UGC caste discrimination guidelines under review: Centre to Supreme Court

In the eye of the storm is regulation 3(1)(c), which defines caste-based discrimination as discrimination on the basis of caste or tribe against members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.

Petitioners have argued that this excludes general category students and faculty from specific protection against caste-based discrimination. At the same time, the regulations’ broader definition of “discrimination” covers unfair or differential treatment on the ground of caste against any stakeholder.

The issue has also acquired a political dimension in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. The rules initially triggered protests among sections of the upper castes who argued that the explicit reference to SCs, STs and OBCs amounted to exclusion of general category students.

Although the Supreme Court stayed the regulations days after the notification and revived the 2012 framework, there is concern within the BJP that the issue may lead to disquiet among Dalit communities, particularly in UP where Assembly elections are due next year. Some among the Dalits are also opposed to bringing the OBCs under the protective umbrella.

Within the BJP, one reason for the party’s defeat in the recent Bankipur Assembly bypoll in Bihar was attributed to upper caste dissatisfaction over the UGC issue.

Staying the regulations on January 29, a bench led by the CJI said the issue raised important questions that, if left unexamined, could have “very sweeping consequences” and “divide society”.

The bench, which issued notices to the Centre and the UGC, also directed that the “2012 Regulations will continue in force till further orders”.

It said that “upon a prima facie consideration, it appears to us that some of the provisions of the Impugned Regulations suffer from certain ambiguities, and the possibility of their misuse cannot be ruled out”.

Petitioners Mritunjay Tiwari, advocate Vineet Jindal and Rahul Dewan have primarily challenged section 3(1)(c) of the regulations.

The regulations stem from a 2019 petition filed in the Supreme Court by the mothers of Payal Tadvi and Rohith Vemula, who died by suicide over alleged caste-based discrimination in 2019 and 2016, respectively. They had sought the enforcement of robust anti-discrimination mechanisms across higher education institutions.

Staying the notified regulations on January 29, the court put forward a set of questions:

* Whether Clause 3 (1) (c) “bears a reasonable and rational nexus to subserve the object and purpose of the 2026 UGC Regulations, particularly in light of the fact that no distinct or special procedural mechanism has been prescribed to address caste-based discrimination, as opposed to the exhaustive and inclusive definition of “Discrimination” provided under Clause 3(e)”.

* Would the introduction of the term “caste-based discrimination… have any bearing on the existing constitutional and statutory sub-classification of the Most Backward Castes within the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, and whether the (new rules) provide adequate and effective protection and safeguards to such Extremely Backward Castes against discrimination and structural disadvantage”.

* Whether the inclusion of the expression “segregation… in the context of allocation of hostels, classrooms, mentorship groups, or similar academic or residential arrangements, albeit on transparent and non-discriminatory criteria, would amount to a “separate yet equal” classification, thereby infringing the constitutional guarantees of equality and fraternity under Articles 14, 15 as well as the Preamble to the Constitution”.

* Whether the omission of the term “Ragging” as a specific form of discrimination constitutes “a regressive and exclusionary legislative omission? If so, whether such omission is violative of unequal treatment of victims of discrimination by creating an asymmetry in access to justice and thus falls foul of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution”.

– With Lalmani Verma