Equity Without Equality? The Supreme Court, UGC Regulations 2026, and the Future of Indian Campuses.

India’s universities have long been imagined as spaces where social divisions soften—where classrooms, hostels, and libraries quietly perform the constitutional promise of equality.

When the Supreme Court of India stayed the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, it was not merely interrupting a regulatory framework. It was intervening in a deeper national conversation—about caste, justice, fear, and the role of law in shaping social relations inside India’s classrooms. Supreme Court has sent a clear message: even the most well-intentioned laws must pass the test of constitutional balance.

The issue before the Court was not whether caste discrimination exists in Indian universities. That reality has been acknowledged repeatedly—by society, by Parliament, and by the judiciary itself. The deeper question was whether the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, in their present form, risked replacing one form of injustice with another, and whether they aligned with the Constitution’s promise of equality before law.

The Background: Why the Regulations Were Framed

The roots of the UGC Regulations, 2026 lie in past unfortunate and tragic incident.

In 2019, the Supreme Court began monitoring a Public Interest Litigation filed by senior advocate Indira Jaising representing the Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, the mothers of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi, respectively—both students whose deaths were widely linked to caste-based discrimination and institutional neglect. These cases exposed serious deficiencies in how higher education institutions responded to complaints of humiliation, social isolation, and bias.

The Court responded by urging the Union Government and the UGC to create a “strong and robust” framework. This direction was grounded in Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of caste, religion, race, sex, or place of birth, and Article 21, which protects dignity as part of the right to life.

After consultations and stakeholder inputs, the UGC notified the 2026 Regulations in January, replacing the earlier 2012 anti-discrimination framework. While the UGC 2026 Regulations bill was protective, the execution raised serious constitutional concerns.

What followed, however, was not relief—but resistance from General Category Students.

What the UGC Regulations, 2026 Attempted to Do

On paper, the Regulations aimed to create an extensive anti-discrimination architecture across all higher education institutions in India—central, state, private, online, and distance learning alike.

They mandated:

• Equal Opportunity Centres in every institution
• Equity Committees to inquire into complaints
• Equity Squads to monitor vulnerable spaces
• Equity Ambassadors in departments
• 24×7 helplines and online complaint portals
• Mandatory sensitisation programmes
• Detailed reporting requirements and demographic disclosures

They also imposed strict timelines for inquiry and empowered the UGC to impose severe penalties—including derecognition— for non-compliance.

In theory, the Regulations sought to create zero tolerance for discrimination. In practice, critics argue, they blurred the line between protection and presumption.

The Core Legal Problem: Definition and Exclusion

The central controversy lies in the definition of caste-based discrimination under Regulation 3(c). The provision limits caste-based discrimination to acts committed only against SC, ST, and OBC communities.

This raised a fundamental constitutional issue.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that discrimination is defined by conduct, not by the identity of the complainant or accused. In E.P. Royappa v/s State of Tamil Nadu (1974), the Court famously ruled that equality is not merely formal but strikes at arbitrariness itself. Any law that creates unreasonable classification must satisfy the test of fairness and rational nexus.

By excluding General Category individuals from the definition of caste-based discrimination, the Regulations appeared to create a presumption of innocence for one group and potential guilt for another, based solely on caste identity.

Critics argue this violates Article 14, which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to all persons, not selected groups.

Affirmative Action vs Presumed Guilt

Indian constitutional law clearly supports affirmative action. In Indra Sawhney v/s Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court upheld reservations as a tool for social justice but warned that protective discrimination cannot become a means of reverse exclusion.

The UGC Regulations, opponents argue, risk crossing this boundary.

While the Constitution permits special provisions for backward classes under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4), it does not sanction a framework where legal protection itself becomes identity-exclusive in matters of wrongdoing.

An anti-discrimination law, by definition, must protect against discrimination wherever it occurs.

Concerns Over Due Process and Fair Hearing

Another concern arises from the composition and functioning of inquiry bodies for procedural fairness.

The Regulations require representation from SC, ST, OBC communities and civil society members in Equity Committees. While representation can build trust, critics argue that mandated identity-based composition without balancing safeguards risks undermining the perception of impartial inquiry.

