Supreme Court halts UGC Equity Regulations on caste discrimination in educational institutions

The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered that the University Grants Commission (UGC)'s recently notified rules to prevent caste discrimination in educational institutions be kept in abeyance..University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 (Regulations) was notified on January 13 and applies to all higher educational institutions in India.The Regulations have been challenged for excluding 'general category' students from complaining under its grievance redressal mechanism.A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi on Thursday said that if the Court does not intervene, there will be dangerous consequences and it will lead to divisions in the society."If we don't intervene it will lead to dangerous impact, will divide the society and will have grave impact," the Court said.Further, the Court opined that the regulations will have to be examined by an expert committee."Prima Facie we say that the language of the regulation is vague and experts need to look into for the language be modulated so that it is not exploited," the Court said.Thus, the Court proceeded to issue notice to UGC and Central government and ordered that the Regulations be kept in abeyance."Issue notice returnable on March 19. SG accepts notice. Since issues raised in 2019 plea shall also have bearing while examining constitutionality.. let these petitions be tagged with the same. Meanwhile let UGC Regulations 2026 shall remain in abeyance," the Court ordered.Pertinently, the Court flagged the incongruence in Sections 3(c) and 3(e) of the Regulations.Section 3(c) defines “caste-based discrimination’’ as discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward classes.Section 3(e) defines "discrimination” as any unfair, differential, or biased treatment or any such act against any stakeholder, whether explicit or implicit, on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, disability, or any of them.The Court remarked that Section 3(c) would bar persons from upper caste from complaining about discrimination based on place of birth, gender etc though the definition of discrimination under Section 3(e) is wider and subsumes everything including caste discrimination."Now looking at this, how does Section 3(c) become relevant when Section 3(e) is existing. When 3c() is already ingrained in 3(e) why to bring it as a separate provision," the Court asked..If we don't intervene it will lead to dangerous impact, will divide the society and will have grave impact.Supreme Court.The top court has framed four substantial questions of law in the case: .(i) 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?(ii) 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, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, and whether the impugned regulations provide adequate and effective protection and safeguards to such Extremely Backward Castes against discrimination and structural disadvantage?(iii) 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 and 15 as well as the Preamble to the Constitution of India?(iv) 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 and, 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?.The Court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the UGC Regulations 2026..The stated objective of the Regulations is to "eradicate discrimination only on the basis of 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.".The regulations require higher educational institutions to establish Equal Opportunity Centers and Equity Committee for effective implementation of policies and programs for disadvantaged groups, and to enquire into the discrimination complaints.Outside court, the regulations have sparked protests with upper-caste persons stating that these are one-sided and would be used against them in educational institutions..The petitioners before the top court contended that the regulations are exclusionary as they deny grievance redressal and institutional protection to those not belonging to Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) or Other Backward Classes (OBC) categories.The petitioners said directions should be issued to restrain the implementation of the regulations in its present form and for a declaration that denial of access to grievance redressal mechanism on the basis of caste identity amounts to "impermissible State discrimination".According to the plea, such selective framework not only condones but effectively encourages unchecked hostility against non-reserved categories, rendering the Regulations a tool for division rather than equity..Advocate Vishnu Jain, appearing for the petitioners, said that the definition of 'caste discrimination' is limited to discrimination against SC/STs and OBCs and excludes general category."We are challenging Section 3(c) of the regulations. Caste based discrimination is defined as caste based discrimination against SC, ST, OBC..this completely excludes the members of 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 said."Suppose a student from south gets admission in North or student from North takes admission in south. Some kind of sarcastic remark which is humiliating against him and if caste of both parties are not known.. which provision covers it," CJI Kant asked. "Section 3(e) covers it all," Jain replied..The Court lamented that even after 75 years of independence, the society has not been able to do away with discrimination based on caste, class and region."In a country after 75 years all that we have achieved to become a classless society are we becoming a regressive society? 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 CJI remarked."Article 15(4) empowers the states to make special laws for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. But we get your point why should there be regression in a progressive legislation. I hope we don't go to segregated schools like US where blacks and whites went to different schools," Justice Bagchi weighed in."This kind of situation can be exploited," the CJI added."There are statements also by political leaders which say that general category students must pay etc." a lawyer for the petitioners said."Mr. Solicitor General, please think of a committee of some eminent persons to look into it so that the society can grow together and with no such differentiators," the CJI said."We are looking into creating a fair and inclusive in the society. Now looking at this, how does Section 3(c) become relevant when Section 3(e) is existing. Therefore we would like your assistance Ms Jaising," Justice Bagchi said."Yes this is a question of discrimination within discrimination. This has plagued the supreme court from the very inception. So the question before this court is what is the meaning of the word 'only'," Jaising said.The matter will be heard next on March 19..[Read Live Coverage] .[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.