“Are we going backwards from whatever we gained in terms of achieving a casteless society?” asked the CJI.
New Delhi — The Supreme Court today put the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, in abeyance, warning that these regulations could have a dangerous and divisive impact on society.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and called for the Union government’s response. The court noted multiple questions regarding the constitutionality and validity of the regulations, which are currently under scrutiny.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing petitioners in the 2019 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that led to the notification of the 2026 Regulations, opposed the stay on the grounds that the other side had not been given a proper opportunity to argue. In response, the CJI emphasized the gravity of the issues at hand, stating, “No, no, no. We will hear you. There are 4-5 questions which arise for consideration. Otherwise, this will have very sweeping consequences. It will divide society, and could lead to very dangerous impacts.”
The CJI also expressed concern about the language of the Regulations, describing it as potentially vague and susceptible to misuse. Justice Bagchi stressed the principle of non-regression, questioning why there should be a rollback from the protections established by the broader, all-encompassing 2012 Regulations. “Unity of India must be reflected in educational institutions,” he said, questioning whether the country was regressing from its progress toward a casteless society. The CJI added, “Are we going backwards from whatever we gained in terms of achieving a casteless society?”
During the hearing, some counsels criticized the Regulations for excluding provisions against ragging. One raised a hypothetical scenario where a senior from a reserved community could indulge in ragging a fresher from the general category, who might be unable to resist or report the incident, potentially leading to caste-based discrimination and even the fresher ending up behind bars in their first month of college.
The CJI questioned whether the Regulations provide mechanisms for redressal of ragging complaints, noting that the regulations do not even define ragging. He termed ragging as one of the worst issues plaguing educational institutions.
Before concluding, the bench warned against the politicization of the issue and suggested that the Regulations be restructured by an expert committee comprising eminent jurists and social scholars who understand societal issues and values. The court emphasized the need for a balanced approach that safeguards social harmony while addressing concerns related to equity in higher education.
Case Title:
- (1) MRITUNJAY TIWARI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 101/2026
- (2) VINEET JINDAL Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 109/2026
- (3) RAHUL DEWAN AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 108/2026
