Supreme Court grants interim stay on UGC Equity Regulations, 2026: Flags constitutional concerns

Picture of Name

Name

The Supreme Court has granted an interim stay on the implementation of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, framed to promote equity in higher education institutions. Taking note of prima facie ambiguities in the Regulations, the Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that several serious constitutional issues require detailed consideration.

While examining the abovementioned UGC Regulations, 2026, a Division Bench observed that,

“……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 expressed concern over the definition of “caste-based discrimination” under Clause 3(c), observing that it may be narrow and exclusionary. The Bench noted that such a definition could potentially deprive persons belonging to the general/unreserved category of effective statutory remedies, even if they are subjected to discrimination within higher educations institutions.

The Court further observed that the Regulations appear to proceed on the assumption that caste-based discrimination can operate only in one direction, which itself is a question requiring examination.

The Court laid particular emphasis on the absence of any distinct or special procedural mechanism in the Regulations, 2026 to address caste-based discrimination, especially when contrasted with the exhaustive and inclusive definition of “Discrimination” under Clause 3(e).

In this context, the Court specifically noted that,

“…………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) of the Impugned Regulations?”

Another substantial issue identified by the Court relates to the impact of operationalisation of “caste-based discrimination” under the impugned Regulations on the existing constitutional and statutory sub-classification of Most Backward Castes within the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.

The Court also raised the question whether the Regulations provide adequate and effective safeguards to such Extremely Backward Castes against discrimination and structural disadvantage.

The Bench further questioned the use of the expression “segregation” under Clause 7(d) of the Regulations. It observed that even if hostel allocation, classroom grouping or mentorship arrangements are based on transparent criteria, such segregation may give rise to a “separate yet equal” classification, potentially infringing the constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

The Court further observed that “ragging” is not recognised as a form of discrimination under the Regulations, 2026. Specifically, it was noticed that ragging was included in the UGC Regulations, 2012, the Bench questioned whether its exclusion indicates a regressive legislative approach.

However, the Court also found that such an omission may lead to unequal opportunities to remedies for victims, thereby it will potentially violate the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Considering the wide-ranging constitutional issues involved in the instant matter, the Supreme Court directed that the matter be listed before a three-judge Bench.

While passing the interim order, the Court stayed the operation of the UGC Regulations, 2026  and further directed that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012, shall remain in force until further orders.

Case: Mritunjay Tiwari vs Union of India & Anr.

Date of Order: 29.01.2026

See Order: Mritunjay Tiwari vs Union of India & Anr.

Related Post