A fresh legal challenge has reached the Supreme Court questioning the scope and fairness of the University Grants Commission’s newly notified equity regulations. The petition raises a significant concern - whether the rules meant to prevent caste discrimination in higher education unfairly exclude students who do not belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backward Classes.
The case puts the spotlight on how caste discrimination is defined in law and whether institutional safeguards can be limited to selected social groups.
Read Also:- Ganja Seizure Case: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail Over Violations in NDPS Procedure
Background of the Case
The challenge has been filed against the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, which came into force on January 13, 2026.
These regulations were introduced with the stated aim of eliminating discrimination in universities and colleges and ensuring equality on campuses. They mandate the creation of:
- Equal Opportunity Centres
- Equity Committees
- Grievance redressal mechanisms
- Ombudspersons to handle complaints
The regulations also define what constitutes “caste-based discrimination.” Under Regulation 3(c), such discrimination is described as conduct directed only against members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes.
This definition has now become the centre of legal scrutiny.
What the Petitioner Has Argued
The plea has been filed by Advocate Vineet Jindal, who contends that the regulation is exclusionary in nature and violates the principle of equality under the Constitution.
According to the petition, the rule unfairly denies grievance redressal to individuals who do not belong to SC, ST, or OBC categories, even if they face discrimination based on caste identity.
The plea states that the regulation:
- Assumes caste-based discrimination can occur only against reserved categories
- Excludes “general category” students from protection
- Denies access to institutional remedies such as equity cells and complaint committees
The petitioner argued before the court that such a narrow definition creates a legal blind spot, leaving certain victims without any remedy.
Court Observation Quoted in the Plea
While the Supreme Court has not yet passed any final order, the petition strongly challenges the logic behind the regulation.
“The impugned provision proceeds on an untenable presumption that caste-based discrimination can operate only in one direction,” the plea states.
It further adds that the rule “forecloses, as a matter of law, the possibility that persons belonging to general or upper castes may also be subjected to caste-based hostility, abuse or institutional prejudice.”
According to the petitioner, this selective framework risks turning an equality-driven regulation into a tool that unintentionally promotes division.
Relief Sought Before the Supreme Court
The petitioner has urged the court to:
- Restrain authorities from enforcing Regulation 3(c) in its present form
- Direct the Union Government and UGC to adopt a caste-neutral definition of discrimination
- Ensure that Equal Opportunity Centres and grievance mechanisms are accessible to all, irrespective of caste
- Declare denial of grievance redressal on caste identity as impermissible state discrimination
The plea also seeks interim protection so that complaints from non-SC/ST/OBC individuals are not rejected solely on the basis of caste classification.
Read Also:- Arrest Illegal for Not Telling Reasons: Tripura High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case
Why the Case Matters
The issue has sparked debate beyond the courtroom. Several student groups and individuals have raised concerns that the regulations, while well-intentioned, may exclude a section of students from institutional protection.
According to the petitioner, equity cannot be selective, and any form of caste-based discrimination must be addressed uniformly, without reference to social category.
Multiple petitions have reportedly been filed on similar grounds, reflecting growing concern over how the rules may operate in practice.
Decision Status
The Supreme Court has taken note of the plea challenging the UGC Regulations, 2026.
The matter is presently under consideration, with the petitioner seeking judicial intervention to ensure caste-neutral protection under the law.
The case now awaits further hearing and directions from the apex court.
Case Title: Vineet Jindal v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Type: Writ Petition (Constitutional)
