SC stays UGC regulations to deal with caste-based discrimination

• The Supreme Court stayed the recent UGC regulations on preventing caste-based discrimination on campuses on January 29.

• The apex court noted that the framework is “prima facie vague”, can have “very sweeping consequences” and may end up dividing society with a “dangerous impact”. 

What is the case about?

• On January 13, the University Grants Commission (UGC) notified Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, making it mandatory for all higher education institutions to constitute Equal Opportunity Centres and Equity Committees to address complaints of discrimination and promote inclusion.

• It also mandated that these committees must include members of the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), the Scheduled Castes (SCs), the Scheduled Tribes (STs), persons with disabilities, and women.

• The new regulations replace the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, which was largely advisory in nature.

• The move drew backlash from several quarters, with many claiming that the UGC Regulations 2026 could be misused to foment caste-based discontent and vitiate the academic environment.

• Many filed petitions arguing that the regulations create an exclusionary framework by denying grievance redressal and institutional protection to students who do not belong to the SC, ST or OBC categories. 

• According to the petitioners, such selective protection amounts to impermissible State discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.

What the Supreme Court said on these regulations?

• A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered that the regulations remain in abeyance, observing that non-intervention by the court could have dangerous consequences for society.

• At the heart of the controversy lies what the court described as an internal inconsistency in the definitions clause of the regulations, specifically Sections 3(c) and 3(e).

• Section 3(c) defines caste-based discrimination as discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. 

• In contrast, Section 3(e) defines discrimination more broadly as any unfair or biased treatment against any stakeholder on grounds including religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, or disability.

• The bench questioned why a separate and narrower definition of caste-based discrimination was required when the wider definition in Section 3(e) already subsumed caste within it.

• The judges noted that under the current wording, Section 3(c) could effectively bar individuals from non-reserved categories from complaining about discrimination even on grounds such as region, language, or gender despite expansive definition in Section 3(e).

• The court then issued notice and slated the hearing for March 19 and directed that the present batch of petitions be tagged with a similar plea filed in 2019, as the issues raised would have a bearing on the constitutional validity of the regulations.