New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday, January 29, stayed a recent University Grants Commission (UGC) regulation after various pleas were filed contending that the Commission adopted a “non-inclusionary” definition of caste-based discrimination and excluded the general category from institutional protection.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to the Centre and the UGC, requiring them to respond or appear in court on March 19. Till then, the regulations are put on hold. The Court also ordered the continued operation of 2012 regulations during this period.
The Court raised concerns about UGC’s (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, and suggested that they must be reviewed again by a committee of prominent jurists. The regulations are “vague” and “capable of misuse,” the top Court noted.
The new regulations mandate all higher education institutions to have “equity committees,” “equity squads,” and “equal opportunity centres” to look into discrimination complaints and promote equity. They were notified on January 13.
The 2026 University Grants Commission Regulations mandated that these committees must include members of Other Backward Classes (OBC), Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), persons with disabilities (PwD), and women.
The new regulations replace the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, which were largely advisory in nature and not effectively implemented in .
The pleas assailed the regulation on the grounds that caste-based discrimination is defined strictly as discrimination against members of the SCs, STs, and OBCs.
It said that by limiting the scope of “caste-based discrimination” only to SC, ST, and OBC categories, the UGC has effectively denied institutional protection and grievance redressal to individuals belonging to the “general” or non-reserved categories who may also face harassment or bias based on their caste identity.
The Court, while hearing the case questioned the use of a separate definition of “caste-based discrimination” when “discrimination” already includes all forms of discriminatory treatment. It also asked why ragging has been left out of the regulations.
“Why the Regulations do not address ragging and why it is assumed that only caste-based discrimination exists? There are divisions based on junior-senior everywhere and most harassment happens on those lines,” CJI observed.
“We would like to have your response. Today we do not want to pass any order, some committee should be there with eminent jurists, have two to three persons who understand social values and ailments society is facing. How entire society should grow, how people are going to behave outside campus if we create this. They must apply their mind,” CJI Kant told Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta.
He further pointed out that there are some individuals belonging to the backward classes who have become prosperous.
“Whatever we have gained in terms of achieving a casteless society, are we now becoming regressive?” CJI asked.
“Prima facie language of the regulations…there is complete vagueness…capable of misuse…some expert may advise remodulation,” he added.
In response to the 2026 regulations, protests were held at various places, with student groups and organisations demanding its immediate rollback.
(With PTI inputs)
Follow on Twitter | Posted by Khadija Irfan Rahim | 
