Supreme Court Keeps UGC Equity Regulations 2026 in Abeyance
Bench Flags Vagueness and Risk of Misuse
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the operation of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, observing that the provisions appeared vague and capable of misuse. The Court said the framework required reconsideration and directed that the regulations be kept in abeyance for the time being.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the interim order while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2026 Regulations. The petitions were filed by Mritunjay Tiwari, Advocate Vineet Jindal, and Rahul Dewan.
Notice Issued to Union and UGC
The Court issued notice to the Union of India and the University Grants Commission, making the matter returnable on March 19. Until further orders, the Court directed that the earlier 2012 UGC Regulations would continue to operate.
During the hearing, the Bench indicated that the Regulations should be revisited by a committee comprising eminent jurists with an understanding of social realities and institutional functioning. The Court said such a review was necessary before any final determination.
Questions on Definitions and Scope
Advertisement
The Bench raised concerns over the separate definition of “caste-based discrimination” under Regulation 3(1)(c), particularly when Regulation 3(1)(e) already defined “discrimination” in broader terms. The Court questioned the rationale for isolating caste-based discrimination and whether such drafting could lead to exclusionary outcomes.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the definition of caste-based discrimination excluded general category persons and lacked a reasonable nexus with the stated objective. He contended that this distinction was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
Concerns on Ragging and Campus Impact
The Bench also questioned why ragging was not addressed within the Regulations. It was pointed out that harassment on campuses often occurs along junior-senior lines, irrespective of caste identity. The absence of remedial provisions for such situations was flagged as a significant omission.
Chief Justice Surya Kant expressed concern that certain measures, including proposals for separate hostels, could have a divisive impact. Justice Bagchi noted that while the Constitution empowers the State to frame protective measures for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the 2012 Regulations had adopted a more inclusive approach, and any regression needed careful examination.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing in defense of the regulations, was informed of the court’s prima facie concerns regarding language, scope, and potential consequences. The matter will be considered further after responses are filed.
👉 For more breaking news updates, in-depth reports, and real-time developments from across India, visit the City Buzz Daily homepage.
