‘Hope We Don’t Segregate Schools Like the US’: Supreme Court Pauses UGC Equity Rules, Flags Risks of Social Division

On Thursday, the Supreme Court temporarily suspended University Grants Commissions (UGC) stipulations of Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, which raised the issue of possible social breakdown in Indian campuses. While hearing various petitions against the rules, the bench chief justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi summoned the Centre and the UGC to court, and also suggested that the regulations should be re-examined by a committee of experts at a high level.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court issued several strong remarks, warning about the danger of making education policy at an Indian level that could lead to segregation. “The unity of India must be reflected in our educational institutions. After 75 years, is all that we have achieved to become a classless society? Are we becoming regressive?” the bench remarked, adding that the country “cannot go further backwards.”

Expressing concern over proposals such as separate hostels or institutional arrangements based on identity, the court noted that such measures could deepen divisions rather than address discrimination. “For God’s sake, there are inter-caste marriages now. We have all lived together in hostels,” the court observed. Drawing a global parallel, the bench warned, “I hope we don’t go to segregated schools like the US, where blacks and whites went to different schools.” The judges also cautioned that such sensitive frameworks could be “exploited by mischievous elements.”

On January 13, 2026, the University Grants Commission (UGC) issued new rules that require all higher education institutions to establish equal opportunity committees primarily to address discrimination complaints and, at the same time, cater to a diverse and inclusive environment. It is expected that such committees should have at least one member representative of each of the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), females and persons with disabilities. These provisions essentially superseded the 2012 UGC anti, discrimination regulations which mostly had an advisory character.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court had given directions in the petitions related to the demise of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, both incidents involved allegations of caste- based harassment in academic institutions, and accordingly, the 2026 regulations were developed. The purpose, as per the UGC, was to establish binding mechanisms to prohibit discrimination.

On the other hand, some believe that the rules adopt an overly restrictive definition of caste discrimination thus, restricting the scope of institutional safeguards to only SC, ST, and OBC communities. The petitioners contend that this position effectively deprives the 'general category' individuals, who may also be victims of caste based harassment, from getting their grievances addressed.

On the other hand, detractors of the regulations point out that these rules use a very limited definition of caste, based discrimination and thus, reservation of institutional protection only to SC, ST, and OBC groups. The petitioners further argue that this eliminates the possibility of general category individuals facing caste based harassment from receiving grievance redressal. Some have gone so far as to claim that the rules risk portraying general-category students as “presumptive offenders.”

With the regulations now paused, the case is set to become a crucial test of how Indian law balances historical social justice concerns with constitutional principles of equality and integration within educational spaces.