The Supreme Court on Thursday put on hold the University Grants Commission’s newly notified regulations aimed at preventing caste discrimination in higher educational institutions, expressing serious concern that the framework, as drafted, could deepen social divisions rather than promote equity.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 remain in abeyance, observing that non-intervention by the court could have dangerous consequences for society.
“If we don’t intervene, it will have a dangerous impact, divide society, and have grave consequences,” the bench said while issuing notice to the UGC and the Union government.
Notified on January 13, the 2026 Regulations apply to all higher educational institutions across India. They seek to establish Equal Opportunity Centres and Equity Committees to address complaints of discrimination and promote inclusion for disadvantaged groups. However, the rules have been challenged on the ground that they exclude students from the general category from accessing the grievance redressal mechanism for caste-based discrimination.
At the heart of the controversy lies what the court described as an internal inconsistency in the definitions clause of the Regulations specifically Sections 3(c) and 3(e).
Section 3(c) defines caste-based discrimination as discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. In contrast, Section 3(e) defines discrimination more broadly as any unfair or biased treatment against any stakeholder on grounds including religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, or disability.
The bench questioned why a separate and narrower definition of caste-based discrimination was required when the wider definition in Section 3(e) already subsumed caste within it.
“When Section 3(e) exists and covers everything, how does Section 3(c) become relevant? When 3(c) is already ingrained in 3(e), why introduce it separately?” the court asked.
also read
- Union Budget 2026: What does the education sector want?
- ‘We know what's happening’: SC agrees to hear plea against UGC’s equity rules
- Standing up for the Vande Mataram like you do for the national anthem, may soon be a requirement
- Supreme Court allows Hindu, Muslim prayers at disputed Bhojshala site on Basant Panchami
The judges noted that under the current wording, Section 3(c) could effectively bar individuals from non-reserved categories from complaining about discrimination even on grounds such as region, language, or gender despite Section 3(e)’s expansive definition.
“Prima facie, we find the language vague. It needs to be examined by experts and modulated so that it is not exploited,” the bench observed, indicating that an expert committee may be required to revisit the drafting.
The court then issued notice and slated the hearing for March 19 and directed that the present batch of petitions be tagged with a similar plea filed in 2019, as the issues raised would have a bearing on the constitutional validity of the regulations.
The petitions before the court argue that the regulations create an exclusionary framework by denying grievance redressal and institutional protection to students who do not belong to the SC, ST or OBC categories. According to the petitioners, such selective protection amounts to impermissible State discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Advocate Vishnu Jain, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the definition of caste-based discrimination under Section 3(c) is unconstitutional. “Discrimination is defined under Section 3(e), and it cannot be assumed that discrimination exists only against one segment of society,” he argued.
During the hearing, the CJI posed a hypothetical to illustrate the problem. “Suppose a student from the South studies in the North or a student from the North goes to the South. There are sarcastic or humiliating remarks based on region, and caste is not even known. Which provision covers this?” Justice Kant asked. Jain responded that only Section 3(e) could address such conduct.
The bench also reflected more broadly on the persistence of social divisions. Lamenting that caste, class, and regional discrimination continue even after 75 years of independence, the CJI said the country appeared to be moving backwards rather than towards a classless society.
Referring to incidents of ragging and cultural hostility in hostels, he remarked that students from the northeast or southern states often face ridicule for their customs. “There are inter-caste marriages, and we have all lived in hostels together. For God’s sake, we should not be talking about segregation,” he said.
Justice Bagchi cautioned against legislative regression. While Article 15(4) empowers the State to enact special provisions for SCs and STs, he warned that poorly drafted affirmative frameworks could create new fault lines. “I hope we don’t go towards segregated schools like the U.S. once had for blacks and whites,” he observed.
The Bench also noted that the regulations had triggered protests outside court, particularly from upper-caste groups who allege that the rules are one-sided and susceptible to misuse. Lawyers pointed to public statements by political leaders suggesting that general category students should bear additional financial burdens, reinforcing fears of social polarisation.
Urging the government to act constructively, the court asked the Solicitor General to consider forming a committee of eminent persons to re-examine the regulations. “We want a fair and inclusive society, not discrimination within discrimination,” the CJI said while slating the hearing for March 19.
