A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging a recently notified University Grants Commission (UGC) regulation, alleging that it has adopted a non-inclusionary definition of caste-based discrimination and excludes certain categories from institutional protection.
The plea submitted that regulation 3(c) of the recently notified UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 is “non-inclusionary” and fails to protect students and faculty who do not belong to reserved categories. The plea, filed by Vineet Jindal, assailed the regulation on the grounds that caste-based discrimination is defined strictly as discrimination against members of the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).
It is said that by limiting the scope of “caste-based discrimination” only to SC, ST, and OBC categories, the UGC has effectively denied institutional protection and grievance redressal to individuals belonging to the “general” or non-reserved categories who may also face harassment or bias based on their caste identity. It said the provision in its present “exclusionary form” creates a hierarchy of protection that is unconstitutional.
The plea said the regulation violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 14 (right to equality) and 15(1) (Prohibition of discrimination by the State on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth). It also alleged that the regulation violates Article 21 (the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to live with dignity) of the Constitution.
It urged the Supreme Court to restrain the authorities from enforcing regulation 3(c) in its current form and sought a direction to redefine caste-based discrimination in a “caste-neutral and constitutionally-compliant manner.”
“Caste-based discrimination should be defined so that protection is accorded to all persons discriminated on the basis of caste, irrespective of their specific caste identity,” it said.
The plea has sought interim directions to the Union government and the UGC to ensure that the “Equal Opportunity Centres,” “Equity Helplines,” and “Ombudsperson” mechanisms established under these regulations are made available to all students in a non-discriminatory manner, pending a formal reconsideration of the definition.
Meanwhile, students have called for a protest outside the University Grants Commission headquarters in Delhi on Tuesday, saying that the new regulations issued by the commission could lead to chaos on campuses. Those behind the protest call have appealed for unity from the student community, urging them to say “No to UGC discrimination” and requesting them to gather in large numbers to register their opposition.
The new rules notified by the UGC on January 13 – the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026 – have sparked widespread criticism from general category students who argue that the framework could lead to discrimination against them. Under the new regulations, introduced to stop caste-based discrimination in colleges and universities, the UGC has asked institutions to set up special committees, helplines, and monitoring teams to handle complaints, especially from SC, ST, and OBC students.
While the government said the changes aim to bring greater fairness and accountability to higher education institutes, many critics fear they may deepen social divisions and pose fresh challenges on university campuses. According to a poster calling for a protest, the demonstration will be a peaceful gherao of the UGC office. “It’s now or never, unity is strength,” it read, urging students from upper castes to participate in the protest. Several social media posts have urged other students to participate, calling the protest a crucial moment to speak up for their rights and concerns.
Meanwhile, Left-backed student group All India Students’ Association released a statement backing the UGC Equity Regulations, 2026. It said that the inclusion of OBCs (other backward castes) within the ambit of equity protection was a welcome step. “However, representation of SC, ST, OBC and women in the Equity Committee, both among faculties and students, remains low, vague and inadequately defined. Further, the regulations define discrimination in broad and abstract terms without enumerating concrete acts or instances of discrimination,” the statement read, casting apprehension on some of the provisions.
Curated by Aisha Patel
