Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Thursday put on hold the implementation of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, which have been challenged as discriminatory for extending protection only to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC), while excluding those from general or upper castes.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that the regulations appeared “too sweeping” and required closer examination. The court clarified that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012 would continue to apply until further orders.
The court issued notice to the Union government and the UGC on petitions questioning Regulation 3(c) of the 2026 regulations, which defines “caste-based discrimination” narrowly as discrimination “only on the basis of caste or tribe” against SC, ST and OBC communities.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, along with advocate Prasanna S., opposed the stay, arguing that keeping the regulations in abeyance was comparable to “calling a fully able person disabled.” She contended that the rules were framed to address the persistent and real discrimination faced by students from Dalit and historically marginalised communities in higher education institutions.
On the other hand, the petitioners — Rahul Dewan, Mritunjay Tiwari and advocate Vineet Jindal argued that the definition of caste-based discrimination in the 2026 regulations, by both design and effect, legally recognises victimhood only for reserved categories while completely excluding individuals from general or upper castes, regardless of the discrimination they may suffer.
They submitted that such a restricted definition would institutionalise exclusion at the outset, create a “hierarchy of victimhood,” and introduce a constitutionally impermissible bias into a regulatory framework that claims to be neutral and inclusive.
The petitions pointed out that the 2026 regulations had replaced the 2012 rules with the stated aim of promoting equity, inclusion and a discrimination-free academic environment in line with the National Education Policy, 2020. However, they argued that the new framework rests on an unsustainable assumption that caste-based discrimination can operate only in one direction.
According to the petitioners, this assumption fails to reflect changing social realities. They contended that the definition is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, as it creates a hostile classification based solely on caste without any intelligible differentia or rational connection to the objective of promoting equity in higher education.