Background: Interim Stay and Challenges
The 2026 Equity Regulations were introduced as a replacement for the earlier 2012 framework to strengthen mechanisms against discrimination in universities and colleges. However, several petitions challenged the new rules on constitutional grounds, prompting the Supreme Court to keep the regulations in abeyance and frame substantial questions of law. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
Four Key Legal Questions Identified by the Court
During the hearing, the Court highlighted four core issues that will guide its examination of the UGC’s equity framework. These are centered on definitions, procedural implications, and potential constitutional conflicts within the regulations. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}
- Definition of Caste-Based Discrimination: Whether defining caste-based discrimination exclusively as bias against Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes has a rational connection to the stated purpose of the regulations, especially when a broader definition of “discrimination” already exists. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
- Impact on Backward Classes Sub-Classification: Whether the inclusion of this clause affects existing constitutional and statutory classifications of the Most Backward and Extremely Backward Classes, including whether the regulations ensure effective protection for them. :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
- Use of “Segregation” in Campus Arrangements: Whether references to “segregation” in academic or residential settings, such as hostels or mentorship groups, could inadvertently create classifications that violate equality and fraternity guarantees under the Constitution. :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}
- Omission of Ragging from the Framework: Whether excluding “ragging” as a specific type of discrimination — unlike in the 2012 regulations — is regressive and amounts to unequal treatment of discrimination victims, potentially conflicting with Articles 14 and 21. :contentReference[oaicite:6]{index=6}
In addition to these specific points, the Bench allowed scope for other ancillary questions to be raised during the course of the proceedings. :contentReference[oaicite:7]{index=7}
Court Concerns Over Definitions and Enforcement
The Supreme Court noted that the language of the 2026 regulations appears vague and could be subject to misuse without clear procedural safeguards. A major point of contention is the separate, narrow definition of caste-based discrimination when broader anti-discrimination protections already include caste within their scope. Critics argue this segmentation may exclude certain individuals from redress mechanisms, raising potential equality issues. :contentReference[oaicite:8]{index=8}
What Happens Next?
The Court has issued notices to the UGC, the Union government, and other respondents, directing them to file detailed responses. The matter is slated for further hearings, providing an opportunity for all sides to present comprehensive arguments on both substantive and constitutional aspects of the Equity Regulations. :contentReference[oaicite:9]{index=9}
