Supreme Court Stays UGC Equity Regulations 2026 Over Vagueness and Misuse Concerns

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the operation of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, raising serious concerns over their wording, scope, and potential for misuse. The Court described the Regulations as prima facie vague and capable of being misapplied, and ordered that the earlier 2012 UGC Regulations will continue to operate for now.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing three writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of the 2026 Regulations. The petitions were filed by Mritunjay Tiwari, Advocate Vineet Jindal, and Rahul Dewan. The Court issued notice to the Union of India and the UGC, with the matter listed for further hearing on March 19, 2026.

Why the Supreme Court intervened

The UGC Equity Regulations, 2026 were framed with the objective of preventing caste-based discrimination in higher education institutions. However, during the hearing, the Bench expressed multiple reservations about the framework adopted in the Regulations.

The Court observed that several provisions lacked clarity, overlapped unnecessarily, and created the risk of unequal application. It also questioned whether the Regulations, instead of promoting equity, could end up deepening social divisions within campuses.

The Chief Justice suggested that the Regulations should be revisited by a committee comprising eminent jurists and social experts who understand both constitutional values and social realities. According to the Court, such a committee could reassess how discrimination is addressed without fragmenting society.

Key concerns flagged by the Bench

During oral observations, the Bench highlighted several issues:

• The provisions are vague and capable of misuse.
• The Regulations separately define “caste-based discrimination” even though a broader definition of “discrimination” already exists.
• Ragging has been entirely left out of the regulatory framework.
• The remedial measures proposed could unintentionally segregate students.

The Bench questioned why caste-based discrimination was given a distinct definition under Regulation 3(1)(c), while Regulation 3(1)(e) already defines discrimination in general terms. The Court noted that discrimination can occur on many grounds beyond caste and asked why the framework appeared to presume that only certain sections face discrimination.

Petitioners’ arguments against the Regulations

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for one of the petitioners, focused on Regulation 3(1)(c), which defines caste-based discrimination as discrimination against members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes.

He argued that this definition excludes discrimination faced by persons from general categories and therefore violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law. According to him, once a general definition of discrimination exists under Regulation 3(1)(e), there was no need for a separate caste-based definition.

The argument was that Regulation 3(1)(c) presumes that only a particular section of society faces caste-based discrimination, which lacks a reasonable nexus with the stated objective of equity.

The Chief Justice tested this argument through a hypothetical situation involving regional discrimination, asking whether insulting or humiliating conduct without reference to caste identity would still be covered under the broader definition. The petitioner’s counsel responded in the affirmative.

Issue of ragging and reverse discrimination

Another concern raised before the Court related to ragging. One counsel pointed out that if a general category fresher is harassed by a senior from a reserved category, the Regulations do not provide a clear remedy. Worse, such a student could potentially face a counter-allegation under the caste-based framework.

When asked by the Bench, it was confirmed that ragging is not addressed in the 2026 Regulations. The Court questioned why such a common and serious form of campus harassment was excluded, especially when many incidents of abuse occur along senior-junior lines rather than caste lines.

The Bench observed that harassment in educational institutions often arises from hierarchical dynamics, not just social identity.

Court’s concern about social regression

A major theme of the Court’s observations was the fear of regression from the goal of a casteless society.

The Chief Justice noted that within Scheduled Castes themselves, many individuals have achieved economic and social prosperity. He questioned whether the new framework risks undoing social progress by re-entrenching caste identities.

The Bench also strongly objected to the idea of separate hostels based on caste as a remedial measure. The Chief Justice remarked that such steps could be deeply divisive and contrary to the lived reality of shared spaces, inter-caste friendships, and marriages.

Justice Bagchi added that educational institutions should reflect national unity and asked why a more inclusive framework under the 2012 Regulations was being replaced by a narrower approach. He referred to the principle of non-regression, suggesting that protective frameworks should evolve forward, not backward.

Defence of the Regulations

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising appeared in defence of the Regulations. She represented the interests linked to a 2019 public interest litigation filed by the mothers of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi, which had prompted the UGC to frame stronger anti-discrimination mechanisms.

She opposed the stay, arguing that suspending the 2026 Regulations would leave students without remedies, since the 2012 Regulations had been repealed. The Bench responded by invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and directing that the 2012 Regulations would remain in force until further orders.

Despite Jaising’s defence, the Court reiterated that the present language of the Regulations appeared vague and capable of misuse, and required expert re-evaluation.

What the Court finally ordered

The Supreme Court ordered that:

• The UGC Equity Regulations, 2026 will remain in abeyance.
• The 2012 UGC Regulations will continue to operate in the interim.
• Notices have been issued to the Union of India and the UGC.
• The matter will be heard next on March 19, 2026.

Background to the Regulations

The 2026 Regulations trace their origin to a 2019 PIL filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, following the deaths of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi, which were linked to alleged caste-based discrimination in universities.

In early 2025, the Supreme Court had emphasised the need for a strong and effective mechanism to address discrimination in higher education. Stakeholders were invited to provide inputs, following which the UGC notified the new Regulations in January 2026, replacing the 2012 framework.