UGC Equity Regulations Under Supreme Court Scrutiny Amid Claims of Discrimination
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
Delhi,27, January,2026- The University Grants Commission (UGC) finds its recently notified regulations aimed at curbing caste-based discrimination under intense judicial scrutiny. A series of petitions filed before the Supreme Court of India seeks to stay the implementation of these guidelines, alleging they are fundamentally exclusionary and constitutionally infirm.
The Core of the Contention
The impugned regulations mandate that all Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) establish Equal Opportunity Centres and Equity Committees. These bodies are tasked with the robust implementation of policies for disadvantaged groups and the adjudication of complaints regarding caste-based harassment.
However, the petitioners argue that the framework suffers from a “threshold exclusion.” By limiting the grievance redressal mechanism strictly to students belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC), the regulations effectively bar ‘General Category’ students from seeking similar institutional protection.
Key Legal Grounds for the Challenge
The plea characterizes the current drafting of the regulations as a violation of the foundational principles of the Constitution. The primary arguments presented to the Bench include:
- Impermissible State Discrimination: The petitioners seek a formal declaration that denying access to a grievance redressal mechanism based solely on caste identity constitutes “impermissible State discrimination,” contravening the mandate of Article 15.
- The “Equity vs. Division” Argument: The plea contends that a selective framework does not foster equity; instead, it “condones and effectively encourages unchecked hostility” against non-reserved categories.
- Institutional Vulnerability: It is argued that by rendering one segment of the student population “remedy less,” the regulations transform from a shield for the vulnerable into a tool for institutional division.
“The right to a fair hearing and protection from harassment cannot be contingent upon one’s caste status. To provide a remedy to some while systematically denying it to others based on their social origin is a departure from the rule of law.” — Excerpt from the Petition.
Socio-Legal Impact and Public Discontent
Beyond the courtroom, the regulations have ignited significant friction within the academic community. Members of dominant-caste groups have staged protests, voicing concerns that the guidelines are unilateral. There is a prevailing apprehension that the lack of a universal complaint mechanism could lead to the regulations being weaponized or used as an instrument of targeted litigation within campuses.
Relief Sought
The petitioners have moved the Apex Court for the following:
- A Writ of Mandamus (or any other appropriate direction) to restrain the implementation of the regulations in their current form.
- A Directive to Universalize the grievance redressal process to include all students, regardless of category.
- A Declaration of the “exclusionary” clauses as ultra vires to the Constitution.
Advocate Vineet Jindal, the petitioner, asserts that the provision, by virtue of its present “exclusionary form,” deprives persons outside the SC/ST/OBC categories of grievance redressal and institutional protection.
The petition is filed through Advocate Raj Kishor Chaudhary the Supreme Court’s eventual determination on this matter will likely set a landmark precedent regarding the balance between protective discrimination for marginalized groups and the universal right to administrative justice.
