Law

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 These provisions essentially superseded the 2012 UGC anti, discrimination regulations which mostly had an advisory character.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.

Public transport failure is a constant issue in a lot of Indian cities but what's worse is when it hits crucial moments such as an entrance exam. This is precisely what happened to a girl from Basti district in Uttar Pradesh, the girl ended up winning Rs 9.10 lakh as compensation from Railways after she missed an important entrance exam when her train arrived over two hours late.

The girl, Samriddhi, whose delay in attending the BSc Biotechnology entrance exam in 2018 was caused by the late arrival of their intercity superfast train, took the matter to the district consumer commission. After a lengthy legal battle spanning over seven years, the commission finally ordered the Railways to pay Samriddhi and thus put the blame on the Railways for the fault.

Samriddhi was gearing up for the entrance examination for a whole year. As her exam spot was Jai Narayan PG College, Lucknow, she bought a ticket for the intercity superfast train from Basti that was scheduled to reach Lucknow at 11 am. The train, however, appeared with a delay of almost two and a half hours.

The examinees were allotted 12.30 pm as the time for reporting at the examination centre. Hence, Samriddhi absolutely could not have appeared for the exam.

COURT HOLDS RAILWAYS ACCOUNTABLE

Aggrieved by the loss, Samriddhi filed a Rs 20 lakh compensation claim through her lawyer. Notices were issued to the Railway Ministry, the general manager and the station superintendent, but no satisfactory response was received.

After hearing both sides, the district consumer commission ruled that the Railways had failed to provide timely service. While the Railways acknowledged the delay, they could not offer a clear explanation for it.

The commission directed the Railways to pay Rs 9.10 lakh as compensation within 45 days, failing which the amount would attract an additional 12 percent interest.

Lawyer Prabhakar Mishra, representing Samriddhi, explained that the event took place on May 7, 2018, when she was going to Lucknow for her entrance exam. "The train delay made it impossible for her to get to the exam centre on time, so she lost the whole academic year, " he added.

Mishra revealed that the case took more than seven years to be resolved. "The Railways confessed to the delay but they didn't provide any reasons for it. So, the court decided to impose a heavy fine, " he explained.

The verdict has led to renewed debate on the rights of passengers and the need to hold the train operators responsible for delays, which is an issue that has been constantly complained about by millions of railway users in the country.

The preferences of students at Dharmashastra National Law University (DNLU), Jabalpur have undergone a significant change. As of now, nearly 10, 15% of its BA LLB (Hons) graduates opt to continue their legal education on the same campus by availing the university's LLM programmes. Such an uptrend in retention rate signals the mounting confidence of the stakeholders in the institution, especially when the university is relocating to its new permanent campus.

In the past, it was common for graduates of the newer National Law Universities (NLUs) to go to the older and more reputed ones for their postgraduate studies. But the Vice Chancellor of DNLU, Manoj Kumar Sinha, considers the focused academic strategy of the university, especially business law and criminal law specialisations, as the reason behind this changing pattern of students. He points out that students have started to appreciate the benefits of continuity, guidance, and the developing research environment on the campus.

One more crucial reason why students are staying is the availability of faculty members with PhDs from top NLUs who are actively engaged in classroom, and research, oriented discussions. The university has been bestowing PhDs on a regular basis since 2018, with around eight to nine degrees being given each year, thus solidifying the image of the university as a research, focused institution.

DNLU is also making steady progress on infrastructure development. Hostel construction is underway on state-allotted land as part of the university’s shift to a permanent campus. Academically, the BA LLB (Hons) programme now runs in two sections, reflecting increased demand.

The research centres of the university enjoy academic autonomy, thus the researchers are free to carry out interdisciplinary and applied research. On the other hand, the legal aid clinics actively cooperate with the Madhya Pradesh government to organize community legal awareness programmes, training workshops, and access to, justice initiatives.

Inclusivity is a strong focus of DNLU's policy framework. State funded scholarships not only pay for tuition but also living expenses for a large number of students coming from economically and socially disadvantaged families. The university provides language support, bridge courses, and remedial classes to assist first generation learners in adjusting to the demanding legal education.

