The Supreme Court on Thursday said the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, suffer from “certain ambiguities” that raise substantial questions of law for consideration.
The court has stayed the recent UGC equity regulations on preventing caste-based discrimination on campuses, saying the framework is “prima facie vague” and does not rule out “the possibility of their [regulations’] misuse”.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Baghchi observed that the framework can have “very sweeping consequences” and may end up dividing the society with a “dangerous impact”.
The top court put forth four substantial questions requiring a detailed examination, including whether the incorporation of clause 3(c) in the impugned regulations, defining “caste-based discrimination”, bears a reasonable and rational nexus to subserve the object and purpose of the 2026 UGC regulations, particularly in light of the fact that no distinct or special procedural mechanism has been prescribed to address caste-based discrimination, as opposed to the exhaustive and inclusive definition of “discrimination” provided under clause 3(e) of the impugned regulations?
Whether the introduction and operationalisation of “caste-based discrimination” under the impugned regulations would have any bearing on the existing constitutional and statutory sub-classification of the Most Backward Castes within the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward Classes (OBC), and whether the impugned regulations provide adequate and effective protection and safeguards to such Extremely Backward Castes against discrimination and structural disadvantage?
Also Read: SC stays UGC regulation on caste-based discrimination
Whether the inclusion of the expression “segregation” in clause 7(d) of the impugned regulations, in the context of allocation of hostels, classrooms, mentorship groups or similar academic or residential arrangements, albeit on transparent and non-discriminatory criteria, would amount to a “separate yet equal” classification, thereby infringing the constitutional guarantees of equality and fraternity under Articles 14, 15 as well as the Preamble to the Constitution of India?
Whether the omission of the term “ragging” as a specific form of discrimination in the framework of the impugned regulations, despite its existence in the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012, constitutes a regressive and exclusionary legislative omission? If so, whether such omission is violative of unequal treatment of victims of discrimination by creating an asymmetry in access to justice and thus, falls foul of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? A three-judge bench of the apex court will hear the matter on March 19.
The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, notified on January 13, mandated that all higher education institutions form ‘equity committees’ to look into complaints of discrimination and promote equity, and that these committees must include members of the OBC, SC and ST communities, persons with disabilities and women.
The new regulations replace the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, which were largely advisory in nature.
Multiple pleas were filed challenging the new regulations, assailing them on the ground that caste-based discrimination has strictly been defined as discrimination against members of the SC, ST and OBC communities.
Follow us