The Regulations prescribe rapid timelines for inquiry and enforcement, but they do not clearly outline safeguards against false or malicious complaints. Nor do they sufficiently protect the accused’s right to a fair hearing.

In Maneka Gandhi v/s Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that procedure established by law must be just, fair, and reasonable. Any process that is arbitrary or one-sided violates Article 21.

The fear expressed by petitioners was not imaginary: when institutions face severe penalties for non-compliance, administrators may act defensively rather than judiciously, compromising natural justice.

The Supreme Court’s Stay: What the Judges Said—and Why It Matters

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stayed the Regulations, describing them as prima facie vague, capable of misuse, and socially destabilizing.

The Court expressed concern that the Regulations could:

• Deepen social divisions within campuses
• Encourage segregation rather than integration
• Invite exploitation by “mischievous elements”
• Reverse progress toward a casteless civic culture.

Justice Bagchi invoked the principle of non-regression, questioning why a broader and more inclusive 2012 framework was replaced by a narrower one. The Chief Justice warned that such Regulations could divide society and have a dangerous impact.

These observations reflect the Court’s long-standing view that laws affecting social harmony must be framed with extreme care. In S.R. Bommai v/s Union of India (1994), the Court stressed that unity and fraternity are essential constitutional values, not optional ideals.

A Law That Risks Segregation

The Supreme Court expressed discomfort with provisions that could encourage segregation—separate hostels, cultural stereotyping, or excessive identity monitoring.

This concern is rooted in constitutional philosophy. The Preamble commits India to fraternity, ensuring the dignity of the individual and unity of the nation. Any legal framework that hardens identity boundaries risks undermining this foundational value.

As the Court remarked, India must not drift towards systems where students learn apart, live apart, and see each other primarily through the lens of caste.

A Difficult Truth: Both Sides Are Partly Right

Supporters of the Regulations correctly argue that caste discrimination remains deeply entrenched and that neutral laws have often failed the most vulnerable. Representation and targeted safeguards build trust.

Opponents, however, raise a legitimate constitutional concern: justice that presumes guilt based on identity risks eroding the rule of law. An anti-discrimination regime that excludes certain citizens from protection may unintentionally reproduce the very hierarchy it seeks to dismantle.

In State of West Bengal v/s Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the Court held that classification without fairness violates Article 14.

The Supreme Court’s stay reflects this tension. It is not a denial of caste injustice—it is a warning against over-correction without safeguards.

The Larger Question: What Should Equity Look Like in 2026?

India in 2026 is not India in 1950. Campuses today are spaces of interaction, inter-caste friendships, and increasing social mobility. Law must respond to persistent injustice without freezing society into permanent categories.

Equity must mean lifting the disadvantaged without legally hardening divisions.

This requires:

• Caste-sensitive enforcement
• Identity-neutral definitions of wrongdoing
• Strong procedural fairness
• Protection against retaliation and misuse
• Trust in institutions, not fear of them

Possible Ways Forward

Before the next hearing in March 2026, the Union Government, UGC has options consistent with constitutional jurisprudence:

• Redefine discrimination as conduct, while retaining enhanced protection mechanisms for vulnerable groups
• Introduce procedural safeguards against misuse without discouraging genuine complaints
• Maintain continuity by allowing earlier frameworks to function temporarily
• Constitute a high-level neutral review committee, as suggested by the Court

Conclusion: Law Must Heal, Not Harden

The Supreme Court’s stay on the UGC Regulations, 2026 is not a victory for one group over another.

The Supreme Court’s intervention is a reminder that social justice and constitutional equality are not opposites. They must coexist.

Protecting historically oppressed communities is a constitutional duty. But so is ensuring that no citizen is treated as inherently suspect or
excluded from legal protection.

As the Court has repeatedly held, from Kesavananda Bharati (1973) onwards, the Constitution is not merely a legal document—it is a moral one.

India’s classrooms must reflect that morality: spaces where dignity is protected, justice is fair, and equality is not selective.

The challenge before lawmakers is clear—not whether to fight discrimination, but how to do so without weakening the constitutional fabric
that binds the nation together.