SC Stays UGC's 2026 Equity Rules Over Misuse Fears, Upholds 2012 Norms

The Supreme Court has issued an interim order staying the University Grants Commission's 2026 equity regulations, directing that the 2012 regulations will continue to govern until further orders. The court noted prima facie that some provisions suffer from ambiguities and the possibility of misuse cannot be ruled out. Petitioners argued the new definition of caste-based discrimination is restrictive and exclusionary against general categories. The matter has been listed for a further hearing on March 19.

Key Points: Supreme Court Stays UGC 2026 Equity Regulations

  • SC stays 2026 UGC equity regulations
  • Cites ambiguous clauses & misuse risk
  • 2012 regulations to remain in force
  • Petitioners argue definition is restrictive
  • Next hearing on March 19
3 min read

'Possibility of misuse cannot be ruled out': SC stays UGC's 2026 equity regulations (Lead)

Supreme Court stays UGC's 2026 equity regulations, citing ambiguity and misuse risks. 2012 rules to remain in force. Key hearing on March 19.

'Possibility of misuse cannot be ruled out': SC stays UGC's 2026 equity regulations (Lead)
"some of the provisions of the Impugned Regulations suffer from certain ambiguities, and the possibility of their misuse cannot be ruled out - Supreme Court Bench"

New Delhi, Jan 29

The Supreme Court, in an interim order passed on Thursday, stayed the operation of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2026, directing that the earlier 2012 Regulations will continue to govern the field until further orders.

Issuing notice to the Centre and the UGC on a clutch of writ petitions challenging the validity of the 2026 Regulations, particularly Clause 3(c), which defines "caste-based discrimination", a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered that the new regulations be kept in abeyance.

Recording a prima facie view, the apex court said that "some of the provisions of the Impugned Regulations suffer from certain ambiguities, and the possibility of their misuse cannot be ruled out".

During the hearing, the petitioners contended that the definition of caste-based discrimination under the 2026 Regulations is "restrictive and exclusionary", as it renders individuals belonging to general categories "completely remedyless" even if they are subjected to caste-based discrimination or institutional bias within higher education institutions.

In its interim order, the CJI Kant-led noted the petitioners' submission that "the Impugned Regulations proceed on an unfounded presumption that caste-based discrimination is necessarily unidirectional and can never operate against persons belonging to non-reserved or general categories".

Framing substantial questions of law for consideration, the Supreme Court said it would examine, among other issues, whether the incorporation of Clause 3(c) bears a "reasonable and rational nexus" with the object of the 2026 Regulations, especially when no separate procedural mechanism has been prescribed for addressing caste-based discrimination, unlike the broader definition of "discrimination" under Clause 3(e).

The apex court also flagged concerns over the inclusion of the term "segregation" in Clause 7(d), observing that allocation of hostels, classrooms or mentorship groups, even on transparent criteria, may raise questions of a "separate yet equal" classification, potentially infringing the constitutional guarantees of equality and fraternity under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

Another issue identified for detailed examination was the omission of "ragging" as a specific form of discrimination under the 2026 framework, despite its express inclusion in the 2012 Regulations.

The CJI-led Bench observed that such an omission may amount to a "regressive and exclusionary legislative omission", possibly violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by creating an asymmetry in access to justice.

"Meanwhile, the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, are directed to be kept in abeyance," the Supreme Court ordered, adding that "in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012, will continue to operate and remain in force till further orders".

The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 19.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
Finally, some sense prevails! The 2026 regulations seemed to create more division than equity. How can you define caste discrimination as only one-way? In campuses today, bias exists in many forms. The SC is right to question the 'separate yet equal' hostel/classroom allocation idea. That's a slippery slope. 👏
R
Rohit P
While I understand the need for strong anti-discrimination rules, the court has a point about ambiguity and potential misuse. Our education system needs unity, not more categories that separate students. Also, removing 'ragging' from the definition is shocking! That's a major issue in hostels.
S
Sarah B
As someone who studied in India, this is a nuanced issue. The intent behind equity regulations is noble, but the execution must be fair. The Supreme Court's intervention to prevent a "regressive and exclusionary" framework is crucial. Equality under Articles 14 and 15 means equality for all.
V
Vikram M
The SC's prima facie view is spot on. "Possibility of misuse cannot be ruled out" – this is the heart of the matter. Laws and regulations must be watertight. The 2026 draft seems hastily prepared, with glaring omissions like ragging. Hope the March 19 hearing brings more clarity. Jai Hind!
K
Karthik V
Respectfully, I think the stay is a setback for creating a more equitable campus environment. The 2012 regulations are outdated. While the new ones needed refinement, pausing them entirely might delay much-needed protections for marginalized students. The court should have allowed specific clauses to operate.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50