Legitimises ‘reverse discrimination’: Plea in Supreme Court challenges UGC’s new equity regulations for higher education

Regulation 3(c) says that “caste-based discrimination’’ means discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).

Jindal argued that the provision “suffers from a constitutional infirmity akin to the presumption underlying the colonial-era Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, which designated certain communities as inherently criminal and was later repealed as violative of equality and constitutional morality”.

“By presupposing that only certain castes can be victims while others cannot, the impugned Regulations revive a similar presumption of collective guilt and collective immunity, alien to the egalitarian ethos of the Constitution.”

Fail to recognise caste-based discrimination against general castes, says plea

The plea said, “While the stated objective of the Regulations is to foster equity, inclusion, and a discrimination-free academic environment across Higher Education Institutions in India as reflected in the Preamble’s commitment to eradicating discrimination on grounds including caste and promoting “full equity and inclusion” in line with the National Education Policy, 2020,” Regulation 3(c) “by design and operation…accords legal recognition of victimhood exclusively to certain reserved categories and categorically excludes persons belonging to general or upper castes from its protective ambit, regardless of the nature, gravity, or context of discrimination suffered by them.”

It said that “such a definition institutionalizes exclusion at the threshold, creates a hierarchy of victimhood, and introduces a constitutionally impermissible bias into a regulatory framework that purports to be neutral and inclusive”.

The plea stated that Regulation 3(c) “proceeds on an untenable presumption that caste-based discrimination can operate only in one direction, thereby foreclosing, as a matter of law, the possibility that persons belonging to general or upper castes may also be subjected to caste-based hostility, abuse, intimidation, or institutional prejudice. This presumption not only ignores the evolving social realities but also undermines the broader objective of the Regulations themselves…”.

Jindal said,“By restricting caste-based discrimination exclusively to these groups, the Regulations perversely legitimise “reverse discrimination” while failing to promote “full equity and inclusion” envisaged in the National Education Policy, 2020, thereby defeating their own professed purpose and perpetuating caste divisions rather than eradicating them.”

‘Arbitrary, violative of Constitution’

The plea said that the Regulation “conflates caste with class”, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and “creates a hostile classification founded solely on caste, without any intelligible differentia and without a rational nexus to the professed objective of promoting equity in higher education”.

The petitioner said that “the assumption underlying the impugned provision—that caste-based discrimination is necessarily unidirectional—is empirically unfounded and constitutionally suspect”.

Jindal said that “in the polarised and ideologically charged milieu of contemporary campus politics, caste-based hostility has increasingly manifested in a bidirectional and aggressive form” and pointed to “multiple reported incidents across Higher Education Institutions between 2022 and 2025” which “demonstrate the prevalence of open caste-based vilification against students belonging to general or upper castes”.

Illustrating this, the plea pointed out, “in December 2022, walls at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi in particular, the School of International Studies-II building were defaced with anti-Brahmin and anti-Baniya slogans such as “Brahmins Leave The Campus,” “There Will Be Blood,” “Brahmin Bharat Chhodo,” and “Brahmino-Baniyas, we are coming for you!””

He added that “similarly, in March 2024, students at Ashoka University, Sonipat, Haryana, were recorded raising inflammatory slogans during protests, including “Brahmin-Baniyawaad Murdabad” and variants invoking caste-based hostility, alongside calls for a caste census”.

“Such sloganeering, which targeted Brahmin and Baniya communities and drew public criticism, elicited a statement from the university administration deploring expressions of hatred and assuring disciplinary action, yet highlighting a pattern of selective or delayed institutional intervention.”

The plea said, “in March 2025 at JNU, members of the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students’ Association (BAPSA) were reported to have chanted slogans such as “Tilak, taraazu aur talwar; inko maaro joote chaar” and “Brahmin, Baniya, Thakur chor”, explicitly targeting Brahmins, Baniyas, and Thakurs (symbolized by tilak, taraazu, and talwar) and labeling them as thieves while invoking alignments with certain marginalised groups.”

Jindal contended that “these episodes reflect a recurring pattern of selective tolerance and institutional apathy toward castebased hostility directed against general category students” adding that there have also been “several reported instances across universities and coaching institutions” of “students belonging to the general category have allegedly died by suicide following sustained harassment, social ostracisation, false accusations, or academic pressure, compounded by the absence of neutral and effective grievance redressal mechanisms.”

The plea urged the court to strike down the provision or in the alternative, direct UGC and Centre “to read down and suitably amend Regulation 3(c)… so as to define “caste-based discrimination” in a caste-neutral, inclusive, and constitutionally compliant manner, extending protection and grievance redressal mechanisms to all persons subjected to discrimination on the basis of caste, irrespective of caste identity”.