Supreme Court: In a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 (“2026 UGC Regulations”) a Division Bench of Surya Kant, CJ., and Joymalya Bagchi, J., expressed the prima facie concern regarding the definitional scope of “caste-based discrimination” and the possibility of their misuse cannot and referred the matter to 3-Judges Bench with direction to keep the 2026 UGC Regulations in abeyance.
The principal challenge was directed against Clause 3(c) defining “caste-based discrimination”. The petitioners contended that the definition is “restrictive and exclusionary in its formulation” as it renders persons belonging to non-reserved or general categories “completely remediless under the statutory framework”, even if subjected to caste-based discrimination or institutional bias. The petitioners further argued that the Regulations proceed on an “unfounded presumption that caste-based discrimination is necessarily unidirectional”.
Upon prima facie consideration, the Court noted that “some of the provisions of the Impugned Regulations suffer from certain ambiguities, and the possibility of their misuse cannot be ruled out.” The Court framed following substantial questions of law for examination —
-
“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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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 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?
-
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.”
The Court observed that the issues raised in W.P.(C) No. 1149/2019 would have a bearing on the examination of the validity of the 2026 UGC Regulations, and therefore the matters required to be heard together by a larger Bench. The Court issued the following directions —
-
All connected writ petitions were directed to be listed before a three-Judge Bench.
-
The 2026 UGC Regulations were directed to be “kept in abeyance.”
-
In exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012 “will continue to operate and remain in force till further orders.”
Also read: UGC 2026 Row: What’s in the Regulations that has everyone up in arms
[Mritunjay Tiwari v. Union of India, W.P.(C) Nos. 101/2026, 108/2026 and 109/2026, Decided on 29-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Satyam Pandey, AOR Mr. Neeraj Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Kisalaya Shukla, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Makardhvaj Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vishweshwar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Purnima Jain, Adv. Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Umesh Pal, Adv. Mr. Deelip Kumar, Adv. Ms. Rashika Khanna, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Adv. Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv. Mr. Syed Faizan Ali, Adv. Ms. Shalini Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Hari Shankar Jain, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Adv. Mr. Parth Yadav, AOR Ms. Mani Munjal, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv. Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prasanna S., AOR Ms. Disha Wadekar, Adv. Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv. Ms. Injila Muslim Zaidi, Adv. Mr. Ashish Reddy, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Rajshri Dubey, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Amit P. Shahi, Adv. Ms. Ishita, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Adv. Mr. Vishal Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Bhuwan, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Bhoopesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. S.K. Warish Ali, Adv., Counsel for the Petitioners