In response to the Supreme Court's stay on the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations, the central government has initiated a reassessment of key provisions within the rules. The Supreme Court's decision to put a hold on the recently notified UGC regulations came after multiple petitions alleged that the rules adopted an exclusionary understanding of caste-based discrimination and left out certain groups from institutional safeguards.
The Supreme Court's bench, consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, issued notices to the Centre and the UGC while addressing the challenges to the regulation. The court also stated that the 2012 UGC regulations would remain in effect for the time being. The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for March 19.
The primary concerns raised against the new UGC regulations, officially known as the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, revolve around the definition of caste-based discrimination. The regulations defined it strictly as discrimination against members of the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). Petitioners argued that this definition was arbitrary, exclusionary, and discriminatory, further violating the UGC Act of 1956. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing one of the petitioners, argued that bias against the general category had not been included in Regulation 3(1)(c). This led to arguments that the regulations created an exclusionary system that denied students from the general category access to the grievance redressal mechanism.
The Supreme Court also expressed concerns about the vagueness of Regulation 3 (C), which defines caste-based discrimination, stating that it could be misused and that the language needed to be re-modified. The court described the framework as "prima facie vague" and cautioned that it could have "very sweeping consequences" and might divide society with a "dangerous impact". The court observed that India's unity must be reflected in its educational institutions and expressed hope that India would not have segregated schools.
The UGC's new regulations had created an uproar, with many expressing concern over how "Caste-based discrimination" was defined. Social media platforms saw trends criticizing the UGC's new regulations as anti-general category laws.
The UGC's 2026 regulations sought to establish a structured framework for grievance redressal and to support disadvantaged groups across universities and colleges. Under these regulations, every higher education institution would need to establish an equal opportunity center and coordinate with civil society groups, police and district administration, faculty members, staff, local media, district administration, and police. The center would also coordinate with District and State Legal Services Authorities to facilitate legal aid. The equal opportunity center would include representatives from Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), persons with disabilities, and women.
The penalties for institutions violating the rules were strong, including being barred, unrecognized, or no longer allowed to offer degrees. Students protested the rules, arguing that they excluded the general category in discrimination, that discrimination should not only apply to SC, ST, and OBC groups, and that there were no safeguards against false complaints.
