Plea before Supreme Court challenges UGC Regulations 2026 for denying grievance redressal to General category
Court has been told that by restricting caste-based discrimination the Regulations perversely legitimise "reverse discrimination" while failing to promote the "full equity and inclusion" envisaged in the National Education Policy, 2020.
Supreme Court has been told the regulations create 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 Supreme Court today agreed to hear a petition assailing the constitutional validity of Regulation 3(c) of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, notified on 13.01.2026, to the extent that it adopts an exclusionary, asymmetric, and caste-specific definition of “caste-based discrimination,” thereby denying equal protection of law to a substantial section of citizens solely on the basis of caste.
University Grants Commission (UGC) notified the aforesaid Regulations, superseding the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012.
A CJI Kant led bench said today agreed to list the petition and said, "We know what is happening". Notably another petition has also been filed by Advocate Vineet Jindal.
The plea by Jindal cites incidents from December 2022, where 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!” These provocative graffiti, reported widely and condemned by student bodies including JNUSU and faculty associations, fostered an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, with the university administration ordering an inquiry but institutional responses remaining perceived as inadequate in several accounts.
"In a more recent instance 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 marginalized groups", Jindal has stated.
Similarly, incidents from March 2024, have been cited where 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 adds.
"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) defines “caste-based discrimination” in a narrowly confined manner as discrimination “only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.” By design and operation, this definition accords legal recognition of victimhood exclusively to certain reserved categories and categorically excludes B persons belonging to general or upper castes from its protective ambit, regardless of the nature, gravity, or context of discrimination suffered by them", the PIL states.
Court has been told 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 impugned provision 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, as articulated in Regulation 2, which aims to eradicate discrimination on grounds including caste "particularly against the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, persons with disabilities, or any of them."", the plea further states.
By defining "caste-based discrimination" exclusively against members of the notified backward classes, the impugned Regulation 3(c) is alleged to mischaracterize them as castes alone, ignoring the constitutional distinction and restricting protection to a predetermined set of classes while excluding others who may suffer caste-based hostility irrespective of their class status.
Case Title: Vineet Jindal v. Union of India and Anr