A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, with the petitioner alleging that a key provision of the framework creates an exclusionary definition of caste-based discrimination and denies grievance redressal access to individuals outside specified reserved categories.
The petition, moved by advocate Vineet Jindal, seeks judicial intervention to restrain authorities from enforcing Regulation 3(c) in its present form. According to the plea, the regulation narrows the scope of “caste-based discrimination” to members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, thereby limiting institutional grievance mechanisms to those categories.
The plea argues that such a definition effectively accords legal recognition of victimhood only to certain groups while excluding persons belonging to general or upper castes from the protective ambit of the regulation, irrespective of the circumstances or severity of alleged discrimination. It contends that this classification operates at the threshold stage and determines who can access institutional remedies under the regulations.
The petition seeks directions to ensure that Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Helplines, inquiry mechanisms and Ombudsperson proceedings envisaged under the 2026 Regulations are made available in a caste-neutral manner until Regulation 3(c) is reconsidered or amended. It asserts that denial of access to grievance redressal structures based on caste identity amounts to discrimination by the State and violates constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15(1) and 21.
Describing the impugned provision as structurally exclusionary, the plea states that it creates what it terms a “hierarchy of victimhood” within a regulatory framework that otherwise claims to promote equity and inclusion. The petition further argues that the underlying assumption of the regulation is that caste-based discrimination can operate only in one direction, which it says forecloses the legal possibility that individuals outside the specified categories may face caste-linked hostility, abuse or institutional prejudice.
The challenge also refers to the stated objectives of the regulations under Regulation 2, which aim to eradicate discrimination on multiple grounds, including caste, particularly against disadvantaged groups. The plea contends that while the regulation recognises the vulnerability of certain communities, it does not justify excluding others entirely from access to complaint and redressal systems, and that such exclusion defeats the broader objective of ensuring full equity and inclusion.
The petition additionally raises concerns about the possible impact of the framework on academic environments. It claims that in the absence of neutral safeguards, allegations of caste discrimination could be misused while genuine grievances of others remain unaddressed. This, the plea argues, could create a chilling effect on academic discourse, leading to apprehension, reputational harm and self-censorship among students and faculty members.
The regulations being challenged were framed by the University Grants Commission to promote equity and address discrimination in higher education institutions. The plea, however, maintains that by restricting the definition of caste-based discrimination to certain social categories, the framework risks introducing bias into its implementation.
The petitioner has ultimately sought that Regulation 3(c) of the 2026 Regulations be declared unconstitutional and struck down. The matter is expected to come up before the Supreme Court for consideration of the maintainability of the challenge and the issues raised regarding the scope and operation of the regulatory framework.
