist in varied forms and that preventive frameworks are better created early rather than after patterns become entrenched. This difference in perspective highlights the need for more evidence-based dialogue rather than polarised reactions.

The broader philosophical concern remains: if the long-term social objective is to move toward a casteless society, policymakers must carefully assess whether expanding caste-based regulatory structures helps reduce inequity or inadvertently reinforces social divisions. Some earlier thinkers, including Chaudhary Charan Singh, had suggested that incentivising inter-caste marriages could be a more enduring social reform measure. Such proposals deserve renewed discussion alongside regulatory approaches.

Given the sensitivity of the issue, it would be prudent for the government and regulatory bodies to revisit the rules through wider consultation, clearer drafting, and stronger empirical justification, while keeping the focus on fairness, social harmony, and educational development.

Avoidable Controversy by Swami Avimukteshwaranand

 

The controversy raged by Swami Avimukteshwaranand during the Mauni Amavasya snan (bath) in the Sangam at Prayagraj was unjustified and could have been avoided. His claim to be Shankaracharya of Jyotirmatt is unique and remains contested. Each Shankaracharya is seen as the custodian of one Veda and one Mahavakya, ensuring the preservation of Advait Vedanta.

Although the sterling work for the Vedic religion was done by Rishi Dayanand Saraswati, who was the founder of Arya Samaj, he never favoured the system of Shankaracharya. The location of Jyotishpeeth is Joshimatha in Uttarakhand, North. The Atharva Veda is attached to this Math, and its Mahavakya is: Ayam Atma Brahma, i.e. This self is Brahman.

Sama Veda is associated with the Dwarka Sharda Peetham of Dwarka in the West. Its Mahavakya is Tattwam Asi, i.e. Thou art That. Govardhan Matt is situated in Puri of Odissa. Rigveda is associated with it, and its Mahavakya is Pragyanam Brahma, which emphasises that Consciousness is Brahman, which means pure awareness itself is the ultimate reality. The highly respected Sringeri Sharda Peetham is located in the South at Sringeri of Karnataka, and it is the custodian of the Yajurveda and the Mahavakya is Aham Brahmasmi, i. e. I am Brahman, which is a direct realisation of one’s identity with Brahman.

  Together, the four Mahavakyas form a complete philosophical system, emphasising the non-dual identity of Atman (Self) and Brahman (Absolute Reality). This structure also explains why the Shankaracharyas are revered not just regionally but are considered guardians of the entire Vedantic tradition. Their contribution, however, to the betterment of society has been next to nil as compared to the Arya Samaj.

It was Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, who revived Jyotirmath in 1941. This Jyotirmatt was without any Shankaracharya for centuries.  After his death, Swami Shantanand Saraswati was appointed, but many disciples rejected his claim.  Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati also claimed the seat, leading to decades of disputes. Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, a disciple of Brahmananda Saraswati, eventually asserted authority and was widely recognised, though not without opposition.  Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, Swaroopanand’s disciple, was declared successor in 2022, but his claim is being legally contested by Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati, a disciple of Swami Shantanand.

 Swami Avimukteswaranand could have won the hearts of the people by his conduct, but he always appears to be in a pugnacious mood, giving rise to one or the other controversy.

 

 

Religious Bigotry: A Mark of Backwardness

Every society and religion has faced social evils, but progressive communities have always embraced reform. For instance, Hindu society once struggled with practices such as child marriage, sati, and dowry. These customs, though deeply entrenched, were eventually abolished through legislation and widespread public support.

Similarly, Muslim societies have grappled with harmful practices such as Triple Talaq, Halala, and restrictive interpretations of the Hijab. While some of these issues have been addressed through reform laws, what remains troubling is the resistance from certain community leaders who oppose change. Practices like Misyar marriages among Sunnis and Mutah marriages among Shias persist in some regions, highlighting the need for continued reform.

The eradication of such evils depends on the spread of scientific education and rational thought. Reformers in India raised their voices against sati, child marriage, and dowry, leading to laws that were widely accepted without opposition from Hindu religious leaders. In contrast, within Islam, reform efforts often encounter resistance from fundamentalist and radical elements.

A striking example comes from Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who sought to modernise society and limit religious conservatism. He famously criticised the hijab, calling women in veils “walking tents.” His reforms, however, faced strong opposition, including the Khilafat movement, which was ironically supported by leaders like Mahatma Gandhi despite its regressive stance.

Figures such as Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar and Shaukat Ali spearheaded the Khilafat movement, prioritising religious orthodoxy over social progress. The establishment of institutions commemorating such leaders raises questions about the true spirit of secularism.

