Another Petition Filed in Supreme Court Challenging UGC’s New Rule, Seeks Stay on Provision

A fresh petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging Regulation 3(C) of the recently implemented University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equality in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. The petitioner contends that by limiting the definition of caste-based discrimination to only Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC), the regulation denies protection to individuals from other communities, violating their right to equality under the Constitution. The petition seeks to make the definition caste-neutral.

Petitioner Seeks Stay on Implementation
Advocate Vineet Jindal, representing the petitioner, urged the court to prevent the authorities from implementing or taking action under this provision until the matter is resolved. He argued that caste-based discrimination should be defined in a constitutionally compliant and inclusive manner, ensuring protection for all individuals regardless of caste.

The petition also seeks directions for the central government and UGC to ensure that Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Helplines, and complaint redressal mechanisms established under the regulations remain operational in a non-discriminatory and caste-neutral manner until Regulation 3(C) is reconsidered. The petitioner emphasized that denying access to complaint mechanisms based on caste identity is tantamount to state-sanctioned discrimination and violates Articles 14, 15(1), and 21 of the Constitution.

Basis of the Challenge
The petition contends that Regulation 3(C) is restrictive as it limits caste-based discrimination protection to SC, ST, and OBC communities. This, according to the petitioner, excludes individuals from general or unreserved categories, who may also face bias or harassment based on caste, effectively denying them institutional protection.

Earlier Petition Filed on 24 January
A similar petition challenging the same regulation was filed in the Supreme Court on 24 January 2026, naming the UGC and the central government as respondents. The petition argued that Regulation 3(C) is arbitrary and discriminatory, violating the fundamental rights to equality and life and liberty. Advocate Mrityunjay Tiwari filed the earlier petition, calling for the rule to be declared unconstitutional.