SC agrees to take up PIL challenging UGC regulations on caste discrimination as row erupts over ‘draconian’ definition

The plea by businessman and philanthropist Rahul Dewan, retired IAS officer Sanjay Dixit, and others contended that Regulations 3(1)(c), 8(b) and 8(c) of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, notified on January 13, is violative of provisions contained in Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

‘Provides selective protection’

The plea said Regulation 3(1)(c), which says that “caste-based discrimination” means discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward classes was “draconian” and “liable to be struck down”.

It said the regulations “institutionalise a narrow and exclusionary definition of ‘caste-based discrimination’” and “provides selective protection, leaving a major chunk of students coming from diverse regions and classes.”

The petitioners said they “are not opposing for giving protection to SC/ST and the persons belonging to Backward Classes, but other section of the society or in other words ‘General class’ of the society” must not be “discriminated and subjected to injustice, insult, inhuman behaviour, undue hardship and actions against their dignity and self-respect.”

The plea stated, “No citizen can be discriminated on the basis of creed, caste, descent, language, or alike and the persons of general category cannot be penalised for taking birth in a particular creed or caste. They are also entitled for protection of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

It added that “the impugned provision/regulation narrowly grants protection against caste-based abuse/prejudice. In this regard it is submitted that regardless of a caste, prejudices, exploitation, social ostracization can be meted out to any person belonging to any socio-economic group/sect. Prejudices occur in the society due to many reasons- personal or political, however, the same are not singularly categorised i.e. they may not necessarily pertain to one single class/caste uniformly.”

“It is a social fact that such prejudices are prominent amongst a group being majority in a particular institution/area/region as against a minority group or vice versa,” the plea said.

The petitioners argued that the “the impugned definition” of what amounts to “caste-based discrimination” contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution of India “as it establishes a classification based on caste that lacks an intelligible differentia and bears no rational nexus to the legitimate objective of promoting educational equity. In the absence of such a nexus, the classification is arbitrary and discriminatory, failing the test of reasonableness as laid down in various precedents where this Hon’ble Court emphasized that equality under Article 14 mandates like treatment of equals and differential treatment only when justified by objective criteria.”

‘Hostile discrimination against general category’

The plea said that the prevailing regulatory framework “exacerbates this inequality” by creating a unilateral system, “wherein mechanisms such as Equal Opportunity Centres and dedicated helplines are designed exclusively to protect members of reserved categories (eg., SCs, STs and OBCs), while providing no equivalent institutional recourse for students from the general category who may face caste-based harassment or abuse.”

“This asymmetrical approach amounts to hostile discrimination against the general category, as it denies them equal protection of laws and access to remedial measures, contrary to the principles of substantive equality articulated” by the Supreme Court in its judgment “in Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1992), which, while upholding affirmative action, cautioned against measures that perpetuate reverse discrimination without adequate safeguards for all citizens.”

The petitioners contended that persons belonging to general category have a right to lead a life with dignity and their image cannot be tarnished by some people who which to create “class war between different communities to weaken the social fabric of the Indian society.”

“Every class of citizen who maybe of general category or reserved category has fundamental right to lead life with dignity and prestige which is the pillar of the constitution reflected in Article 21. The impugned provision affects the life of general category in a prejudicial manner and same is bound to affect the life and livelihood of the said category and therefore, the draconian provision 3(1)(c) is liable to be struck down,” it added.