The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the operation of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, expressing prima facie reservations about their constitutional validity and potential for misuse. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that the Regulations be kept in abeyance and revived the earlier 2012 framework in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The Court was hearing three writ petitions filed by Mritunjay Tiwari, Advocate Vineet Jindal and Rahul Dewan, challenging the Regulations as discriminatory towards persons belonging to the general category. The petitioners’ principal challenge was directed against Clause 3(c), which defines “caste-based discrimination” as discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. They contended that this definition is restrictive and exclusionary, rendering persons from non-reserved categories completely without remedy under the statutory framework even if they face caste-based discrimination or institutional bias.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that when Regulation 3(1)(e) already defines “discrimination” broadly to cover all forms of differential treatment, there was no need for a separate definition of “caste-based discrimination” under Regulation 3(1)(c). He submitted that the provision presumes only a particular section of society faces caste-based discrimination, which has no reasonable nexus with the objective of the Regulations and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Another counsel submitted a hypothetical scenario where a fresher belonging to the general category faces ragging at the instance of a senior belonging to the Scheduled Castes. He argued that under the present Regulations, there is no remedy for such an instance, and the fresher may even face a reverse case. The Bench expressed surprise that the Regulations do not address ragging, which was covered under the 2012 framework.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who appeared for the petitioners in the 2019 PIL that led to the framing of these Regulations, defended them and opposed the stay. She argued that Regulation 3(c) employed the language of Article 15(4) of the Constitution, which empowers the State to make special provisions for the advancement of SC and ST communities. Jaising submitted that persons from any category can file complaints under the Regulations and that the stay would leave students without any remedy since the 2012 Regulations had been repealed. The Bench, however, did not accept this contention and directed the revival of the 2012 Regulations.
During the hearing, the Bench flagged several concerns. The Chief Justice observed that the provisions are vague and capable of being misused by miscreants. He questioned why “caste-based discrimination” is separately defined when the definition of “discrimination” already takes care of all forms of discriminatory treatment. Justice Bagchi asked whether Regulation 3(c) was a redundancy and questioned why there should be regression in a protective and ameliorative framework, invoking the principle of non-regression.
The Chief Justice also raised concerns about remedial provisions in the Regulations that contemplate separate hostels for different castes. He remarked that such segregation cannot be the way forward, adding that students used to stay together and inter-caste marriages also take place. Justice Bagchi emphasised that the unity of India must be reflected in its educational institutions and that the framework should not lead to a situation akin to segregated schools in the United States.
Questioning whether the country was moving backwards in its efforts to create a casteless society, the Chief Justice pointed out that among the Scheduled Castes, there are persons who have become economically prosperous. He cited Haryana’s categorisation of groups within reserved categories to note that even among reserved groups, there are disparities, and asked whether the Regulations provide grievance mechanisms for weaker sections within the SC community itself.
The Court suggested that the Regulations must be revisited by a committee comprising eminent jurists and social engineers who understand the social values and ailments facing society. The Chief Justice told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the Court did not wish to pass any order without proper consideration and urged the constitution of such a committee. He also cautioned advocates not to make the matter a political issue, stating that the Court only wished to examine the constitutionality of the Regulations.
Also read: Doctrine of basic structure
The UGC had notified the 2026 Regulations on 13 January following a PIL filed before the Supreme Court in 2019 by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, mothers of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi respectively, who reportedly died by suicide over caste-based discrimination faced in their universities. In early 2025, the Court had directed the Union to create a strong and robust mechanism for tackling discrimination in campuses and gave liberty to stakeholders to suggest inputs for the draft regulations. After considering these suggestions, the UGC notified the final Regulations, which superseded the 2012 framework.
The 2026 Regulations mandate every higher education institution to constitute Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees, Equity Squads and round-the-clock Equity Helplines to address discrimination complaints. Complaints are required to be addressed within 24 hours, with the Equity Committee submitting its report within 15 working days and the head of the institution taking action within seven working days. Non-compliance attracts penalties including debarment from UGC schemes, suspension of degree-granting privileges and removal from the list of institutions maintained under Sections 2(f) and 12B of the UGC Act.
Critics have pointed out that the Equity Committees are required to include members from SC, ST, OBC, women and persons with disabilities, but do not mandate representation for the general category. They have also raised concerns about the absence of any penalty for false or malicious complaints, arguing this could lead to reverse discrimination. Supporters of the Regulations, however, contend that India’s history of caste-based discrimination necessitates a targeted rather than neutral protection framework and that penalties for false complaints could deter genuine reporting.
The Court framed substantial questions of law for examination, including whether Clause 3(c) bears a reasonable and rational nexus with the object of the Regulations, whether the inclusion of “segregation” in Clause 7(d) amounts to a “separate yet equal” classification violating Articles 14 and 15, and whether the omission of “ragging” constitutes a regressive legislative omission violating Articles 14 and 21. The matter has been referred to a three-Judge Bench and tagged with the 2019 PIL. It is listed for further hearing on 19 March.
Click here to read the Order.
Leave a Reply