The Supreme Court on Thursday, 29 January 2026, stayed the implementation of the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) newly notified anti-discrimination regulations, expressing concern over their vague provisions and potential for misuse. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Union government and the University Grants Commission, directing that the regulations remain on hold until further orders.
The court observed that intervention was necessary as the guidelines were “capable of dividing society” and could have a “grave impact.” It directed that the earlier 2012 UGC guidelines, which were advisory in nature, would continue to operate in the interim.
“If we don’t intervene it will lead to a dangerous impact, will divide society and will have a grave impact,” the Chief Justice said, adding, “Prima facie we say that the language of the regulation is vague and experts need to look into for the language be modulated so that it is not exploited”.
The UGC had notified the new regulations earlier this month, making it mandatory for all higher education institutions to constitute equity committees to address complaints of discrimination and to promote inclusion on campuses. Under the rules, the committees are required to include representatives from the Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, persons with disabilities, and women.
However, the regulations exclude students from the general category from approaching the grievance redressal mechanism. This provision has been challenged before the Supreme Court and has also triggered protests by students in several states, with critics alleging that the framework is exclusionary and susceptible to misuse.
During the hearing, petitioners argued that the regulations deny institutional protection to individuals outside the SC, ST, and OBC categories. Their counsel contended that such a selective approach encourages hostility against non-reserved categories and undermines the objective of equity. Emphasising constitutional principles, the petitioners’ counsel submitted that “all citizens must be protected,” describing this as “the very mandate of the Constitution”.
Justice Bagchi said the court was keen on ensuring a “free and equitable atmosphere in universities” and raised concerns over the specific clause defining discrimination. He also questioned why provisions relating to ragging had been omitted from the 2026 regulations.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for petitioners seeking stronger safeguards against caste-based discrimination, defended the regulations. She argued that the plea was grounded in the constitutional vision of equality and the need to create an inclusive academic environment.
The UGC framed the regulations following a 2019 public interest litigation filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, respectively. Both students died by suicide after allegedly facing caste-based discrimination at their universities. The PIL had sought the creation of a robust institutional mechanism to address caste discrimination on campuses.
Source: India Today
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
