A writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, was on Tuesday mentioned before the Supreme Court, seeking urgent listing on the grounds that certain provisions allegedly institutionalise differential treatment among students based on caste identity.
The matter was orally mentioned before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The counsel for the petitioners contended that specific clauses within the newly notified regulatory framework have the effect of excluding persons belonging to non-Scheduled Caste, non-Scheduled Tribe, and non-Other Backward Class categories from the ambit of statutory protection against caste-based discrimination.
It was urged that the impugned provisions, if allowed to operate, would offend the equality code enshrined under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and undermine the principle of substantive equality.
The Apex Court indicated its awareness of the controversy surrounding the regulations and directed the petitioners to ensure that procedural defects in the filing were cured to facilitate listing.
The petition, titled Rahul Diwan and Others v. Union of India (Diary No. 5477/2026), is yet to be numbered.
The plea primarily targeted Regulation 3(c) of the 2026 Regulations, which defined caste-based discrimination as discrimination solely against members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes.
The Counsel submitted that the definition adopted an exclusionary approach, which denied similarly placed individuals from other caste groups access to grievance redressal mechanisms and institutional safeguards, notwithstanding allegations of discrimination rooted in caste identity.
A separate petition filed earlier by Advocate Vineet Jindal had raised analogous concerns, asserting that the narrow formulation of Regulation 3(c) failed the test of constitutional neutrality and violated the guarantee of equal protection of laws. The plea sought a caste-neutral and constitutionally compliant definition of caste-based discrimination, extending remedial protection to all individuals subjected to discriminatory treatment on the basis of caste, irrespective of social classification.
The UGC framed the 2026 Regulations pursuant to judicial proceedings initiated in 2019, when public interest litigations were filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, mothers of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi, respectively.
The petitions sought the establishment of a comprehensive and enforceable framework to address caste-based discrimination in higher educational institutions. Both Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi had reportedly died by suicide following allegations of sustained caste-based harassment within their respective institutions.
During the pendency of those proceedings, the Union government apprised the Supreme Court in March 2025 that draft regulations had been prepared by the UGC to address systemic discrimination on campuses.
The Court had emphasised the need for a robust, effective, and institutionally accountable mechanism capable of addressing entrenched discriminatory practices in higher education.
In April 2025, the top court of the country permitted the UGC to proceed with finalisation and notification of the draft regulations, while simultaneously granting liberty to the petitioners and other stakeholders to submit suggestions.
In September 2025, the Court directed the UGC to consider representations received from stakeholders within a stipulated timeframe before arriving at a final decision.
The Regulations were ultimately notified in January 2026. Their implementation has now triggered fresh constitutional scrutiny, with petitioners asserting that while the stated objective of promoting equity in higher education was laudable, the regulatory design failed to conform to constitutional mandates of equality, non-arbitrariness, and inclusive protection, as elaborated in precedents such as State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India.
The Supreme Court is expected to consider the request for urgent listing once procedural formalities are completed.
The post Plea filed in Supreme Court challenges validity of UGC Regulations 2026, seeks urgent listing appeared first on India Legal.