A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging Regulation 3(c) of the University Grants Commission (UGC) (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, arguing that its protection against caste discrimination is not inclusive. Advocate Vineet Jindal, the petitioner, contends that the current provision denies grievance redressal and institutional protection to individuals not belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), or Other Backward Classes (OBC) categories. He argues that caste-based discrimination should be defined in a caste-neutral manner to protect all individuals, regardless of caste identity, who face discrimination.
The UGC regulations, which were notified on January 13, 2026, apply to all higher education institutions in India. These regulations replaced the 2012 rules with the stated aim of fostering equity, inclusion, and a discrimination-free academic environment in line with the National Education Policy, 2020. Regulation 3(c) defines "caste-based discrimination" as discrimination based only on caste or tribe against members of the SC, ST, and OBC communities.
The petition argues that this definition is exclusionary and violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution by creating a hostile classification based solely on caste. It suggests that the regulation presumes caste-based discrimination can only occur against certain reserved categories, ignoring the possibility that individuals from general or upper castes may also experience caste-based prejudice. The plea asserts that this creates a hierarchy of victimhood and introduces bias into a framework that should be neutral and inclusive.
The petition seeks to restrain authorities from enforcing the provision and requests a declaration that denying access to grievance redressal based on caste identity is an impermissible form of state discrimination. It also calls for ensuring that Equal Opportunity Centers, Equity Helplines, inquiry mechanisms, and Ombudsperson proceedings are accessible in a caste-neutral and non-discriminatory manner until the regulation is amended.
According to Advocate T.K. Nayak, the UGC regulations are subject to judicial review, though courts generally show restraint in interfering with regulatory frameworks unless challenges are based on constitutionality, discrimination, arbitrariness, or lack of due process. Nayak described the UGC's equity and anti-discrimination guidelines as a necessary and overdue intervention, arguing that discrimination on campuses has been treated as a social reality rather than a governance failure. By making equity mechanisms mandatory, the UGC signals that discrimination is a governance failure that institutions must address.
Nayak also noted that the guidelines recognize that discrimination is often subtle and systemic, rather than overt, and that their intent is progressive and constitutionally aligned. However, he cautioned that effective implementation would require greater procedural clarity. He suggested that clearer definitions and examples of discrimination versus interpersonal conflict would be helpful, and that balanced representation and neutral oversight within committees would address perceptions of bias.
Another similar petition was also filed on January 24, seeking a direction from the SC to declare the Regulation 3(c) of the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) 2026, notified on January 13, as unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.
With the matter now before the Supreme Court, the debate surrounding the UGC guidelines is expected to transition from political discussion to legal and constitutional adjudication.
