Supreme Court Puts 2026 UGC Anti-Discrimination Regulations in Abeyance; 2012 Rules to Continue

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has directed that the recently notified University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, be kept in abeyance. 

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered that the 2012 Regulations shall continue to remain in force while the Court examines the constitutional validity of the new 2026 framework, particularly its definition of “caste-based discrimination.”

Background

The University Grants Commission (UGC) notified the 2026 Regulations on January 13, 2026, superseding the 2012 guidelines. These new rules were intended to create a more robust institutional architecture to combat discrimination in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). The regulations mandated the creation of Equal Opportunity Centres (EOC), Equity Committees, and 24-hour Equity Helplines.

However, the notification sparked immediate legal challenges focused on Regulation 3(c), which defines “caste-based discrimination” as unfair treatment directed only against members of Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).

Arguments of the Parties

The petitions, including those filed by Advocate Vineet Jindal and Rahul Dewan, argued that the 2026 Regulations are “non-inclusionary” and “manifestly arbitrary.” The primary contentions included:

1. Exclusionary Definition: Petitioners argued that by limiting protection to SC/ST/OBC categories, the UGC effectively denied grievance redressal to students and faculty of the “General” or non-reserved categories who may also face caste-based hostility or abuse.
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights: It was contended that the regulations violate Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15(1) of the Constitution by creating a “hostile classification” founded solely on caste without a rational nexus to the objective of promoting equity.
3. Presumption of One-Way Discrimination: The pleas stated that the law proceeds on an “untenable presumption” that discrimination can only operate in one direction, thereby ignoring the possibility of “reverse discrimination.”

For the Respondents (UGC/Union of India):

The Government and UGC maintained that the regulations were framed to address the lived realities of historically marginalized communities. They noted that the rules were a response to a long-standing Supreme Court PIL (filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi) seeking effective implementation of anti-discrimination measures. The Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan, earlier assured that the guidelines were within the “ambit of the Constitution” and intended to strengthen campus safety.

Court’s Analysis and Observations

During the proceedings, the bench expressed awareness of the intensifying debate and the potential for exclusion. Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked, “We know what is happening,” while agreeing to list the matter for a detailed hearing. The Court noted that while the 2026 Regulations aimed to provide an “enforceable governance issue” rather than discretionary grievance redressal, the narrowness of Regulation 3(c) required judicial scrutiny. The bench observed that the transition from the 2012 framework—which was more advisory—to the 2026 mandatory framework must not inadvertently create a “hierarchy of protection” that excludes any section of the student population from institutional safeguards.

The Decision

The Supreme Court has directed the following:

1. Abeyance: The enforcement of the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, is stayed until further orders.
2. Status Quo Ante: The UGC Regulations of 2012 shall continue to govern Higher Education Institutions in the interim.
3. Constitutional Examination: The Court will examine whether the current definition of “caste-based discrimination” in the 2026 rules is inclusive and constitutionally compliant.
4. Interim Accessibility: The Court indicated that mechanisms like Equal Opportunity Centres and Helplines should eventually be accessible in a caste-neutral manner.