VC Sinha has warned against the risk of greater dependence on self, financing models that may result in higher fees and thus, has proposed 2030% state funding to keep the university affordable. He is also in favor of AI usage in legal education but considers that AI should be implemented as a supporting tool, following UGC guidelines, and not as a core learning process replacement.

While DNLU Jabalpur keeps allocating resources to academic depth, infrastructure, and inclusion, its increasing retention rate is a proof of students growing trust in the universitys long, term vision.

Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant on Sunday emphasised that prudence matters more than knowledge alone, urging young law graduates to develop wisdom through experience, reflection, and ethical judgement. Addressing the convocation ceremony of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), Kolkata, the CJI said that while knowledge can be quickly acquired from books and classrooms, prudence is cultivated slowly through life’s challenges and mistakes.

Speaking as the Chancellor of NUJS, Justice Surya Kant explained that prudence is the ability to understand when to strictly follow the letter of the law and when to interpret its deeper purpose. “Prudence is knowing when to speak and when silence carries greater weight,” he told the graduating students, underlining the importance of restraint, empathy, and thoughtful decision-making in the legal profession.

Convocation Held After Four-Year Gap

The convocation of NUJS, held after a break of four years, saw the graduating of the students of both undergraduate and postgraduate classes. The function was graced by the presence of Supreme Court judges Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi as well as Calcutta High Court Chief Justice Sujoy Paul.

Justice Surya Kant, during his speech, referred to the issues of today's society and remarked that currently, people are living in a time when everyone gives their opinions and reacts very fast.

We live in an age of immediacy where people expect responses without waiting. In such a world, judiciousness has become rare—and therefore deeply valuable,” he said.

‘Rules Alone Will Not Guide You, Prudence Will’

Highlighting the ethical complexities of legal practice, the CJI noted that there will be moments when efficiency competes with fairness and when professional success, measured only in numbers, may feel empty. “In those moments, rules alone will not guide you—your prudence will,” he remarked.

He additionally mentioned the legal profession not only as an intellectually challenging one but also as emotionally and psychologically difficult.

He mentioned that the profession demands endurance, rewards the always being, their attitude and often makes long working hours and short deadlines a normal thing.

Justice Surya Kant suggested to the young lawyers that they should locate their mental endurance, ethical light and the long run aim, far above the immediate gratification or success.

He highlighted that professional growth is most genuine when one manages to combine knowledge and wisdom, ambition and integrity, as well as efficiency and compassion.

The speech by CJIs touched the students deeply and was a good reminder that a degree only marks the end of formal education but real education is through experiences, ethical decisions and the courtroom.

 Punjab assembly speaker Kultar Singh Sandhwan said that the decision of the Central govt to cancel the MBBS accreditation of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence, Jammu and Kashmir, was not only an injustice to the future of the students, but also a dangerous example of linking education with religion and politics. Admissions to this medical college were made in a completely legal and transparent manner as per the merit of a central examination, NEET, which was also accepted by the National Medical Commission itself.

The speaker stressed that it was not fair or just to cancel the MBBS accreditation only on the basis that students belonged to a particular religion after conducting the inspection of the institution. If the institution had such major flaws, then on what grounds was the accreditation granted just 4 months ago? It is the responsibility of the National Medical Commission to answer this.

The speaker noted that the public outcry to shut down a school and the joy of revoking its accreditation were clear symptoms of social decay. Hence, the main goal of education should be to enlighten people and not to raise more hatred and division. Also, it is not good and hardly follows the constitutional spirit to close a professional institution such as a medical college without first giving it a chance to reform.

Sandhwan cried out for an instant review of this decision so that the students' interests could be safeguarded and that education would be kept away from religious or political influences.

January 19 may well mark a critical moment for the future of student politics in Rajasthan's university system. It is the day when varsity vice-chancellors and deans, as directed by the Rajasthan High Court last month, are scheduled to convene a structured meeting with student representatives to work out a feasible, consensus-based mechanism for conducting elections in future academic years, with a final framework to be put in place within 15 days thereafter.

