The Supreme Court of India has stayed the UGC’s 2026 Regulations on caste-based discrimination, warning that vague provisions could be misused and divide society. The Court directed that the 2012 Regulations will continue until further orders, citing serious constitutional and social concerns.
In a significant interim order, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday stayed the operation of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, observing that the new rules raise several serious constitutional and social concerns which, if left unaddressed, could have far-reaching and harmful consequences for society.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice of India, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Union Government and the University Grants Commission on multiple petitions challenging the validity of the 2026 Regulations.
While granting interim relief, the Bench ordered that the new Regulations be kept on hold and clarified that the earlier 2012 Regulations would continue to operate.
Passing the order, the Bench stated,
“Meanwhile, the 2026 Regulations be kept in abeyance. In exercise of our powers under Article 142, we further direct that the 2012 Regulations will continue in force till further orders.”
The Chief Justice underlined that the issues raised in the petitions were not minor or technical in nature but involved deep social and constitutional implications.
He remarked,
“There are 4-5 questions which arise for consideration. Otherwise, this will have very sweeping consequences. It will divide the society. It will lead to so many…very dangerous impact.”
The Court was primarily examining the validity of Section 3(1)(c) of the 2026 Regulations, which defines certain forms of discrimination.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice posed a hypothetical situation, asking whether the Regulations adequately addressed cases where a student from one part of the country faces harassment in another region on linguistic or regional grounds.
When the petitioners pointed out that such issues were already covered under Clause (e), which defines discrimination more broadly, the Bench questioned the necessity of introducing Clause (c) as a separate provision.
Justice Bagchi observed,
“We are looking into the evolution of the Regulations to create a free and equitable atmosphere in universities… When we see this, we see no reason when Section 3(1)(e) continues to subsist as it did in the 2012 Regulations, how does 3(1)(c) become relevant? Is it a redundancy? How do you interpret it?… We fail to understand when 3(1)(c) is already ingrained in 3(1)(e), why it was culled out as a separate definition clause?”
The Bench also examined whether the Regulations took into account situations where discrimination occurs within the same caste or community. The Chief Justice pointed out that dominant groups within a caste could harass others belonging to the same caste, and asked how such cases would be handled under the new framework. The petitioners replied that such situations were not clearly addressed.
Expressing concern, the Chief Justice remarked,
“The Regulations are, we are sorry to say, prima facie, the language there is completely vague, the provisions are capable of misuse,”
a view echoed by the Bench.
Justice Bagchi further raised a constitutional concern regarding the dilution of protections provided under earlier laws. He said,
“The constitutional question is… Article 15(4) empowers the state to make special laws for the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes. If the 2012 Regulations spoke of a more widespread and all-inclusive discrimination, including discrimination in the nature of ragging, why should there be a regression in a protective or ameliorative legislation? The principle of no-regression has evolved essentially in environmental law. It also pervades in laws which are protective of social justice and equality.”
The Chief Justice warned about the possible misuse of the vague provisions, stating,
“This kind of situation can be exploited by the mischievous elements in the society”.
During the hearing, the Bench also directed the Union Government to take corrective steps. Addressing Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, the Chief Justice suggested the formation of a high-level committee consisting of eminent jurists to review the Regulations and address the concerns raised by the Court. He emphasised that the Court must be involved in the process.
He stated,
“The court should be taken into confidence, and we must approve the constitution of the committee.”
Elaborating on the larger social impact, the Chief Justice said,
“We cannot have the university, schools, and colleges in isolation. They are a component of society. How should the entire society grow? In which direction should we go? How will people behave outside the campus if we create this kind of environment inside the campus? We may not also be experts on all these issues, but those who understand the societal issues must apply their minds,”
to which the Solicitor General assured the Court that appropriate steps would be taken.
Raising a broader concern about social progress, the Chief Justice asked,
“In a country after 75 years, whatever we have gained in terms of developing a casteless society, are we going in a regressive policy?”
The Bench also expressed strong reservations about one of the measures mentioned in the Regulations relating to separate hostels. The Chief Justice strongly opposed the idea, saying,
“Another provision which I am finding is an indication among the measures you are taking, you are speaking of separate hostels. For God’s sake, don’t do that. We have lived in hostels. Every community has students living together. We have developed inter-caste marriages also. We should move forward to develop a casteless society,”
Also Read: Supreme Court: “UGC Must Be Given Teeth to Punish Caste Discrimination in Colleges”
making it clear that such measures could undo decades of social integration.
The matter will now be taken up after the Centre and the UGC file their responses, while the 2012 Regulations continue to govern issues relating to equity and discrimination in higher education institutions across the country.
Click Here to Read More Reports On UGC
