Supreme Court Puts UGC’s 2026 Equity Regulations on Hold, Flags Risk of Social Division

Supreme Court Puts UGC’s 2026 Equity Regulations on Hold, Flags Risk of Social Division

New Delhi: In a major interim order, the Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the implementation of the University Grants Commission’s 2026 equity regulations aimed at preventing caste-based discrimination in higher education institutions, observing that the framework appears “prima facie vague” and could have “very sweeping and dangerous consequences” for society.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, said the regulations, if allowed to operate in their current form, could deepen social divisions instead of addressing discrimination on campuses. The court has sought responses from the Centre and the UGC by March 19 on multiple petitions challenging the validity of the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026.

“If we do not intervene, it will have a dangerous impact and may divide society. Prima facie, the language of the regulation is vague and capable of being misused,” the bench observed, stressing that the framework needs careful re-examination by experts.

While keeping the 2026 regulations in abeyance, the court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to revive the earlier UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012. The bench noted that repealing the earlier rules without a workable alternative would leave students without any effective remedy against discrimination.

“Issue notice returnable on March 19. Meanwhile, the 2026 Regulations shall remain in abeyance, and the 2012 Regulations will continue to operate until further orders,” the court directed.

The 2026 regulations had sparked protests across several campuses, with student organisations demanding their immediate withdrawal. A key point of contention was Regulation 3(1)(c), which 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. Petitioners argued that this definition excludes students from the general category and creates an unequal protection framework.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for one of the petitioners, contended that the provision violates Article 14 of the Constitution by presuming that caste-based discrimination is faced only by specific social groups. He argued that there was no justification for a separate definition when Regulation 3(1)(e) already provides a broad, inclusive definition of discrimination.

The bench also questioned why ragging—one of the most common forms of harassment in educational institutions—had been left outside the scope of the regulations. “Most harassment happens along junior-senior lines. Why is ragging not addressed at all?” the court asked.

During the hearing, the CJI raised concerns that the regulations could undermine the goal of building a casteless and unified society. Referring to practices such as separate hostels for different castes, he remarked, “For God’s sake, don’t do this. We all used to stay together. There are inter-caste marriages also.”

Justice Bagchi emphasised that the constitutional ideal of unity must be reflected within educational campuses. The bench also discussed hypothetical situations involving regional discrimination, questioning whether the regulatory framework adequately addressed such scenarios.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing in connection with a 2019 public interest litigation filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi—which eventually led to the framing of the 2026 regulations—defended the new rules. However, the court maintained that the current language could have unintended and far-reaching implications.

The petitions challenging the regulations have been filed by Mritunjay Tiwari, advocate Vineet Jindal and Rahul Dewan. The Supreme Court will take up the matter again after receiving responses from the Centre and the UGC, even as it hinted that a committee of eminent jurists and social experts may be needed to revisit and refine the framework.