New Delhi: In an interim order passed on Thursday, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. Issuing notice to the Centre and the UGC, a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that the 2026 Regulations shall remain in abeyance and ordered that the 2012 UGC Regulations will continue to operate until further orders.
The CJI Kant-led Bench was hearing a clutch of petitions contending that the new regulations could result in discrimination against individuals in the general category and expressed concern over the denial of effective grievance redressal mechanisms for them.
While staying the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure “complete justice”, directing that the 2012 Regulations will continue in force until further orders.
The apex court listed the matter for further hearing on March 19.
During the hearing, the CJI Kant-led Bench expressed concern over the possible consequences of the new regulations, remarking: “If we don’t intervene, it will have a dangerous impact. It will divide society and have grave repercussions.”
Earlier on Wednesday, CJI Kant Kant agreed to list the matter for hearing after it was mentioned for urgent listing.
The CJI had assured the petitioner’s counsel that the case would be heard after the defects in the petition are cured. “We know what’s happening. Make sure defects are cured. We will list it,” the CJI had said.
The plea alleged that the new UGC framework institutionalises discrimination by denying grievance redressal mechanisms to persons belonging to non-SC/ST/OBC categories. It contended that the regulations violate the principles of equality and fair access to remedies in higher education institutions.
According to the petition, the regulation restricts the scope of “caste-based discrimination” only to members of the “Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes”. Such a definition “accords legal recognition of victimhood exclusively to certain reserved categories and categorically excludes persons belonging to general or upper castes from its protective ambit, regardless of the nature, gravity, or context of discrimination suffered by them”, it contended.
The petition further seeks a direction to ensure that Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Helplines, inquiry mechanisms and Ombudsperson proceedings under the regulations are made available in a “non-discriminatory and caste-neutral manner”, pending reconsideration or amendment of Regulation 3(c).
It argued that denial of access to grievance redressal mechanisms on the basis of caste identity amounts to impermissible state discrimination and violates Articles 14, 15(1), and 21 of the Constitution.
(IANS)
