In a significant interim order, the Supreme Court on Thursday put on hold the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) 2026 regulations aimed at promoting equity in higher education. The top court expressed serious concerns over the wording of the rules, calling them “vague” and “capable of misuse,” and warned that they could end up dividing students instead of fostering inclusion.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stayed the operation of the new regulations and ordered that the older 2012 UGC regulations would continue to apply for now.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Quashes Suicide Abetment Case, Says Angry Words Alone Don’t Prove Criminal
Background of the Case
The UGC had notified the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 on January 23 this year. The rules were framed to address discrimination on campuses, following earlier directions of the Supreme Court and in the backdrop of tragic incidents involving student suicides.
However, soon after their notification, the regulations faced strong opposition. Several petitions were filed challenging their constitutionality, alleging that the rules were discriminatory, arbitrary, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
Among the petitioners were advocate Mritunjay Tiwari, advocate Vineet Jindal, and Rahul Dewan. They argued that the regulations defined “caste-based discrimination” narrowly and excluded students from the general category from seeking protection.
The issue also triggered protests in several universities, including Delhi University, where students claimed the rules promoted division rather than equality.
Read Also:-Delhi High Court Rejects Sameer Wankhede’s Defamation Suit Against Netflix Show ‘Ba*ds
What Troubled the Supreme Court
At the heart of the challenge was Regulation 3(1)(c), which defines caste-based discrimination as discrimination only against SC, ST and OBC students.
The Bench questioned why such a narrow definition was required when Regulation 3(1)(e) already defines “discrimination” in broader terms.
“We are simply examining it on the threshold of constitutionality and legality,” the court observed.
The judges also expressed concern that the rules could be misused due to vague language.
“The language needs to be re-modified,” the Bench said, adding that the provision lacked clarity and safeguards.
Read Also:- UGC's 2026 Anti-Discrimination Rules Face Protest by Lawyers Near Allahabad High Court
Court’s Key Observations
During the hearing, the court made a series of strong remarks highlighting its discomfort with the regulations.
CJI Surya Kant asked whether the country was “moving backwards” instead of progressing toward a casteless society.
“Whatever we have gained in terms of achieving a casteless society, are we now becoming regressive?” he asked.
He also expressed concern over provisions that could encourage segregation, including the idea of separate hostels.
“For God’s sake, don’t do this. We all used to stay together. There are inter-caste marriages also,” the CJI remarked.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi echoed similar concerns, saying educational institutions must reflect unity.
“Unity of India must be reflected in our educational institutions,” he observed.
The Bench also questioned why ragging - a major source of harassment on campuses - had been left out of the regulations altogether.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Odisha Land Dispute Orders, Says Section 47 CPC Misused After Decree
Arguments by Petitioners
Senior advocates appearing for the petitioners argued that the regulations created an artificial distinction.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain pointed out that while “discrimination” was already defined broadly, a separate definition of “caste-based discrimination” unfairly limited protection.
“When Section 3(e) already exists, what is the need for 3(c)? It assumes only one section faces discrimination,” he submitted.
Another counsel highlighted a scenario where a general category student faces harassment or ragging but is left without any remedy under the new rules.
The court also noted that such gaps could lead to misuse or even reverse complaints.
Court’s Direction and Interim Order
After hearing all sides, the Supreme Court decided to keep the 2026 regulations in abeyance.
“The regulations are prima facie vague and capable of misuse,” the Bench said.
Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the court ordered that the 2012 UGC Regulations will continue to operate until further orders.
The Bench also suggested that the Centre consider setting up a committee of eminent jurists and social experts to revisit the regulations and make them more balanced.
“We want a free, equitable and inclusive atmosphere in educational institutions,” the court said.
Read Also:- Gauhati High Court Upholds Foreigners Tribunal Order, Rejects Assam Man’s Citizenship Claim
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court formally stayed the operation of the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, and directed that the 2012 regulations shall remain in force until the matter is finally decided.
The Union Government and the UGC have been asked to file their responses. The matter will be heard next on March 19.
Case Title
- Mritunjay Tiwari vs Union of India & Ors.
- Vineet Jindal vs Union of India & Ors.
- Rahul Dewan & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.
Case Numbers:
- W.P.(C) No. 101/2026
- W.P.(C) No. 109/2026
- W.P.(C) No. 108/2026
Bench: CJI Surya Kant & Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Decision Date: January 29, 2026
