New Delhi: In a significant intervention, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday ordered a stay on the implementation of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the regulations, in their current form, were "vague" and could lead to "dangerous consequences" by dividing society.
The Court has ordered that the regulations be kept in abeyance (on hold) and issued notices to the UGC and the Central Government. In the interim, the Court directed that the 2012 UGC Regulations will continue to remain in force to ensure that students are not left without a grievance redressal mechanism.
The UGC notified the 2026 Regulations on January 13, seeking to replace the decade-old 2012 framework. The stated objective was to eradicate discrimination in higher educational institutions (HEIs) based on religion, race, gender, place of birth, caste, or disability.
However, the regulations immediately sparked a firestorm of protests and legal challenges. The primary grievance of the petitioners—represented by Advocate Vishnu Jain and others—is that the rules effectively exclude 'General Category' students from seeking protection against caste-based harassment.
The petitioners argued that by limiting the definition of "victimhood" to specific reserved categories, the government has created a "hierarchy of protection" that violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
During the hearing, the Bench expressed deep concern over the drafting of the regulations. The Court highlighted a glaring contradiction between two key sections:
- Section 3(c): Defines "caste-based discrimination" specifically as discrimination against members of Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).
- Section 3(e): Provides a broader definition of "discrimination" covering grounds like religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, and disability for any stakeholder.
CJI Surya Kant questioned the logic of having a separate, narrower definition for caste in Section 3(c) when the broader definition in Section 3(e) already covers it.
"When 3(c) is already ingrained in 3(e), why bring it as a separate provision? This kind of situation can be exploited," the CJI remarked.
The Court lamented that even 75 years after Independence, the nation is struggling with such divisions. "In a country after 75 years... are we becoming a regressive society? The worst thing happening in ragging is that children coming from the South or North-East carry their culture, and somebody starts commenting on them. Then you have spoken about separate hostels. For God's sake! We have been in hostels where all stayed together," the CJI added.
Advocate Vishnu Jain, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the exclusion of the General Category from the definition of caste-based discrimination is unconstitutional. He argued that discrimination is not "unidirectional" and that any student, regardless of their background, should have access to institutional protection if they are humiliated or harassed.
The CJI posed a hypothetical scenario to test this: "Suppose a student from the South gets admission in the North... some kind of sarcastic remark which is humiliating is made against him, and the caste of both parties is not known. Which provision covers it?"
While Jain replied that Section 3(e) covers it, he pointed out that Section 3(c) creates a specialized mechanism (Equal Opportunity Centers and Equity Committees) that remains inaccessible to General Category students under the current wording.