Supreme Court Raises 4 Questions On UGC Equity Regulations 2026, Asks Why Caste-Based Discrimination Separately Defined

The Supreme Court has framed four substantial questions of law in the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the University Grants Commisison (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the Regulations suffered from "certain ambiguities" and that the "the possibility of their misuse cannot be ruled out."

The Court noted that the Regulations defined both "caste-based discrimination" as well as "discrimination".

The definition of "caste-based discrimination" as per Regulation 3(1)(c), dealt with "discrimination only on the basis of caste against the members of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward classes".

"Discrimination", as per Regulation 3(1)(e), is defined more broadly as "unfair, differential, or biased treatment or any such act against any stakeholder, whether explicit or implicit, on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, disability, or any of them."

The Court noted that the Regulations provided remedial measures only with respect to "discrimination", which also covers caste-based discrimination. In this context, the Court wondered why "caste-based discrimination" is separately defined.

The Court further flagged that Most Backward Classes and Extremely Backward Classes are not specified in the definition of "caste-based discrimination."

The Court's next concern was regarding the use of the word "segregation" in Regulation 7(d). This clause directs the Higher Education Institutions "to ensure that any selection, segregation, or allocation for the purpose of hostels, classrooms, mentorship groups, or any other academic purposes is transparent, fair, and non-discriminatory." The Court wondered if it was a mandate for caste-based segregation in classes and hostels violating the spirit of fraternity.

The Court next questioned the exclusion of "ragging" from the Regulations. While issuing notice on the petitions, the Court also ordered that the Regulations be kept in abeyance.

The questions framed by the Court are as follows :

(i) Whether the incorporation of Clause 3(c) in the Impugned Regulations, defining “Caste-based Discrimination”, bears a reasonable and rational nexus to subserve the object and purpose of the 2026 UGC Regulations, particularly in light of the fact that no distinct or special procedural mechanism has been prescribed to address caste-based discrimination, as opposed to the exhaustive and inclusive definition of “Discrimination” provided under Clause 3(e) of the Impugned Regulations?

(ii) Whether the introduction and operationalisation of “caste-based discrimination” under the Impugned Regulations would have any bearing on the existing constitutional and statutory sub-classification of the Most Backward Castes within the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, and whether the Impugned Regulations provide adequate and effective protection and safeguards to such Extremely Backward Castes against discrimination and structural disadvantage?

(iii) Whether the inclusion of the expression “segregation” in Clause 7(d) of the Impugned Regulations, in the context of allocation of hostels, classrooms, mentorship groups, or similar academic or residential arrangements, albeit on transparent and non-discriminatory criteria, would amount to a “separate yet equal” classification, thereby infringing the constitutional guarantees of equality and fraternity under Articles 14, 15 as well as the Preamble to the Constitution of India?

(iv) Whether the omission of the term “Ragging” as a specific form of discrimination in the framework of the Impugned Regulations, despite its existence in the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012, constitutes a regressive and exclusionary legislative omission? If so, whether such 4 omission is violative of unequal treatment of victims of discrimination by creating an asymmetry in access to justice and thus falls foul of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India??

(v) Any other ancillary question that may arise or be proposed by the parties during the course of these proceedings and warrant the intervention of this Court.

Reports from the hearing :

'Capable Of Misuse, Vague': Supreme Court Stays UGC Equity Regulations 2026

UGC Equity Regulations 2026 Can Divide Society; India's Unity Must Be Reflected In Educational Institutions : Supreme Court

Case Title:

Also Read - Explainer: UGC's 2026 Regulations For Tackling Discrimination In Colleges & Surrounding Controversy

Click here to read the order