5 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jan 30, 2026 02:16 AM IST
In a significant order, the Supreme Court Thursday stayed the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, saying they raise several important questions which, if not addressed, will have “very sweeping consequences…will divide the society”.
Issuing notice to the Centre and UGC on a clutch of petitions challenging the Regulations, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “Meanwhile, the 2026 Regulations be kept in abeyance. In exercise of our powers under Article 142, we further direct that the 2012 Regulations will continue in force till further orders.”
“There are 4-5 questions which arise for consideration. Otherwise, this will have very sweeping consequences. It will divide the society. It will lead to so many…very dangerous impact,” said CJI Kant.
Justice Bagchi said, “We should not go to a stage where we go to segregated schools as in the United States, where coloured children go to one school, and White boys and girls go to another school. The unity of India must be reflected in the educational institutions.”
‘Language completely vague, provisions are capable of misuse’
Hearing the petitioners who principally challenged Section 3(1)(c) of the Regulations, the CJI referred to a situation in which a student from one part of the country faces harassment in another on regional lines and asked whether this is addressed in the Regulations.
The petitioners pointed out that Clause (e), which defined what constitutes discrimination, addressed this, prompting the bench to ask what, then, was the need for Clause (c).
Justice Bagchi said, “We are looking into the evolution of the Regulations to create a free and equitable atmosphere in universities… When we see this, we see no reason when Section 3(1)(e) continues to subsist as it did in the 2012 Regulations, how does 3(1)(c) become relevant? Is it a redundancy? How do you interpret it?… We fail to understand when 3(1)(c) is already ingrained in 3(1)(e), why it was culled out as a separate definition clause?”
Story continues below this ad
CJI Kant also pointed out that there may be instances of dominant students within a caste harassing others within the same caste, and sought to know how the Regulations address it. The petitioners said this has not been covered in the Regulations. “The Regulations are, we are sorry to say, prima facie, the language there is completely vague, the provisions are capable of misuse,” said the CPI.
Justice Bagchi said, “The constitutional question is… Article 15(4) empowers the state to make special laws for the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes. If the 2012 Regulations spoke of a more widespread and all-inclusive discrimination, including discrimination in the nature of ragging, why should there be a regression in a protective or ameliorative legislation? The principle of no-regression has evolved essentially in environmental law. It also pervades in laws which are protective of social justice and equality.”
The CJI said, “This kind of situation can be exploited by the mischievous elements in the society”.
‘Are we going in a regressive policy?’
Seeking a reply from the Centre, the bench also told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the government must constitute a committee comprising eminent jurists to address the issue. The CJI said, “The court should be taken into confidence, and we must approve the constitution of the committee.”
Story continues below this ad
“We cannot have the university, schools, and colleges in isolation. They are a component of society. How should the entire society grow? In which direction should we go? How will people behave outside the campus if we create this kind of environment inside the campus? We may not also be experts on all these issues, but those who understand the societal issues must apply their minds,” CJI Kant added.
Mehta said that it will be done.
“In a country after 75 years, whatever we have gained in terms of developing a casteless society, are we going in a regressive policy?” CJI Kant asked, and also flagged the point about the Regulations speaking of separate hostels.
“Another provision which I am finding is an indication among the measures you are taking, you are speaking of separate hostels. For God’s sake, don’t do that. We have lived in hostels. Every community has students living together. We have developed inter-caste marriages also. We should move forward to develop a casteless society,” said the CJI.
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
2026-01-29 17:11:00
