Behind Supreme Court’s concerns with UGC’s equity rules – ragging, segregation, caste definitions, and sub-group protection

The UGC’s renewed emphasis on equality and non-discrimination in higher education has drawn pushback not only from sections of the student community but also from parts of the academic fraternity. What was purported to be an attempt to strengthen safeguards against caste-based discrimination on campuses has instead opened up questions around definitions, scope and institutional impact. The unease eventually reached the Supreme Court, which stayed the University Grants Commission’s newly notified equality regulations, flagging concerns around caste-based discrimination – an issue the UGC itself sought to address through the new rules.

Hearing pleas against the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, the apex court described the framework as prima facie vague with potentially sweeping consequences and said the possibility of misuse could not be ruled out. The court's intervention paved the way for an extensive reassessment of the methods by which discrimination in India's universities can be recognised, treated and prevented. The UGC issued these equity regulations on January 13, 2026, which mainly replaced an antidiscrimination framework that was advisory and first embedded in UGC's 2012 regulations with a binding structure that requires institutional mechanisms such as Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees, helplines and monitoring bodies. The bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi brought up four major questions of law on whether the core definitions and provisions of the regulations are reasonable.

The order highlighted ambiguity in how caste-based discrimination is defined, segregation might play out in campus arrangements, lack of procedural safeguards for extremely backward sub-groups, and the omission of ragging – a specific form of harassment recognised in earlier rules – from the current framework.

The legislation that had been in place since 2012, covered a larger range of discriminatory acts, including the clear mention of specific categories like ragging, harassment and victimisation, and also gave a broader definition of discrimination in terms of religion, caste, gender, disability and other grounds. However, the 2026 draft differently delineates the term "caste, based discrimination" to mean only a discrimination against the members of the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) while it also keeps a broad definition for the general discrimination. Critics say this dual system is inconsistent and potentially exclusionary – a point the Supreme Court signalled for closer scrutiny.

Politicians crossed party lines

Across the political spectrum, reactions to the Supreme Court’s stay and the broader controversy have been mixed. Several Opposition parties welcomed the court’s step as correcting a flawed process that lacked adequate stakeholder consultation and had stirred social tensions.

Bahujan Samaj Party chief Mayawati termed the court stay as proper in view of the unrest which the new rules had caused. On the other hand, Congress leaders Pramod Tiwari and Ranjit Ranjan said that the regulations were vaguely defined and a parliamentary panel should look into the issue so that there are no divisions among students.

Kalyan Banerjee of Trinamool Congress raised a point regarding the constitutional validity. On the other hand, the voices of the Opposition were not unanimous: CPI(ML) Liberation stated that caste and racial discrimination are still real issues that students face every day on campuses and that equity safeguards should be there at the least.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin praised the original regulations, at the same time asking for their extension, saying that they were a very good step towards reforming higher education which is full of discrimination and institutional apathy. He referred to student suicides and harassment of weaker sections as some of the problems. He stressed that equity provisions should not be diluted under pressure and that genuine safeguards remain an unavoidable necessity.

Around the same time, BJP insider reports that the PTI, the party was thinking of trying to reschedule the next step as the matter exposes the party to rift with a part of the student community and political critics.

Ministers of the union however were very positive about the stay and called it a significant step towards the preservation of cultural unity and social harmony. They said that the problems of abuse and the absence of clarity needed to be resolved at the policy level.

How student groups responded

The controversy ignited on-ground protests at leading universities. Student unions and politically affiliated campus groups publicly opposed the stay and demanded that anti, discrimination protections be enacted and even legislated immediately.

At Jawaharlal Nehru University, the JNUSU marched and shouted slogans supporting the 'Rohith Act', referring to the bills based on the unfortunate 2016 death of student Rohith Vemula, who according to many activists, symbolizes the unending caste discrimination.

In various locations of Delhi University, Left, supported factions like the All India Students' Association (AISA) and the Students' Federation of India (SFI) conducted rallies requesting not only the implementation of the regulations be done immediately but also that they be further strengthened to effectively deal with the rising number of complaints of discrimination, the opponents of the regulations even pointed out that the number of such complaints has significantly increased in the recent years.

While many student bodies stated they were dejected with the stay by the Supreme Court, other student factions, including some aligned with the ruling establishment, welcomed the court’s intervention, arguing the rules lacked clarity and could be misused against general category students.