Today, on 29th January, the Supreme Court temporarily stayed UGC regulations amid protests, seeking re-evaluation. CJI Surya Kant asked, “In a country after 75 years all that we have achieved to become a casteless society are we becoming a regressive society?”
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has temporarily halted the University Grants Commission (UGC)’s new regulations amid widespread protests and emphasized the need for a re-evaluation of the rules.
In pointed comments regarding the UGC notification, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant asked,
“In a country after 75 years all that we have achieved to become a casteless society are we becoming a regressive society?”
He added,
“The worst thing which is happening in ragging is that children coming from south or northeast; 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 now in our society, and we have also been in hostels… where all stayed together.”
The Court conveyed reservations about the Regulations, which have been challenged as discriminatory against “general classes.” It suggested that a committee of eminent jurists should revisit the Regulations. The Court noted that the Regulations appear “vague” and could be “capable of misuse.”
Also Read: Supreme Court: “UGC Must Be Given Teeth to Punish Caste Discrimination in Colleges”
Factual Backgrounds:
The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, was notified on January 13 and applies to all higher educational institutions in India. Its goal is to “eradicate discrimination only on the basis of religion, race, gender, place of birth, caste, or disability, particularly against 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 stakeholders in higher education.”
The regulations compel higher educational institutions to establish Equal Opportunity Centers and an Equity Committee for the effective implementation of policies for disadvantaged groups and to investigate discrimination complaints.
Outside the courtroom, the regulations have triggered protests, with upper-caste individuals asserting that they are one-sided and could be weaponized against them in educational settings.
Petitioners claim that the regulations are exclusionary, denying grievance redressal and institutional protection to those not classified as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) or Other Backward Classes (OBC). They seek to halt the implementation of the regulations in their current form and declare that the denial of access to grievance redressal mechanisms based on caste identity constitutes “impermissible State discrimination.”
Observations of the Supreme Court:
The plea argues that such a selective framework not only condones but effectively promotes unchecked hostility against non-reserved categories, rendering the Regulations a tool for division rather than equity.
Advocate Vishnu Jain, representing the petitioners, stated that the definition of “caste discrimination” is limited to SC/STs and OBCs, excluding the general category.
He articulated,
“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 members of the general category. This definition under Section 3(c) is completely against Article 14, as discrimination cannot be confined to one segment,”
CJI Kant inquired,
“Suppose a student from the south gets admission in the north or a student from the north takes admission in the south. Some kind of sarcastic remark which is humiliating against him and if the caste of both parties are not known, which provision covers it?”
Jain replied,
“Section 3(e) covers it all,”
The Court expressed concern that, even after 75 years of independence, society has yet to eliminate discrimination based on caste, class, and region.
The CJI remarked,
“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 the south or northeast carry their culture, and someone alien starts commenting on them. Then you have talked about separate hostels. For God’s sake. There are inter-caste marriages, and we have all been in hostels where everyone stayed together,”
Justice Bagchi added,
“Article 15(4) empowers the states to make special laws for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. But we understand your point: why should there be regression in progressive legislation? I hope we don’t regress to segregated schools like in the US, where blacks and whites were in different schools,”
The CJI warned,
“This kind of situation can be exploited,”
A lawyer for the petitioners remarked,
“There are also statements by political leaders asserting that general category students must pay, etc.,”
The CJI urged,
“Mr. SG, please consider forming a committee of some eminent persons to look into it, so that society can grow together without such differentiators,”
Justice Bagchi said,
“We are looking to create a fair and inclusive society. Now looking at this, how does Section 3(c) become relevant when Section 2(e) exists? Therefore, we would like your assistance, Ms. Jaising,”
Jaising noted,
“Yes, this is a question of discrimination within discrimination. This has plagued the Supreme Court from the beginning. So the question before this court is, what is the meaning of the word ‘only’?”
A bench remarked that failure to intervene could lead to dangerous outcomes and societal divisions.
The Court stated,
“If we don’t intervene it will lead to dangerous impact, will divide the society and will have grave impact,”
Additionally, the Court noted that the regulations must be reviewed by an expert committee.
The Court indicated,
“Prima Facie we say that the language of the regulation is vague and experts need to look into for the language to be modulated so that it is not exploited,”
Consequently, the Court issued a notice to the UGC and the Central government, ordering that the Regulations be kept on hold.
The Court ordered,
“Issue notice returnable on March 19. SG accepts notice. Since issues raised in the 2019 plea shall also have bearing while examining constitutionality, let these petitions be tagged with the same. Meanwhile, let UGC Regulations 2026 remain in abeyance,”
The matter is set to be heard next on March 19.
CASE TITLE:
- MRITUNJAY TIWARI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 101/2026
- VINEET JINDAL Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 109/2026
- RAHUL DEWAN AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 108/2026
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
