A writ petition has been instituted before the Supreme Court assailing the constitutional validity of Regulation 3(c) of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, contending that the impugned provision adopts an impermissibly exclusionary conception of caste-based discrimination.
Regulation 3(c), as notified, restricts the definition of caste-based discrimination to acts committed solely on the ground of caste or tribe against persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. The petitioner argues that such a formulation narrows the protective ambit of the Regulations and effectively denies access to institutional safeguards to individuals who do not fall within the enumerated categories but are nonetheless subjected to caste-based prejudice.
The plea has been filed by Advocate Vineet Jindal, who asserts that the provision, in its present form, creates a discriminatory classification that is neither inclusive nor constitutionally tenable. It is contended that by conditioning access to grievance redressal mechanisms on caste identity, the Regulation excludes similarly situated victims of caste discrimination and undermines the egalitarian promise of the Constitution.
The petitioner has sought interim and final reliefs restraining the authorities from enforcing or acting upon Regulation 3(c). In the alternative, he has urged the Court to direct a re-definition of caste-based discrimination in a caste-neutral manner, so as to extend protection to all individuals who face discrimination rooted in caste hierarchies, irrespective of their placement within the traditional reservation framework.
Additionally, the petition seeks directions to the Union Ministry of Education and the UGC to ensure that statutory mechanisms envisaged under the Regulations—including Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Helplines, internal inquiry committees, and Ombudsperson proceedings—operate in a non-discriminatory, caste-neutral manner pending reconsideration of the impugned provision.
The plea further prays for a declaration that denial of grievance redressal and institutional remedies solely on the basis of caste identity constitutes impermissible State action and violates the guarantees of equality before law, non-discrimination, and dignified life under Articles 14, 15(1), and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner argues that while affirmative action measures are constitutionally sanctioned, exclusion from remedial frameworks cannot be justified under the doctrine of reasonable classification.
The Regulations in question were framed pursuant to a public interest litigation initiated in 2019 by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, the mothers of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi respectively, who sought the establishment of a comprehensive institutional mechanism to address caste-based discrimination in higher educational institutions. Both Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi had reportedly died by suicide following sustained allegations of caste-based harassment in their universities.
In March 2025, the Union Government informed the Supreme Court that the UGC had prepared draft regulations addressing the concerns raised in the PIL. The Court, while monitoring the matter, underscored the need for a robust and effective framework capable of meaningfully addressing entrenched caste-based inequities on campuses.
Subsequently, in April 2025, the Court permitted the UGC to proceed with finalisation and notification of the draft Regulations, while granting liberty to the original petitioners and other stakeholders to submit suggestions. In September 2025, the Court granted the UGC eight weeks to consider the representations received and take a final decision on notification. The Regulations were eventually notified in January 2026.
The post Petition filed in Supreme Court challenges validity of UGC’s caste discrimination framework appeared first on India Legal.