A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Regulation 3(c) of the University Grants Commission (UGC)'s Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026. The plea, filed by advocate Vineet Jindal, argues that the regulation is discriminatory because it extends reservation benefits only to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Communities (OBC), while denying the same protection to individuals from general or upper castes.
The UGC regulations, notified on January 13, 2026, replaced the 2012 anti-discrimination framework, aiming to foster equity, inclusion, and a discrimination-free academic environment in higher education institutions, aligning with the National Education Policy, 2020. Specifically, Regulation 3(c) 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's petition contends that this "exclusionary, asymmetric, and caste-specific definition" denies equal protection under the law to a substantial section of citizens based solely on caste. The plea argues that the regulation gives legal recognition of victimhood exclusively to certain reserved categories, while categorically excluding individuals from general or upper castes, regardless of the discrimination they may face. According to the petition, this "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 petitioner seeks a declaration to strike down Provision 3 of the regulations as ultra vires. The plea also requests the court to restrain the Union of India and the UGC from enforcing Regulation 3(c) in its current form and to ensure that mechanisms like Equal Opportunity Centres and Equity Helplines are accessible in a caste-neutral and non-discriminatory manner until the regulation is amended. Jindal argues that denying access to grievance mechanisms based on caste identity is an impermissible state discrimination and violates Articles 14, 15(1), and 21 of the Constitution.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan has assured that there would be no discrimination against anyone and that no one would face harassment or have the right to misuse the regulation.
Some legal experts have differing views on the UGC guidelines. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising stated that the regulations have been closely monitored by the Supreme Court and are an improvement over the 2013 framework. Advocate TK Nayak said that courts generally exercise restraint when reviewing regulatory frameworks unless there is a challenge based on constitutionality, discrimination, arbitrariness, or lack of due process. Nayak also suggested that clearer definitions and examples of what constitutes discrimination versus interpersonal conflict would improve the framework's success.
