UGC Regulations 2026 ,With storm erupting over the Narendra Modi government’s definition of what amounts to “caste-based discrimination” in the newly notified UGC Regulations, the Supreme Court Wednesday (January 28), agreed to take up a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the controversial provisions.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant told a lawyer who sought an urgent hearing for the petition, to cure the defects if any, so that it can be listed for hearing.
The counsel said that “there are certain provisions in the regulations that have the effect of promoting discrimination against people belonging to the general classes.”
CJI Kant said, “We are also aware of what is happening”.
The plea has been filed by philanthropist and businessman Rahul Dewan, students Rubal Padaliya and Anbuhav and retired IAS officer Sanjay Dixit, challenges the constitutional validity of sections 3(1)(c), 8(b) and 8(c) of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, notified on January 13, as being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Section 3(1) (c) defines “Caste-based discrimination’’ as “discrimination only on the basis of caste or tribe against the members of the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward classes.” Sections 8(b) and 8(c) deals with the procedure to be followed in case of an incident of discrimination.
It is submitted that the Petitioners are not opposing for giving protection to SC/ST and the persons belonging to Backward Classes but other section of the society or in other words ‘General class’ of the society be not discriminated and subjected to injustice, insult, inhuman behaviour, undue hardship and actions against their dignity and self-respect.
The petition said that “the impugned provision/regulation narrowly grants protection against caste based abuse/prejudice” and “consequently, by overlooking the vulnerabilities of general category students, the framework not only violates the guarantee of non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15 but also undermines the constitutional ethos of social harmony and inclusive justice, potentially rendering it ultra vires the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.”
The petitioners said that “in fact, the impugned provision creates caste hatred between different classes of the society and creates inequality within the class associated with teaching/studying in higher classes.”
It added that the provision “affects the life of general category in a prejudicial manner and same is bound to affect the life and livelihood of the said category and therefore, the draconian provision 3(1)(c) is liable to be struck down.”
This is the second petition on the matter.
Earlier, a practicing lawyer Vineet Jindal, too had filed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the UGC Regulations.
It contended that the Regulations legitimise reverse discrimination and “legitimises reverse discrimination” and is “state-sponsored discrimination” against general category students.
Jindal said the regulations have a “chilling effect on free academic discourse protected under Article 19(1)(a)” and that “in the absence of neutral, caste-agnostic safeguards, allegations of caste discrimination may be weaponised, while genuine grievances of others remain unheard, fostering fear, reputational harm and self-censorship among students and faculty alike”.
His plea compared the Regulations to the colonial-era Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, “which designated certain communities as inherently criminal and was later repealed as violative of equality and constitutional morality”