New Delhi — Amid growing controversy over the University Grants Commission’s ‘Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026’, a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of provisions that restrict caste-based discrimination grievance mechanisms to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.
The petition, filed by advocate Vineet Jindal, argues that the exclusion of castes falling under the general category violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law, protection against discrimination and the right to life and personal liberty. Jindal contended that denying grievance redressal solely on the basis of caste identity amounts to impermissible state discrimination and is unconstitutional.
Seeking an immediate stay on the enforcement of the UGC Regulations, 2026, the petitioner urged the apex court to restrain authorities from acting upon the disputed provisions until the matter is finally adjudicated. The petition states that the current framework denies institutional protection and grievance redressal to individuals who may face caste-based discrimination but do not belong to SC, ST or OBC categories.
The UGC notified the ‘Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026’ on January 13, 2026. The regulations apply to all higher educational institutions across the country and aim to eradicate discrimination on grounds such as religion, race, gender, place of birth, caste or disability, with particular emphasis on protecting Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, economically weaker sections and persons with disabilities.
Under the regulations, institutions are mandated to establish Equal Opportunity Centres and Equity Committees to ensure effective implementation of inclusion policies and to examine complaints related to discrimination. However, the petitioner argued that the definition of “caste-based discrimination” under Regulation 3(c) is exclusionary, as it limits such discrimination to acts committed against members of SC, ST and OBC communities.
Jindal submitted that caste-based discrimination should be defined in a caste-neutral and constitutionally compliant manner, ensuring protection to all individuals who face discrimination on the basis of caste, irrespective of their social category.
The issue has its roots in earlier litigation before the Supreme Court. In 2019, a public interest litigation filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi respectively, sought the establishment of a robust mechanism to address caste-based discrimination on college campuses. Both students had reportedly died by suicide following alleged caste-based harassment in their universities.
In March 2025, the Centre informed the Supreme Court that the UGC had prepared draft regulations to address concerns raised in the PIL. The court had then observed that it was keen on putting in place a strong and effective mechanism to tackle caste-based discrimination in higher educational institutions. In April, the apex court directed the UGC to finalise and notify the regulations, which eventually came into force earlier this year.
