SC Feels UGC New Regulations “Too Sweeping,” Stays till Experts have a Closer Look
Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Jan 29: Amidst widespread protests, especially by the general category students, across the country, the Supreme Court on Thursday put on hold the implementation of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, alleged to be discriminatory on the ground that it extends the benefit of reservation only to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and members of the Other Backward Communities (OBC) while denying protection to upper castes.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the Regulations were “too sweeping” and needed a closer look. The court said, for the time being, the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012 would continue to be in force. The next hearing is scheduled on March 19.
The row erupted after the UGC on January 13 notified the new regulations, making it mandatory for all higher education institutions to constitute equity committees comprising members from OBC, SC and ST communities to address complaints of discrimination and promote inclusion. The move has drawn backlash from several quarters, with many claiming that the UGC Regulations 2026 could be misused to foment caste-based discontent and vitiate the academic environment.
During the hearing, CJI Kant lamented that society has not been able to do away with caste-based discrimination even after 75 years of independence. “In a country after 75 years, all that we have achieved, to become a classless society; are we becoming a regressive society? (The) worst thing which is happening in ragging is that children coming from south or north-east… they carry their culture, and somebody who is alien to this starts commenting on them. Then you have spoken about separate hostels. For God’s sake. There are inter-caste marriages also, and we have also been in hostels where all stayed together,” the Chief Justice remarked.
Stressing that the language of the regulations must be reviewed by an expert, the court issued a notice to centre and the UGC on petitions challenging specifically Regulation 3(c) of the 2026 Regulations which defined ‘caste-based discrimination’ in a narrowly confined manner as discrimination “only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of the SC, ST and OBC.”
Senior advocate Indira Jaising and advocate Prasanna .S. intervened against the stay order, saying the keeping the regulations in abeyance was akin to “calling a fully-abled person as disabled.” The regulations, she said, addressed a real and present problem of discrimination against students from Dalit and historically-oppressed castes within higher education institutions.
The bench also noted that Article 15(4) empowers the making of laws for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. However, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, part of the two-judge bench, agreed that there should be no regression in progressive legislation.
“I hope we don’t go to segregated schools like the US, where blacks and whites went to different schools,” he said, with the CJI adding, “This kind of situation can be exploited.”
The court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the UGC regulations 2026 that mandated all universities and colleges in the country to establish an Equal Opportunity Centre (EOC) and campus-level committees to inquire into discrimination complaints and promote equity and inclusion.
The petitions filed by petitioners, Rahul Dewan, Mritunjay Tiwari and advocate Vineet Jindal said the definition of ‘caste-based discrimination’ in the 2026 regulations “by design and operation, accords legal recognition of victimhood exclusively to certain reserved categories and categorically excludes persons belonging to general or upper castes from its protective ambit, regardless of the nature, gravity, or context of discrimination suffered by them.”
The petition said a myopic definition would institutionalise exclusion at the threshold, creating a “hierarchy of victimhood while introducing a constitutionally impermissible bias into a regulatory framework that purports to be neutral and inclusive.”
The 2026 regulations had superseded the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012 with the stated objective of fostering equity, inclusion and a discrimination-free academic environment across higher education institutions in line with the National Education Policy, 2020.
The petitions had argued that the new regulations proceeded on an untenable presumption that caste-based discrimination could operate only in one direction, foreclosing, as a matter of law, the possibility that persons belonging to general or upper castes may also be subjected to caste-based hostility, abuse, intimidation, or institutional prejudice.
“This presumption ignores the evolving social realities. The definition is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It creates a hostile classification founded solely on caste, without any intelligible differentia and without a rational nexus to the professed objective of promoting equity in higher education,” the petitions submitted.
The new regulations led to protests over allegations that it lacked a clear mechanism for general category students to raise complaints, and warned that the regulations could inadvertently increase inequality. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain argued that the definition of “caste discrimination” restricts it to discrimination only against the SCs, STs, and OBCs, excluding the general category.
“We are challenging Section 3(c) of the regulations. Caste-based discrimination is defined as the caste-based discrimination against SC, ST, and OBC. This completely excludes the members of the general category. This definition under section 3(c) is completely hit by Article 14 when discrimination is already defined, and it cannot be assumed that discrimination is only against one segment,” he argued.
Protests against the new rules had particularly intensified in Uttar Pradesh on Wednesday with large-scale demonstrations reported from Deoria, an agitator writing a letter to the Prime Minister with his blood in Kaushambi, and a BJP functionary quitting his post in Raebareli.
In Deoria, thousands of people staged a sit-in on the district court premises, raising slogans against the Centre and the State Government. The demonstrators, who marched from the Subhash Chowk to the Collectorate, raised slogans outside the District Magistrate’s office and later blocked the road outside the district court, disrupting traffic for nearly an hour, officials said.
Members of the legal fraternity also extended support to the agitation, during which some protesters were seen sporting black armbands. The district administration initially failed to clear the blockade as the protesters demanded that District Magistrate Divya Mittal first come to the site.
Some lawyers claimed that the regulations could create social discord and deepen divisions. In Raebareli, the BJP Kisan Morcha’s Salon mandal president, Shyam Sundar Tripathi, resigned from his post in protest against the new UGC regulations.
Over the past few years, the UGC, the statutory body responsible for the coordination, determination, and maintenance of standards in university education, has rolled out a series of changes in higher education aligned with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
Regulations covering key elements of NEP 2020 relevant to undergraduate and postgraduate programmes have been notified through the multiple guidelines and regulations. Notable examples are the curriculum and credit framework for undergraduate programmes 2022 and the UGC (Minimum Standards of Instruction for the Grant of Undergraduate Degree and Postgraduate Degree) Regulations, 2025. These regulations dwell on degree programmes of varying durations; multiple entry and multiple exit options; choosing major and minor discipline, the integration of general and vocational education; biannual admissions; transfer of credits earned through non-traditional learning platforms, including massive open online courses (MOOCs); and academic bank of credits (ABC), and simultaneously pursuing two UG or PG courses.
While the UGC claims that these measures aim to significantly expand academic flexibility by offering students greater choice in subject selection and enabling a more flexible higher education system, the colleges, particularly serving in towns, in tier two, and those in tier three are struggling to implement these changes. Principals and lecturers of government and private colleges in several states pointed to common difficulties in implementing the undergraduate curriculum and credit framework.
