Supreme Court Holds UGC Rules “Vague, Capable of Misuse”, Keeps 2012 Framework Alive

The Supreme Court of India on January 29 stayed the operation of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, observing that the newly notified rules appear vague and capable of misuse and that several substantial constitutional and legal questions arise from the framework of the Regulations that require detailed judicial examination.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi kept the Regulations in abeyance while issuing notice to the Union government and the UGC, and directed that the earlier University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012 would continue to govern anti-discrimination mechanisms in higher education until further orders.

The 2026 Regulations, notified on January 13, replaced the decade-old 2012 framework and garnered immediate attention from student bodies, academicians and legal experts. The UGC said the new Rules were intended to create a robust institutional mechanism to prevent discrimination and promote equity, inclusion and dignity across all Indian universities and colleges. To this end, the Regulations mandated the establishment of Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees, 24×7 Equity Helplines and time-bound grievance redressal processes in each institution.

However, controversy centred around key clauses in the Regulations, especially Clause 3(c), which defines “caste-based discrimination” narrowly as discrimination only against Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. Petitioners contended that this definition excludes general category students from legal protection when faced with caste-based hostility or abuse and institutionalises a hierarchy of victimhood, thereby undermining the constitutional guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 15. Multiple campus incidents, including allegations of caste-targeted sloganeering at Jawaharlal Nehru University and other institutions, were cited in support of the plea that caste headaches are not unidirectional in present-day campuses.

While hearing a batch of three petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Regulations, the Supreme Court held that the new framework raises significant legal questions and cannot be allowed to operate without judicial scrutiny. The Bench identified four issues that will guide its detailed examination of the Regulations.

First, the Court said it will examine whether the introduction of Clause 3(c), with its specific definition of caste-based discrimination, bears a reasonable and rational nexus with the stated object of the Regulations. The Bench noted that while caste-based discrimination has been specifically defined, the Regulations do not prescribe any distinct or specialised procedural mechanism to address it, unlike the umbrella definition of “discrimination” in Clause 3(e).

Second, the Court will consider whether recognising and operationalising caste-based discrimination under the new framework has any impact on existing constitutional and statutory sub-classifications of the Most Backward Castes within SCs, STs and OBCs. This scrutiny will test if the Regulations provide effective safeguards for extremely backward castes that continue to face structural disadvantage even within larger identified groups.

Third, the Supreme Court said it will assess the constitutional validity of Clause 7(d), which includes the term “segregation” in the context of the allocation of hostels, classrooms, mentorship groups or similar arrangements. The Bench observed that, even if based on transparent criteria, such arrangements could risk creating a “separate yet equal” framework, raising serious concerns under Articles 14 and 15 and the constitutional value of fraternity reflected in the Preamble.

Fourth, the Court will examine the omission of “ragging” as a specific form of discrimination in the 2026 Regulations. Ragging was expressly included in the 2012 text, and the Bench said it will assess whether its exclusion amounts to a regressive omission undermining the right to dignity and equal treatment under Articles 14 and 21.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta was asked to place the Union government’s response on record. Petitioners in the case – including advocate Vineet Jindal, Mritunjay Tiwari and Rahul Dewan – have argued that the new Regulations dilute existing safeguards and disadvantage students from the general category by narrowing definitions and restructuring grievance redressal mechanisms.

The matter is now slated for a detailed hearing once the government files its response. The Supreme Court’s interim order marks a significant judicial check on the exercise of rule-making power by the UGC, signalling the Court’s willingness to examine whether regulatory frameworks intended to further equity inadvertently subvert constitutional guarantees.

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

Date of Hearing: January 29, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi