‘It will lead to very dangerous impacts’: Supreme Court stays new UGC Regulations on caste-based discrimination

In its order, the apex court 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”.

The court directed that the matter be listed next before a three-judge bench on March 19.

Hearing the matter, the bench also said orally that the Government must constitute a committee of eminent jurists to address the issue.

CJI Kant said, “There are four-five questions, which arise for consideration. Otherwise, this will have very sweeping consequences. It will divide the society. It will lead to… very dangerous impact.”

Justice Bagchi said, “We should not go to a stage where we go to segregated schools as in the United States, where coloured children go to one school, and white boys and girls go to another school. The unity of India must be reflected in the educational institutions.”

The petitioners — Mritunjay Tiwari, advocate Vineet Jindal and Rahul Dewan — have primarily challenged Section 3(1)(c) of the Regulations, saying it refers to discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of SC, ST and OBC communities while excluding those from the general category.

The CJI referred to a situation in which a student faces harassment on regional lines and asked whether this is addressed in the Regulations. “When a student of south India, suppose he gets admission in an institution of north India, or vice versa, and some kind of sarcastic, insulting or humiliating comments are made against such student, and the caste identity of the victim and the attackers are not known, will this provision (Regulation 3(e)) address the issue,” the CJI asked.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who appeared for one of the petitioners, submitted that since Regulation 3(1)(e) in the new rules defined “discrimination”, there was no need for a separate definition of “caste-based discrimination”.

The bench too asked what was the need for subclause (c) when subclause (e) was already there. Justice Bagchi said, “We are looking into the evolution of the Regulations to create a free and equitable atmosphere in universities… When we see this, we see no reason why Section 3(1)(e) continues to subsist as it did in the 2012 Regulations. How does 3(1)(c) become relevant? Is it a redundancy? How do you interpret it… We fail to understand when 3(1)(c) is already ingrained in 3(1)(e), why it was culled out as a separate definition clause.”

Advocate Satyam Pandey, also appearing for a petitioner, said the 2026 Regulations do not take care of instances of ragging and that it may be misused when a general category junior is ragged by a reserved category senior.

The CJI also asked if instances of ragging were covered by the Regulations. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing in support of the Regulations, said there is a separate law to deal with ragging.

CJI Kant pointed out that there may be instances of economically well-off students within a caste harassing others within the same caste, and sought to know how the Regulations address such a scenario.

Justice Bagchi said, “The constitutional question is… Article 15(4) empowers the state to make special laws for the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes. If the 2012 Regulations spoke of a more widespread and all-inclusive discrimination, including discrimination in the nature of ragging, why should there be a regression in a protective or ameliorative legislation? The principle of no-regression has evolved essentially in environmental law. It also pervades in laws, which are protective of social justice and equality.”

The CJI said, “This kind of situation can be exploited by the mischievous elements in the society.”

Seeking a reply from the Centre, the bench also told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the Government should take the court into confidence and obtain its approval for setting up the committee of eminent jurists.

“We cannot have the university, schools, and colleges in isolation. They are a component of society. How should the entire society grow? In which direction should we go? How will people behave outside the campus if we create this kind of environment inside the campus? We may not also be experts on all these issues, but those who understand the societal issues must apply their minds,” CJI Kant said.

“In a country after 75 years, whatever we have gained in terms of developing a casteless society, are we going in a regressive policy?” CJI Kant asked, and also flagged the point about the Regulations speaking of separate hostels.

“Another provision which I am finding is an indication among the measures you are taking, you are speaking of separate hostels. For God’s sake, don’t do that. We have lived in hostels. Every community has students living together. We have developed inter-caste marriages also. We should move forward to develop a casteless society,” said the CJI.

In its order, the apex 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 constitute “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”.

The apex court’s ruling comes in the backdrop of protests by some groups against the new rules, alleging bias against students from the general category and demanding an immediate rollback.

The 2026 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.

Jaising, who represented these petitioners, opposed the prayer to stay the Regulations. The court said it will hear her petition, too, along with those challenging the Regulations.