UGC rules on caste discrimination: Why BJP government is ‘reconsidering’ its stand

“It is being reconsidered,” solicitor general Tushar Mehta told a three-judge Bench presided over by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The Bench was hearing a batch of petitions that challenged the guidelines, primarily arguing that they refer to caste-based discrimination only against members of SCs, STs, and OBCs, communities while excluding those from the general category.

The main objection against the regulations that saw the light of day in January 2026 was that there was the absence of provision for penalties against “false complaints of discrimination”, and that institutions could be subjected to action for not complying with the regulations.

What led to anger was that a draft of the regulations shared for feedback in February last year had provided for penalties in the case of false complaints.

Furthermore, the now-stayed regulations made a specific mention of OBCs while defining caste discrimination, and called for inclusion of OBC representatives in the “equity committees” to be set up in higher educational institutions. “Caste-based discrimination means discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of SCs, STs, and OBCs,” said the regulations.

The plea of advocate Vineet Jindal asked why the definition of caste-based discrimination excluded persons belonging to “general or upper castes from its protective ambit, regardless of the nature, gravity, or context of discrimination suffered by them”.

Leaders in the BJP agree that the regulations have led to upper caste unease, and the unprecedented defeat of the BJP in Bankipur, arguably its safest seat in Bihar, was an expression of “upper caste anger”, as the urban seat has a high concentration of voters from these castes.

Adding to the concern was the fact that the Rajput Karni Sena also staged a protest in Jaipur against the regulation, leading to a police baton charge against the protesters.

The party faces the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections within months, and the state has a concentration of upper castes. In 1931, when the last caste census was held, there were 9.1% Brahmins and 7.9% Rajputs in UP, and the combined upper caste population was around 20%. At the same time, the state has also been home to a powerful OBC and Dalit movement in the last three decades.

Looking for ways out

A BJP leader said that while the party would want the issue to gradually die a natural death through delay, the Centre would be open to changing some of the provisions – like no penalty for false complaints – in order to allay the concerns of the upper castes.

One option the Centre has is to announce in the next hearing that it is constituting a high-level committee to look into the matter, thus buying time before taking a categorical call on the vexed issue, sources said.

Another BJP leader said that withdrawal of the regulation would not be easy, as it would give the Opposition a chance to paint the BJP as “anti-OBC, ST and SC”.

Ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the Opposition had accused the BJP of seeking 400-plus seats to change the Constitution and end reservations. The party tried to wriggle out of it by accusing the Opposition of wanting to divert reservation available to SCs, STs and OBCs to their “vote bank”, meaning Muslims, but many senior party leaders said after the results that the charge stuck in states like Maharashtra and UP, leading to a loss of 63 seats for the party.

This made the BJP – which has made a very focused outreach to OBCs, and also to an extent to SCs and STs, since Modi became PM – make an extra effort to accommodate the concerns of these communities, which constitute the majority of the electorate across the country.

The Centre agreed to enumerate caste with the Census, and also brought in the UGC regulation against caste discrimination. Former President Ram Nath Kovind even said at the 100 years function of the RSS at Nagpur that former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee saw the BJP as an “Ambedkarwadi” party.

These, and particularly the UGC regulation, led to a perception among sections of the upper castes that the party was taking them for granted, and this was visible in the increase in negative posts on social media.

The Bankipur result came as an alarm bell, and now the Centre is trying to offer calibrated messages to the upper castes. However, an ABVP leader said that there were limits to this, as taking a clear line favouring upper caste concerns would open the party to the charge of being a Savarna party at heart.

“The mistake was to include OBCs in the regulation, as discrimination is an issue pertaining to SCs and STs, and not OBCs. There was also no demand from OBCs that such a thing be done. Even the laws aimed at countering caste atrocity are aimed at protecting SCs and STs, and not OBCs,” said a BJP leader on condition of anonymity.

What happened in court

On January 29, a bench led by the CJI had stayed the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations 2026, saying the issue raises 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”.

The Bench further 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”. It orally observed that the government must constitute a committee of eminent jurists to look into the issue.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was also part of the Bench that stayed the guidelines, 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 court said there might 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.

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

The petitioners—Mritunjay Tiwari, advocate Jindal, and Rahul Dewan — have primarily challenged section 3(1)(c) of the regulations, which defines caste discrimination as discrimination only against members of the SC, ST and OBC communities.

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.