This is not a casual advisory from the high court; it is a time-bound mandate that binds both the government and universities. For years, student union elections in Rajasthan's universities have existed in a state of suspended animation—invoked passionately by student leaders, feared quietly by administrations, and often postponed by governments wary of the political risks.

The high court has stepped in decisively into this contested space, declining to order immediate elections for the current academic session while simultaneously ordering time-bound laying down of a binding roadmap to ensure that campus democracy does not remain indefinitely frozen.

The verdict, which was a one, judge bench decision of Justice Sameer Jain, is not just significant for what it allows or disallows in the immediate future but for the broader philosophy it expresses: the fundamental right to education and academic continuity of hundreds of thousands of students must not be sacrificed for the sake of rushed electoral restoration; however, democratic representation on campuses cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience or political expediency.

The prioritisation that lies at the core of the court's reasoning is clear. Bench repeatedly reiterated that universities primarily exist for imparting education, ensuring timely completion of courses and examinations, and maintaining academic discipline. Any activity, including student elections, that might be a threat to this primary educational role should be very judiciously regulated.

On that ground, the court denied holding immediate elections in universities and affiliated colleges for the current academic year and stated that the courts could not involve themselves to the extent of micro, managing academic calendars or compelling races when the institutional framework is not firm.

This refusal, however, should not be mistaken for endorsement of the status quo. The high court was acutely conscious of the reality that postponement of student elections in Rajasthan has often stretched into years, eroding institutional mechanisms of student representation. Petitioners who approached the court argued precisely this point: that repeated deferments violate the spirit of the Lingdoh Committee recommendations, which envisage elections being held within weeks of the start of the academic session. Prolonged suspension, they contended, denies students a voice in decisions affecting fees, facilities and campus policies, and amounts to an arbitrary curtailment of democratic rights.

The state government and university authorities countered with familiar concerns—implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, curriculum revisions, disruptions to teaching schedules, and the absence of a comprehensive, updated election policy. Sudden polls, they argued, could inflame tensions and disturb classes, examinations and admissions. The court accepted these apprehensions for the current year, but firmly rejected the idea that such reasons could justify indefinite postponement.

What makes the judgment consequential is its forward-looking architecture. All eyes are now on the January 19 engagement between vice-chancellors and deans and student representatives.

Equally important is the insistence on institutional accountability. Universities have been directed to constitute or revive student union election boards or committees responsible for preparing annual election calendars and handling grievances. Any decision to postpone or cancel elections in a given year must be backed by strong, transparent reasons recorded in writing—not vague references to law and order or academic disturbance. Deviations from the calendar, the court made it clear, should be exceptions justified by compelling circumstances, not the norm.

There is an uncomfortable truth about campus politics in Rajasthan. Student union elections are often no less intense than local body or even assembly polls. Crores of rupees are raised; caste equations dominate campaigns, and convoys of expensive SUVs and cars turn campuses into political theatres. For some, these elections serve as springboards into mainstream politics; several prominent leaders and ministers began their journeys as student politicians. This reality partly explains why ruling parties, fearful of losing symbolic and organisational ground, often prefer to delay or avoid elections altogether.

By acknowledging both the democratic value and the disruptive potential of student politics, the high court has attempted a delicate balancing act. It has refused to romanticise campus elections as an unalloyed good while also resisting the creeping normalisation of their suspension. Its observations on financial transparency—calling for proper accounting of student fees linked to union activities—and on the use of educational institutions as polling stations during large public elections further underline a concern for protecting academic spaces from being routinely commandeered for political purposes.

Taken together, the order sends a dual and unmistakable message. There will be no student union elections in Rajasthan in the current academic session. But neither the state government nor universities can hide behind academic justifications forever. Campus democracy must return—regularly, transparently and within a clearly defined framework that respects both ballots and books.

Whether this carefully crafted judicial roadmap leads to a genuine revival of student representation or becomes yet another document honoured in the breach will depend on the political will of the government, the administrative resolve of universities and whether the January 19 meeting takes place as scheduled and arrives at a conclusion. Any party can work to sabotage it and seek an extension in time. For now, the high court has drawn the line—and placed the onus squarely where it belongs.