29 January 2026: MAINS CURRENT AFFAIRS

MAINS Current Affairs includes UGC Regulations on Caste-Based Discrimination (2026) & Intellectual Property & Space Activities

Governance

1. UGC Regulations on Caste-Based Discrimination (2026)

Context

The University Grants Commission has issued fresh regulations to curb caste-based discrimination in higher education institutions and ensure safer, more inclusive campuses.

Background

Under Regulation 3(c) of the UGC (Promotion of Equity in HEIs) Regulations, 2026, caste-based discrimination refers to unfair treatment solely on the basis of caste or tribe against SC/ST/OBC individuals.
The goal is to secure a dignified environment for students, faculty, and staff across universities and colleges.

Key Features of the 2026 Regulations

Institutional Mechanisms

Mandatory establishment of:
- Equal Opportunity Centre (EOC)
- Equity Committee
- Equity Squads

Equal Opportunity Centre

Oversees all equity-related initiatives for disadvantaged groups.
Coordinates with district administration and police.
Assists with legal aid when required.

Equity Committee

Located within the EOC.
Ten-member body headed by the institutional leader.
Half of the members (5) must belong to reserved categories.

Equity Squads

Tasked with preventing and monitoring discrimination on campus.
Institutions must also run a 24×7 Equity Helpline and appoint Equity Ambassadors.

Enforcement

UGC will monitor compliance.
Non-compliant institutions risk losing funding, degree-granting authority, or even recognition.

Impact of Caste-Based Discrimination

On Individuals

Harms dignity and mental health (anxiety, depression, withdrawal).
Leads to exclusion—higher dropouts, fewer academic opportunities.
Fear of retaliation discourages reporting.

On Institutions

Reduces academic excellence by blocking equal participation.
Creates distrust between students, faculty, and administration.

On Society

Reinforces structural inequalities and caste hierarchies.
Contradicts constitutional values—equality, justice, fraternity.

Constitutional Support

46: State duty to promote educational & economic interests of SC/STs.
14: Equality before law.
15(4), 15(5): Affirmative action for backward classes.
16(1), 16(4): Equal opportunity & reservations in employment.
17: Abolition of untouchability.

Legal Framework

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
Right to Education Act, 2009.
UGC Act, 1956.

Concerns Raised

Legal

No provision dealing with false or malicious complaints.
Time-bound actions may affect natural justice.

Institutional

Smaller colleges may lack capacity to run EOCs and Squads.
UGC’s punitive powers may lead to overly cautious or unfair decisions.

Social & Academic

Excessive monitoring may hinder academic freedom.
Perceived bias could hurt campus cohesion.

Way Forward

Strengthen counselling, mentorship, and academic support—especially for first-generation learners.
Integrate equity mechanisms with existing grievance redressal systems.
Use complaint data to identify systemic issues like hostel segregation or evaluation bias.

SPACE

2. Intellectual Property & Space Activities

Context

Growing human activity in space has exposed tensions between territorial patent systems and collaborative innovation occurring beyond national jurisdiction.

Innovation in Space

As long-term human presence in space becomes feasible, survival will depend on continuous, joint technological development.
This raises a core question: Who owns inventions created in space, an environment not subject to national sovereignty?

Territorial Basis of Patent Law

Patent protection is traditionally territorial, with exclusive rights enforceable only within national borders.
Infringement is determined by where an invention is made, used, or sold—an approach suited for Earth but problematic once activities occur in outer space.

Applicability in Space

Outer space law prohibits national appropriation of celestial bodies.

However, states retain jurisdiction over spacecraft they register.

Article VIII (Outer Space Treaty): jurisdiction follows the state of registry, not physical location.
This creates a legal fiction: an invention aboard a registered space object is treated as made within that country.

Current Practice

The ISS applies module-based jurisdiction, with each module treated as the territory of its contributing nation.
Lunar/Martian bases will not have such clearly demarcated “national zones,” and multinational teams will co-develop technologies, making IP ownership unclear.

Important Legal Principles

Article I (Outer Space Treaty): space must benefit all humankind.
Article II: forbids national ownership of celestial bodies.
Article VIII + Registration Convention: jurisdiction attaches to state of registry.
Paris Convention Article 5: temporary presence doctrine—patented items in transit are not infringement (difficult to apply in space).

Key Challenges

Space innovation is multinational, but patent control depends on vehicle registration, not contribution.
Patents could create de facto monopolies on essential technologies, conflicting with space’s non-appropriation ideals.
Enforcement in space is fragmented; lack of clarity may restrict access to critical survival technologies.
Registration-based jurisdiction may encourage “flags of convenience,” weakening global IP standards.
Only a few space-faring nations shape the rules, leaving most countries as rule-takers, not rule-makers.
No authoritative mechanism exists for resolving multinational IP conflicts in space.