<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<mods xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.1" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-1.xsd">
  <titleInfo>
    <title>Promoting equity in higher education: How valid are the arguments against the UGC equity regulations, 2026?</title>
  </titleInfo>
  <name type="personal">
    <namePart>Thorat, Sukhadeo</namePart>
    <role>
      <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">creator</roleTerm>
    </role>
  </name>
  <typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
  <originInfo>
    <place>
      <placeTerm type="text">Economic &amp; Political Weekly</placeTerm>
    </place>
    <issuance>monographic</issuance>
  </originInfo>
  <language>
    <languageTerm authority="iso639-2b" type="code">eng</languageTerm>
  </language>
  <physicalDescription>
    <form authority="marcform">print</form>
    <extent>61(11), Mar 14, 2026: p.33-43</extent>
  </physicalDescription>
  <abstract>The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 were met with protests and were subsequently kept in abeyance by the Supreme Court. However, it is pertinent to ask whether the objections raised against the 2026 regulations are valid. Such a question can be best answered by tracing the evolution of the 2026 regulations and their necessity. Further, the limitations of the 2026 regulations must also be tackled.-Reproduced 

https://www.epw.in/journal/2026/11/special-articles/promoting-equity-higher-education.html
</abstract>
  <relatedItem type="host">
    <name>
      <namePart>Economic &amp; Political Weekly  </namePart>
    </name>
  </relatedItem>
  <recordInfo>
    <recordCreationDate encoding="marc">260429</recordCreationDate>
  </recordInfo>
</mods>