It is tragic that nations like Turkey and Iran—once seen as pioneers of reform—have regressed into regimes dominated by religious bigotry. Social reform must never be obstructed by religious obscurantism. Leaders and followers of all faiths must adapt to the pace of modern times. Societies that resist progress are destined to remain backward in every sphere of life.

Judicial Criticism and the Limits of Public Discourse

 

It is a settled principle of law that once a judgment is delivered, it enters the public domain. Citizens, scholars, and practitioners are free to analyse, appreciate, or criticise it based on their understanding. Such engagement enriches jurisprudence and strengthens democratic debate. However, there is a crucial boundary: while judgments may be critiqued, motives must never be attributed to the judges who delivered them. To do so undermines judicial independence and erodes public confidence in the institution.

Unfortunately, contemporary discourse often blurs this line. Instead of analysing judgments on their merits—examining statutory interpretation, precedent, or reasoning—many commentators resort to questioning the personal background or alleged biases of judges, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria. This trend is not only intellectually shallow but also corrosive to the majesty of law.

The recent cases of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), illustrate this problem. Bail under UAPA is exceptionally stringent: courts must be satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty of terrorism-related offences. This makes bail far harder to obtain than in ordinary criminal cases. By contrast, parole—such as that repeatedly granted to Baba Ram Rahim—is a different legal mechanism altogether. Parole is a temporary release of a convict already serving a sentence, usually for humanitarian reasons such as illness, family emergencies, or education. It is granted by administrative authorities, not directly by courts, though courts may intervene if parole is denied arbitrarily. Furlough, distinct from parole, is a routine break granted for good conduct.

Thus, comparing bail under UAPA with parole for convicts is legally unsound. The two operate under entirely different frameworks, purposes, and thresholds. When biased commentators equate these distinct legal processes or attack judges personally, they mislead public understanding and weaken respect for judicial institutions. Criticism of judgments is welcome; scandalising judges is not. The judiciary’s authority rests on public trust, not coercive power. If this trust is eroded by reckless commentary, the rule of law itself is imperilled. Courts have the power to initiate contempt proceedings against those who scandalise or lower the authority of the judiciary. While suo motu action is exercised sparingly, there is a strong case for vigilance against commentators who substitute serious legal analysis with personal attacks. Protecting judicial dignity is not about silencing dissent—it is about ensuring that dissent remains within the bounds of reasoned, lawful discourse.

Opposition to Hindi shows the inanity of Tamil politicians

The people of Tamil Nadu are suffering greatly from the denial of the three-language formula in schools. Strangely, even those who know a little Hindi pretend not to. They say so out of fear of politicians. It can be said in all fairness that Muslims do not hesitate to converse in Hindi in all parts of the state. Why Tamilians, who have a knack for learning many languages, are denied the chance to learn Hindi is beyond anyone’s imagination. What is most shocking is that people have not launched any agitation against the imbecility of those in power.

Because of the anti-Hindi attitude, opportunities for communication and mobility across India are reduced, limiting access to certain jobs that require Hindi. Many central government jobs, national companies, and customer-facing roles require Hindi proficiency. Without it, candidates from Tamil Nadu often face disadvantages compared to others, though those who are highly educated do overcome this difficulty by learning the language soon.

Travelling or working in North and Central India becomes harder without Hindi, as English is hardly spoken in smaller towns. Hindi dominates Indian cinema and TV. Thus, not knowing it often limits participation in mainstream cultural conversations.

The National Education Policy (NEP) promotes a three-language formula including Hindi. Tamil Nadu’s resistance sometimes creates tension with the Centre, potentially affecting funding and opportunities. In pan-Indian organisations, Hindi often becomes the informal medium of communication. Non-speakers may feel excluded. Currently, Tamil Nadu does not have any Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs). The main reason is the state government’s opposition, rooted in Tamil Nadu’s unique two-language policy and its resistance to the three-language formula promoted by the Centre. This has led to decades of refusal to allow JNVs, even though the central government funds them fully.

JNVs across India follow the three-language formula (regional language, Hindi, English). Tamil Nadu enforces a two-language policy (Tamil + English), rejecting compulsory Hindi, which is nothing but the height of foolishness. With the intervention of the Supreme Court, it is hoped that the issue will be resolved. The Supreme Court has directed Tamil Nadu to identify land in every district for establishing Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) and to hold consultations with the Union Government, rejecting the state’s objections that these schools conflict with its two-language policy. The Court emphasised that JNVs should not be turned into a language issue and highlighted their role in providing quality education to rural and underprivileged students. The obduracy of Tamil politicians in favouring English and opposing Hindi, that too, at the detriment of the people, is not understandable. In fact, people should stand up and fight against the irrational policies of Tamil political parties.  

