The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to list for hearing a batch of petitions challenging the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, which have been assailed for allegedly excluding students and staff belonging to the general category from the grievance redressal mechanism.
The challenge to the UGC’s equity regulations was mentioned for urgent listing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, who indicated that the Court was aware of the controversy surrounding the newly notified framework.
“We know what’s happening. Make sure the defects are cured. We will list it,” the Chief Justice said, agreeing to take up the matter.
The Regulations, notified by the UGC on January 13, 2026, apply to all higher educational institutions across the country. They aim to prevent discrimination in higher education on grounds including religion, race, gender, place of birth, caste, and disability, with particular emphasis on protecting Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections, and persons with disabilities.
As part of the regulatory framework, institutions are mandated to establish Equal Opportunity Centres to oversee the implementation of policies for disadvantaged groups, provide academic and social counselling, and promote diversity and inclusion on campuses.
However, the petitioners—who primarily belong to the general category—contend that the grievance redressal mechanism under the Regulations is exclusionary in nature.
According to them, access to institutional remedies is confined to SC, ST, and OBC categories, thereby excluding general-category or upper-caste students and staff, and discounting the possibility that they too may be subjected to caste-based abuse, intimidation, hostility, or institutional prejudice.
The petitions seek a restraint on the implementation of the Regulations in their present form and a declaration that denial of access to a grievance redressal mechanism on the basis of caste identity amounts to impermissible State discrimination.
The challenge further asserts that the regulatory framework proceeds on an untenable assumption—that caste-based discrimination can operate only against historically marginalised communities and never against those belonging to general or upper castes.
“This selective framework not only condones but effectively encourages unchecked hostility against non-reserved categories, rendering the Regulations a tool for division rather than equity,” one of the petitions states.
The pleas also argue that by excluding a section of students and staff from institutional grievance mechanisms, the Regulations violate the constitutional guarantees of equality before law and equal protection of laws.
Since their notification, the Regulations have sparked protests in several parts of the country, with members of dominant castes alleging that the framework is one-sided and susceptible to misuse within educational institutions.
Multiple petitions and interlocutory applications raising similar concerns have now been filed before the Supreme Court.