Supreme Court Stays 2026 UGC Regulations; Says It Is Completely Vague & Capable Of Misuse

The Supreme Court, today, stayed the newly notified University Grants Commission Regulations, 2026, and while exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, has ordered that the earlier 2012 Regulations will continue in force.

A Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was 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.

The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed, "Prima facie, we are sorry to say, the regulations are completely vague...there is complete vagueness, the provisions are capable of misuse and somebody, the experts will advise the language needs to be certainly remodulated or clarified...

AOR Vishnu Jain appeared for the Petitioners, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Respondents.

The Court ordered, "Issue Notice. Returnable on 19.03.2026. On our request, Mr Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG has accepted notice on behalf of Respondents Nos 1 and 2. These petitions will be heard alongwith...Meanwhile, the 2026 Regulations are kept in abeyance; In exercise of powers under Article 142, the 2012 Regulations will continue in force till further orders."

AOR Vishnu Jain for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is an advocate and referred to Section 3(c) of the Regulation.

"Read the definition of the 'discrimination' also," Justice Kant said.

"When Section 3(e) is already in place, then what is the need for Section 3(c)...This will create further division in the Society," Counsel submitted.

"We are simply examining it on the threshold of constitutionality," Justice Kant said.

Counsel further submitted, "This definition under Section 3(c) is completely hit by Article 14 when discrimination is already defined, and it cannot be assumed that discrimination is only against one segment."

The Court asked, "Suppose a student from the south gets an admission in North India...and some kind of sarcastic, insulting and humiliating remarks are made against such a student, and even those who are making comments even their cast identities are also not known. Will this provision address that issue?"

Justice Kant said, "In a country after 75 years, where we have gained in terms of casteless society. Are we going in a regressive policy?... Someone coming from one region of the Country...the children who are coming say fromplaces like the northeast or those who will be coming from the south and they carry their cultural values with them, there is nothing wrong there and everybody should be proud of them... you are talking about separate hostels, for god's sake please don't do that, lot of us, we have been in hostels...every community students have been living together...we have developed the intercaste marriage also..."

Counsel said, "They are dividing the university campuses into the castes."

Justice Bagchi said, "Article 15(4) empowers the states to make special laws for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. But we get your point, why should there be regression in a progressive legislation...I hope we don't go to segregated schools like the US, where coloured...blacks and whites went to different schools."

Senior Advocate Indira Jaisingh said, "The proprietory demanded that they should have made a mention of the pending petition in this Hon'ble Court, which the Court has been monitoring the process via which these regulations have been passed...there is no mention...Courtesy demanded for a full and free disclosure that such a petition was filed in 2019, challenging the 2012 regulations, which 2026 regulations have now replaced."

Chief Justice said, "While examining 2012 regulations, we cannot go further backwards."

Justice Bagchi said, "We are looking into creating a fair and inclusive society. Now looking at this, how does 2c become relevant when 2(e) is existing. Therefore, we would like your assistance Ms. Jaising."

Jaising replied, "Yes this is a question of discrimination within discrimination. This has plagued the Supreme Court from the very inception. So the question before this court is what is the meaning of the word 'only'."

Plea, filed by AOR Satyam Pandey, stated, "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."

In response to a 2019 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, the University Grants Commission (UGC) established these regulations to address and eliminate caste-based discrimination on campuses. The legal action followed the tragic deaths by suicide of their children, Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, who reportedly faced systemic caste-related harassment within their respective universities.

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.

By way of illustration, the plea also said 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.

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