The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Central Government and the University Grants Commission (UGC) on two fresh petitions challenging the recently notified UGC Regulations, 2026, and ordered that they be clubbed with earlier petitions already pending before it. The court said all matters relating to the regulations would be heard together, with the next hearing scheduled for March 19.
The new petitions argue that certain provisions of the 2026 regulations discriminate against members of the general category and violate their fundamental rights under the Constitution. The top court had earlier stayed the implementation of the regulations after initial petitions were filed, expressing concern over their scope and wording.
The UGC Regulations, 2026 mandate all universities and colleges across the country to establish an Equal Opportunity Centre (EOC) and campus-level committees to inquire into complaints of discrimination and to promote equity and inclusion. However, the rules have faced widespread protests, particularly from general category students, who claim that the framework is exclusionary and vague.
During earlier proceedings, the bench had flagged what it described as “complete vagueness” in the language of the regulations, warning that poorly drafted provisions could be prone to misuse. The court also suggested the constitution of an expert committee to review and reconsider the contentious clauses.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who is heading the bench, made pointed observations about the persistence of caste-based discrimination in India even 75 years after Independence. Reflecting on the broader social context, he questioned whether the country was moving toward a more inclusive society or slipping into regression.
“In a country after 75 years, all that we have achieved, to become a classless society; are we becoming a regressive society?” the CJI remarked during the hearing. He referred to instances of ragging and cultural alienation faced by students from different regions, noting that segregation—whether by caste or region—runs counter to the ideals of integration. “For God’s sake. There are inter-caste marriages, and we have also been in hostels where all stayed together,” he observed.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, the other member of the two-judge bench, underlined that while Article 15(4) of the Constitution empowers the State to make special provisions for the advancement of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, any progressive legislation must not result in regression or unintended segregation. Drawing a historical parallel, he said, “I hope we don't go to segregated schools like the US, where blacks and whites went to different schools,” adding that such situations could be exploited.
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain contended that Section 3(c) of the regulations defines caste-based discrimination as discrimination only against Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, thereby excluding members of the general category. He argued that this selective definition violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
“Caste-based discrimination is defined as discrimination against SC, ST, and OBC. This completely excludes the members of the general category. This definition under Section 3(c) is hit by Article 14, as discrimination cannot be assumed to target only one segment,” Jain submitted.
With the 2026 regulations currently stayed, educational institutions across the country will continue to follow the UGC’s 2012 anti-discrimination rules until further orders. The Supreme Court’s decision to consolidate all related petitions indicates that it intends to undertake a comprehensive examination of the legal, constitutional and social implications of the new framework before allowing it to be implemented.
Leave Your Comment