Plea Before Apex Court Challenging Constitutionality Of New UGC Regulations Says 'Upper Caste' Will Be Subjected To Hostility, Abuse & Intimidation

A Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is filed before the Supreme Court assailing the constitutional validity of Regulation 3(c) of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, notified on January 13, 2026.

It is alleged that it adopts an exclusionary, asymmetric, and caste-specific definition of “caste-based discrimination,” thereby the general or upper castes may also be subjected to caste-based hostility, abuse, intimidation, or institutional prejudice.

Plea, filed by AOR Satyam Pandey, states, "By defining "caste-based discrimination" exclusively against members of these notified backward classes, the impugned Regulation 3(c) mischaracterises them as castes alone, ignoring the constitutional distinction and restricting protection to a predetermined set of classes while excluding others who may suffer caste-based hostility irrespective of their class status. This approach is arbitrary, as it elevates certain classes to exclusive victimhood while denying recognition to caste-based discrimination suffered by non-reserved groups, violating the egalitarian intent behind the use of "classes" in the Constitution."

The Petition primarily challenges the definition of "caste-based discrimination" and says that by design and operation, this 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 also says that such a definition institutionalises exclusion at the threshold, creates a hierarchy of victimhood, and introduces a constitutionally impermissible bias into a regulatory framework that purports to be neutral and inclusive.

Further, the plea says, "The impugned provision proceeds on an untenable presumption that caste-based discrimination can operate only in one direction, thereby foreclosing, as a matter of law, the possibility that persons belonging to general or upper castes may also be subjected to caste-based hostility, abuse, intimidation, or institutional prejudice. This presumption not only ignores the evolving social realities but also undermines the broader objective of the Regulations themselves, as articulated in Regulation 2, which aims to eradicate discrimination on grounds including caste "particularly against the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, persons with disabilities, or any of them."

It is stated that the assumption underlying the impugned provision—that caste-based discrimination is necessarily unidirectional—is empirically unfounded and constitutionally suspect. It adds that in the polarised and ideologically charged milieu of contemporary campus politics, caste-based hostility has increasingly manifested in a bidirectional and aggressive form. Multiple reported incidents across Higher Education Institutions between 2022 and 2025 demonstrate the prevalence of open caste-based vilification against students belonging to the general or upper castes, it says.

By way of illustration, the plea says that in December 2022, walls at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi, in particular, the School of International Studies-II building, were defaced with anti-Brahmin and anti-Baniya slogans such as “Brahmins Leave The Campus,” “There Will Be Blood,” “Brahmin Bharat Chhodo,” and “Brahmino-Baniyas, we are coming for you!” These provocative graffiti, reported widely and condemned by student bodies including JNUSU and faculty associations, fostered an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, with the university administration ordering an inquiry but institutional responses remaining perceived as inadequate in several accounts.

"Similarly, in March 2024, students at Ashoka University, Sonipat, Haryana, were recorded raising inflammatory slogans during protests, including “Brahmin-Baniyawaad Murdabad” and variants invoking caste-based hostility, alongside calls for a caste census. Such sloganeering, which targeted Brahmin and Baniya communities and drew public criticism, elicited a statement from the university administration deploring expressions of hatred and assuring disciplinary action, yet highlighting a pattern of selective or delayed institutional intervention," the petition says.

It also says that the consequences of such selective exclusion are not merely abstract or theoretical. In several reported instances across universities and coaching institutions, students belonging to the general category have allegedly died by suicide following sustained harassment, social ostracisation, false accusations, or academic pressure, compounded by the absence of neutral and effective grievance redressal mechanisms. While suicide is a complex phenomenon with multiple contributing factors, investigative reports and, in certain cases, suicide notes have referred to targeted humiliation, fear of false implication, or institutional indifference as aggravating factors.

The impugned Regulations, by denying even the possibility of redress to such students, exacerbate vulnerability and invisibilise their suffering. This is particularly egregious given the Regulations' failure to address bidirectional caste dynamics, as evidenced by the lack of any provision in Regulations 4, 5, or 7 to protect against or monitor hostility against non-reserved groups, thereby criticising the framework as inherently flawed and biased, it states.

The Petitioner submits that the impugned provision suffers from a constitutional infirmity akin to the presumption underlying the colonial-era Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, which designated certain communities as inherently criminal and was later repealed as violative of equality and constitutional morality. By presupposing that only certain castes can be victims while others cannot, the impugned Regulations revive a similar presumption of collective guilt and collective immunity, alien to the egalitarian ethos of the Constitution, it adds.

It highlights that the deliberate use of the word “only” in Regulation 3(c) is decisive and determinative. It statutorily forecloses the possibility of recognising caste-based discrimination against any person who does not belong to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backward Classes, irrespective of the nature, severity, or context of the discrimination suffered.

"This narrow and exclusionary definition permeates the entire regulatory framework of the 2026 Regulations and governs the constitution, jurisdiction, and functioning of Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Helplines, inquiry committees, grievance redressal mechanisms, and proceedings before the Ombudsperson...As a direct consequence, individuals belonging to non- SC/ST/OBC categories are rendered completely remediless under the statutory framework, even if they are subjected to caste-based harassment, intimidation, social ostracism, verbal abuse, academic targeting, or institutional bias within higher education institutions," it says.

The Petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction, including a writ of Declaration or Certiorari, declaring Regulation 3(c) of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, as unconstitutional, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution of India, ultra vires the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and void ab initio, insofar as it restricts the definition of “caste-based discrimination” exclusively to members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes.

It also prays, "In the alternative, issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondents to read down and suitably amend Regulation 3(c) of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, so as to define “caste-based discrimination” in a caste-neutral, inclusive, and constitutionally compliant manner, extending protection and grievance redressal mechanisms to all persons subjected to discrimination on the basis of caste, irrespective of caste identity...Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondents to ensure that Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Helplines, inquiry mechanisms, and Ombudsperson proceedings under the 2026 Regulations are made available in a non-discriminatory and caste-neutral manner, pending appropriate amendment or reconsideration of Regulation 3(c)..."

The matter will be listed before the appropriate bench of the Apex Court.

Cause Title: Mritunjay Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors. [Diary No. 4985/2026]