BREAKING: Supreme Court stays UGC Regulations, 2026, stating that they are "vague" and "capable of misuse"

The Supreme Court today stayed the operation of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, notified on January 13, observing that the new rules appear vague and capable of misuse.

Court directed that the earlier 2012 regulations will continue to govern the field until further orders.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order in a batch of three petitions, which contend that the 2026 Regulations dilute existing safeguards against discrimination by narrowing the definition of caste-based discrimination. The pleas argue that the new rules restructure grievance redressal mechanisms in a manner that allegedly excludes or disadvantages students from the general category.

Issuing notice in the petitions filed by Mritunjay Tiwari, Advocate Vineet Jindal, and Rahul Dewan, the CJI asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to place the Union government’s response on record.

"We would like for you to constitute a committee of eminent jurists, scholars who understand our social values and ethos..in which direction we should go," CJI added.

Appearing for one of the petitioners, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain submitted that the regulations proceed on an erroneous assumption that discrimination can only be attributed to a particular section of society. “A statute cannot operate on such a presumption,” he argued.

Another counsel submitted that the regulations fail to address the root causes of discrimination and instead institutionalise divisions by caste. "This regulation does not tackle the real issues... It only sees that students are divided based on caste," he submitted.

During the hearing, the CJI remarked that students coming from different regions carry distinct cultural practices, and insensitive remarks by those unfamiliar with such backgrounds can generate friction. Cautioning against segregation, the CJI observed, “You are talking about separate hostels… please don’t do that.”

The court had on Wednesday agreed to hear the challenge to the constitutional validity of Regulation 3(c) of the 2026 Regulations.

Advocate Vineet Jindal’s petition assails the new rules to the extent they adopt what is described as an exclusionary and caste-specific definition of “caste-based discrimination.” The plea argues that by limiting protection to certain identified categories, the regulations deny equal protection of law to a substantial section of citizens solely on the basis of caste.

To demonstrate what it describes as the lived reality of caste-based hostility beyond reserved categories, the petition cites incidents reported from Jawaharlal Nehru University in December 2022. According to the plea, walls of the School of International Studies-II building were defaced with slogans such as “Brahmins Leave the Campus,” “There Will Be Blood,” and “Brahmino Baniyas, we are coming for you.” While the graffiti were widely condemned by student bodies, including JNUSU, and faculty associations, the petition claims that institutional responses were perceived as inadequate.

Similar allegations have been raised with respect to incidents at Ashoka University in March 2024, where students were reportedly recorded raising slogans such as “Brahmin-Baniyawaad Murdabad” during protests.

Against this backdrop, the petition takes specific exception to Regulation 3(c), which defines “caste-based discrimination” as discrimination “only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.”

Jindal contends that this definition, by design, accords legal recognition of victimhood exclusively to certain categories and excludes persons belonging to the general or upper castes, regardless of the nature or severity of discrimination they may face.

According to the plea, such a definition institutionalises exclusion at the threshold, creates a hierarchy of victimhood, and introduces an impermissible bias into a regulatory framework that otherwise claims to promote equity and inclusion.

How Regulations 2026 Emerged:

The University Grants Commission (UGC), which is India’s statutory higher education regulator, notified the Regulations 2026 on January 13, replacing the earlier 2012 anti-discrimination framework.

A key catalyst for this reform was a public interest litigation originally filed in 2019 by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, students who died by suicide amid allegations of caste-based hostility at their respective universities. In its early procedural directions, the Supreme Court asked for a “strong and robust mechanism” to tackle discrimination at higher educational institutions, inviting stakeholder suggestions on draft regulations that eventually informed the final text.

Political and Social Response:

Immediately after notification, the 2026 Regulations sparked widespread debate and campus protests across several states. Some student organisations and civil society groups supported stronger equity protections, while others, particularly members of the general category, protested the rules as discriminatory or constitutionally questionable. Moreover, multiple petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Regulations.

Case Title: Vineet Jindal v. Union of India and Anr with connected matters

Bench: CJI Kant and Justice Bagchi

Hearing Date: January 29, 2026