 

The Impeachment Motion is an attempt to browbeat Justice GR Swaminathan

Opposition parties, which swear by the constitution, are brutally violating it. A judge, in fact, speaks through his/ her judgments. Once the judgment has been pronounced, he/ she becomes functus officio. And in the same vein, it must also be said that after the pronouncement of the judgment, it becomes public property, and it can be subjected to praise or criticism. A judgment can be right or wrong. If that is wrong, the same can be appealed, but no judgment can be extracted from the judge by unjustified pressure.

However, what the opposition parties and their leaders have done by giving notice of impeachment against Judge G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court, with the signatures of 107 Members of Parliament, to the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, shows their colossal ignorance of the Constitutional provisions. The notice was handed over jointly with the INDIA bloc leaders, including Priyanka Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav, marking a coordinated move by the opposition alliance. The development is related to an order that allowed a section of devotees of the Uchchipillaiyar Temple to light the traditional Karthigai Deepam, a stone lamp pillar located near a Dargah at Thirupparankundram in Madurai.

The MPs moved the notice under Article 217, read with Article 124 of the Constitution of India. Needless to say, Judges can only be impeached on two grounds: proved misbehaviour or incapacity. These are the constitutional standards applied to judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts in India.

Proven misbehaviour covers actions that violate judicial ethics, integrity, or dignity. Examples include corruption, abuse of judicial office, bias, or conduct unbecoming of a judge. Misbehaviour must be proved through an inquiry by a judicial committee before Parliament can act.

Incapacity refers to a judge’s inability to discharge duties due to physical or mental disability. Here, there is nothing which could be proved against Justice Swaminathan. Clearly, this impeachment motion is an attempt to browbeat a judge; therefore, it must be dismissed by the Speaker with the contempt it deserves. 

Implementation of Four Labour Codes

Four Labour Codes (a) Code on Wages, (b) Industrial Relations Code, (c) Social Security Code, and (d) Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code have come into force from today, i.e. 21st November 2025. These four Codes have subsumed 29 labour laws. The main change is the subsuming of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Absence of disputes implies a harmonious relationship between labour and management. Therefore, every industrial relations legislation necessarily aims at providing conditions congenial to industrial peace. Almost all interruptions are due to industrial disputes. The object of all labour legislation around the world is to ensure fair wages and prevent disputes.

From now onward, it will be part of the Industrial Relations Code. Apart from the Industrial Disputes Act, the other two acts which have been subsumed within it are: the Trade Union Act and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders). Not many changes have been made in this code from other labour acts. However, this restructuring ensures uniformity in working hours, overtime pay, and worker protections, aligning India’s labour ecosystem with global standards. Therefore, these changes are bound to impact every category of worker, including corporate employees, factory workers, gig workers, and those in the unorganised sector.
Universal Minimum Wage
The government will now set a statutory floor wage based on minimum living standards. States must ensure their minimum wages remain above the statutory floor wage, creating nationwide uniformity. For the first time, all employees, including unorganised-sector workers, are covered. The new wage definition brings clarity. “Wages” will now include basic pay, dearness allowance, and retaining allowance. At least 50% of total compensation must be basic pay, preventing companies from inflating allowances. This change may lead to lower take-home salaries but higher PF and gratuity benefits, as per labour experts quoted in earlier policy discussions.
Gender Equality
The codes prohibit gender-based wage discrimination, ensuring equal pay for equal work. Timely wage payment rules now apply to all employees earning up to Rs 24,000 per month, widening protection.
Work Hours and Overtime
The weekly cap remains 48 hours. Daily limits may be increased, but overtime must be paid at twice the normal rate. For the first time, work-from-home provisions are officially recognised, especially for services and IT sectors, giving companies and employees more flexibility. Gig and platform workers, drivers, delivery partners, and freelancers will receive social security benefits. Aggregators will contribute 1–2% of their turnover into a dedicated social-security fund.
 Industrial Relations: The threshold for requiring government approval for lay-offs, retrenchment, and closure has increased from 100 to 300 workers.
Employees must now give a 14-day strike notice, preventing sudden flash strikes. The codes introduce an inspector-cum-facilitator system with web-based, algorithm-driven inspections, reducing harassment.
Compliance, from licenses to registers, is now digitised under the “One License, One Registration” rule.
Gratuity for Fixed-Term Employees
Fixed-term workers will now get gratuity on a pro-rata basis, without needing to complete five years.
Factory and Contract Labour
Factories with 20 workers (with power) and 40 workers (without power) will now come under the Factory Act.
The Contract Labour Act applies to establishments with 50 or more contract workers.