New Delhi: In a major setback to the Centre and the University Grants Commission (UGC), the Supreme Court on January 29 stayed the implementation of the recently notified UGC Equity Regulations, 2026, raising serious concerns over their potential to promote segregation and discrimination within India’s higher education system. The interim order has come as a significant relief to protesting students and petitioners who had challenged the constitutional validity of the new rules.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing multiple petitions against the regulations, observed that India must guard against moving towards a regressive model of education. In a stern observation, the bench remarked that it hoped India was not heading towards “segregated schools,” drawing a parallel with the racially segregated education system that once existed in the United States. “Is India becoming a regressive society?” the bench asked, underlining the seriousness of the issue.
Stressing that the unity of the nation must be reflected in its educational institutions, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Centre and the UGC and directed that, for the time being, the UGC’s 2012 regulations on the promotion of equity in higher education would continue to remain in force. The 2012 framework was largely advisory in nature and did not mandate the same institutional mechanisms proposed under the 2026 regulations.
The apex court expressed particular concern over Regulation 3(C) of the new rules, which defines caste-based discrimination. According to the bench, the provision suffers from “complete vagueness” and is susceptible to misuse. The court opined that the language of the regulation requires re-modification and suggested that the entire framework be revisited by a committee comprising eminent jurists to ensure clarity, inclusivity and constitutional compliance.
The UGC Equity Regulations, 2026, notified on January 13, mandate all higher education institutions to establish “equity committees” to address complaints of discrimination and promote equity on campuses. These committees are required to include representatives from Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), persons with disabilities and women. The regulations replaced the earlier 2012 UGC rules and were intended to give statutory backing to equity-related grievance redressal mechanisms in universities and colleges.
However, the regulations triggered widespread protests across the country, particularly among students from the general category. Protesters argued that instead of fostering equality, the new framework could institutionalise discrimination by narrowly defining caste-based discrimination as being limited to SC, ST and OBC communities.
The petitions before the Supreme Court contended that the UGC had adopted a “non-inclusionary” and restrictive definition of caste-based discrimination, thereby excluding individuals from general or non-reserved categories from institutional protection. According to the petitioners, such individuals may also face harassment, bias or unfair treatment linked to their caste identity, but the new rules deny them access to grievance redressal mechanisms.
The court was hearing pleas filed by advocate Mritunjay Tiwari, along with advocates Vineet Jindal and Rahul Dewan, challenging the constitutional validity of the UGC Equity Regulations, 2026. A day prior to the final order, the Supreme Court had agreed to list the matter for hearing after being informed that the regulations excluded certain categories from institutional safeguards and failed to adopt an inclusive approach.
Over the past several days, student groups and organisations in multiple states have staged protests, demanding the immediate withdrawal of the regulations. Protesters claimed that there was no binding provision ensuring representation of general category students in equity committees, which, they argued, undermined the principle of equality before law.
