|
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, notified on January 23, 2026 which was challenged by various petitioners as being arbitrary, exclusionary, discriminatory and in violation of the of the Constitution as well as the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
The pleas had chiefly argued that the UGC regulation defines 'caste-based discrimination' very narrowly, limiting it only to discrimination against SC, ST, and OBC communities. While staying the 2026 UGC regulations in its entirety, a bench of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi termed the language of the provision that defines "caste-based discrimination" as "vague". "There is complete vagueness in Regulation 3 (C), and it can be misused. The language needs to be re-modified," the Court remarked. The Court noted that for now, the 2012 UGC regulations will operate until it examines the validity of the 2026 regulations. The matter will be heard next on March 19, it added. The bench has sought the response of the Centre by asking the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, to file its counter-affidavit. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the petitioners, sought a stay on Regulation 3(c), which defines "caste-based discrimination." He argued that clause (e) of the same regulation provides a broad, all-encompassing definition of "discrimination," making clause (c) unnecessary. According to him, clause (c) unjustifiably narrows the scope by limiting protection only to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, thereby excluding other castes. Advocate Satyam Pandey, appearing on behalf of another petitioner, argued that the limited protection granted exclusively to SCs, STs and OBCs in the 2026 regulation would bring divisiveness among students of a particular campus of a university who are otherwise residing peacefully regardless of the caste or community they belong to. He further argued that the fresh regulations lack safeguards for a student belonging to the General category from being ragged (hazing) by seniors who may belong to the Scheduled Caste community, for the reason that the latter can file a cross-complaint based on the protection granted to him by the anti-discriminatory regime. "If I am a fresher belonging to the General category and enter a college, my status as a fresher is apparent to seniors from my appearance and conduct. In such a situation, if a senior who engages in ragging belongs to a Scheduled Caste, any complaint filed by me against such a senior carries a real and reasonable apprehension of a retaliatory cross-case being lodged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act," Pandey submitted. This creates a chilling effect, whereby a General category fresher is effectively deterred from reporting ragging, not due to lack of merit in the complaint, but due to fear of criminal prosecution by way of a counter-allegation, Mr Pandey contended. The bench, while acknowledging the submissions from the petitioners, stated that it may issue directions to the UGC to constitute a Committee, which should be approved by the Court, comprising academicians and eminent jurists who understand the functioning of educational institutions. "Schools and colleges cannot exist in isolation or in a vacuum; they are an integral part of society", CJI Kant said. "How are people going to behave outside the campus if we create this kind of situation inside the campus?", the Court remarked. The Court cited an example to pose a question to the UGC regarding whether the 2026 regulations provide holistic protection to students belonging to Schedule Caste communities. It said that there are certain college campuses in Punjab and Haryana where persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste communities are internally divided into Group A and Group B on the basis of relative backwardness, with Group B having been identified to promote the most backward among them. The Court noted that this raises an unexamined concern: if a Group A Scheduled Caste individual makes discriminatory or derogatory remarks against a Group B Scheduled Caste individual, has this aspect been adequately addressed under the 2026 framework? After 75 years of trying to make a caste-less society, whether the direction of policy-making is progressive or tending towards a regressive approach, it asked. With respect to raging, it stated that children from the North East or South India carry their cultural values with them. In their day-to-day lives, as they follow their routine practices, they may be subjected to derogatory comments solely because of their cultural identity," it said. Students from all communities live together in educational institutions, and Indian society has also witnessed the rise of inter-caste marriages. At the same time, "some mechanism must be included in universities to make a caste-less society." It added. Owing to these inadequacies, the Court ordered that the 2026 regulations shall be "put in abeyance". (ANI)
|
