“If we do not intervene, it will divide society.”
Supreme Court of India on Thursday, kept in abeyance the University Grant Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations,2026, which allegedly recognises only caste based discrimination committed against Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes, and Other Backward Classes with educational campuses while failing to protect Students from the general category.
Chief Justice of India Suryakant, heading a bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, observed that this Regulation has sweeping consequences which would divide the society. Justice Bagchi quoted that “The unity of India must be reflected in its educational Institutions, we should not go to the stage of segregated schools and hostels.
Petitioners Rahul Dewan, Mritunjay Tiwari, and Advocate Vineet Jindal, while filing the petition comes up with specific substantial question of laws like definition of “caste based discrimination” here it does not prescribe any specialized or distinct procedure mechanism for addressing such discrimination, demands clarification on the term “segregation” as the Regulation does not specifies whether there will be separate caste based allocation of hostels, classrooms, mentorship groups and similar academic or residential arrangements as this would infringe the constitutional provisions of Equality under Article 14, Article 15 of Indian constitution. This framework also perpetuates asymmetric access to justice by completely barring students of the general category from approaching the committee if they face discrimination, thereby violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner also questioned how the extremely backward classes are protected and safeguarded from discrimination and structural disadvantages. 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”.
On January 13, 2026, the University Grant Commission (UGC) announced the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, replacing the earlier 2012 framework. This Regulation was framed following a PIL filed in 2019 before the Supreme Court by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, the mother of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi, respectively, seeking a mechanism to end caste-based discrimination in educational institutions. Both of these students reportedly died by suicide over caste-discrimination faced in the universities. This framework also claims that the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020’s emphasis on “equity and inclusion” and its aim to lay down procedures to address discrimination in UGC-approved Indian Institutions, colleges, and universities.
The stated goal of the Regulation is, “to eradicate discrimination only based on religion, race, gender, place of birth, caste, or disability, particularly against the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, persons with disabilities, or any of them, and to promote full equity and inclusion amongst the stakeholders in higher education institutions”.
This particular Regulation imposes no penalty for false complaints of caste discrimination, thereby working on the principle that any complaint by an individual belonging to the SC/ST/OBC/PwD category is De Facto actual, and students of the General category against whom a complaint is registered are the culprits. On the other side, individuals belonging to the general castes have been ruled out as victims of any possible discrimination based on caste, making the Regulation wildly draconian.
UGC notifies University Grant Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulation,2026, where the commission determines to eradicate discrimination based on religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, or against persons with disability in Higher Education Institutions. The “caste based discrimination” here is defined as the discrimination based on caste or tribe against any member of the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, or other backward class. The word “Discrimination” here is quoted and elaborated as any unfair, differential, or biased treatment on the grounds mentioned, including both explicit and implicit forms of acts. It also includes any distinction, exclusion, or preference that purposely impairs or nullifies equity in educational institutions. The legislation provides for the establishment of an equal opportunity cell in every institution to oversee the practical implementation of policies and programmes for disadvantaged groups, and to provide guidance and counselling regarding academic, financial, social, and other matters. This cell also aims to enhance campus diversity while completely excluding students of the general category from reporting any discrimination they face. This cell has the power to provide legal aid to victims in coordination with the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority. This Regulation provides of an equity committee to be formed in every institution under section 5 (6) to regulate, control, and eradicate any form of discrimination. The heads of the institution shall chair this committee; the secretary shall serve as the coordinator of the equal opportunity cell; and members of the committee shall include a senior professor, a staff member other than a teacher, representatives from civil society, and students.
The Supreme Court’s order to halt the UGC Regulations, 2026, marks a critical Judicial intervention to safeguard the equality provisions of the Indian Constitution under Articles 14, 15, and 21 within higher educational institutions. The order opens the way for reassessing and reevaluating the scope and impact of the regulations. Until such stay, the University Grant Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012 will remain in operation. This adjudication serves as a reminder that the educational policy reforms must not conflict with constitutional provisions or morality and must also maintain a balance between equity and merit.
Author:
Aditi Dixit
Assisstant professor of law, Aryavart University, bhopal
Email: aditi.dixit0812@gmail.com
Contact: 8989952148
Co-Author:
Saurabh Shukla
LL.M.Student, NALSAR University of law
Email: saurabhjt98@gmail.com
Contact: 9826731759
