New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India on January 29, 2026, put on hold the University Grants Commission’s new 2026 regulations meant to fight caste-based discrimination in colleges and universities. The rules required every higher education institution to set up special centres and committees to handle complaints from students and staff from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). Many from upper caste groups, including the Savarna Army, protested strongly, saying the rules were one-sided, vague, and could be misused to target general category students and staff. They feared it would harm merit and create reverse discrimination.

The court said the regulations were “too sweeping,” “vague,” and “capable of misuse.” It ordered that the older 2012 guidelines would stay in place for now. The matter will be heard further on March 19, 2026. Protests had already spread across northern states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and others, with students, lawyers, and activists taking to the streets, burning copies of the rules, and even dramatic actions like writing letters in blood.

The Supreme Court’s Order and Key Observations

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi (and related benches), heard petitions from general category individuals like Rahul Dewan, Mritunjay Tiwari, and advocate Vineet Jindal. The main challenge was to Regulation 3(c), which defines “caste-based discrimination” narrowly as discrimination only against members of SC, ST, and OBC on the basis of caste or tribe. The broader definition of “discrimination” in the rules covers more grounds like religion, race, gender, etc., but critics said the specific caste clause excluded upper castes from protection and created a hierarchy of victims.

The court noted issues like vagueness in the language and potential for misuse. “If we don’t intervene it will lead to dangerous impact, will divide the society and will have grave impact,” said the bench. Other quotes include: “Prima Facie we say that the language of the regulation is vague and experts need to look into for the language be modulated so that it is not exploited.” “Unity of India must be reflected in our educational institutions.” “Are we going backwards from whatever we gained in terms of achieving a casteless society?” The court issued notices to the Centre and UGC, tagged the case with a 2019 petition, and directed the 2012 regulations to continue under Article 142 powers.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising intervened against the stay, arguing it ignored real discrimination faced by Dalit and oppressed caste students in campuses. She said keeping the rules on hold was like “calling a fully-abled person as disabled.”

What the UGC’s 2026 Regulations Required

Notified on January 13, 2026, the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, aimed to create a discrimination-free environment in line with the National Education Policy 2020. They replaced the 2012 version and applied to all higher education institutions (HEIs) – universities, colleges, online/distance modes – covering students (including those seeking admission), faculty, staff, and heads.

Key requirements:

• Every HEI must set up an Equal Opportunity Centre (EOC) to counsel students from disadvantaged groups, promote diversity, coordinate with legal services, NGOs, police, etc., and publish bi-annual reports on demographics, dropouts, and complaints.
• An Equity Committee chaired by the HEI head, with professors, non-teaching staff, civil society members, and student invitees (based on merit/sports). It must represent women, SC/ST/OBC, PwD. The committee meets within 24 hours of a complaint, reports in 15 days, and the head acts in 7 days. Appeals go to an Ombudsperson.
• Equity Squads (mobile teams) to monitor campuses and vulnerable areas, plus Equity Ambassadors (nodal officers) in departments.
• A round-the-clock Equity Helpline for confidential complaints.
• Awareness programs, anti-discrimination undertakings from everyone, counsellors, and annual reports to UGC.
• Complaints handled confidentially; police informed if criminal.

Non-compliance could lead to serious penalties: debarment from UGC schemes, degree programmes, ODL/online modes, or removal from Sections 2(f)/12B recognition (affecting funding and validity). The rules expanded on 2012 guidelines by including OBCs explicitly in caste definition, adding new bodies like squads/ambassadors, shorter timelines, online portals, and stronger monitoring, following Supreme Court nudges after cases like Rohith Vemula’s suicide.

Why the Rules Sparked Controversy and Fears of Misuse

Critics, mainly from general/upper caste groups, argued the caste-specific definition presumed discrimination only goes one way – against reserved categories – and shut out complaints from others facing caste-based bias, abuse, or exclusion. They said this was arbitrary, violated Article 14 (equality), created “hierarchy of victimhood,” and ignored changing social realities where upper castes could also face hostility.

There was no explicit penalty for false or malicious complaints (unlike some earlier rules or SC/ST Act safeguards), raising fears of misuse for harassment, especially in hiring, promotions, or admissions. Protesters called it a threat to merit-based decisions, as committees with heavy reserved category representation might bias outcomes. They worried about “reverse discrimination” and campus division.

Supporters, including Dalit student groups and parties like DMK, said caste discrimination remains a harsh reality on campuses. “Discrimination based on caste is a reality,” noted DMK leaders. The rules were needed because past complaints were often ignored, and structures like these build trust and encourage reporting. Complaints of caste bias have reportedly risen over years.

The prompt mentions threats of funding cuts for non-compliance, which aligns with debarment penalties.

Protests Spread Across Northern India

Protests intensified after notification, especially in northern states. Groups like Savarna Army (or Savarna Sena) led demonstrations in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and nearby areas. Students and lawyers staged sit-ins, slogan-shouting, and burnt copies of the regulations.

In Kaushambi (UP), Savarna Army district head Abhishek Pandey wrote a letter to PM Narendra Modi in his own blood, calling it a “black law” harmful to Savarna youth and demanding rollback. The video went viral. In Raebareli, a BJP functionary resigned, saying: “Due to the black law, like the reservation bill, brought against the children of the upper caste, I am resigning… This law is extremely dangerous for society and also divisive.”

In Lucknow, lawyers protested near the high court. Massive student protests occurred across UP universities. Similar actions in other northern areas warned of chaos if not withdrawn. Protesters demanded inclusion of general category protection and safeguards against misuse.

Background: From 2012 Guidelines to 2026 Push

Earlier 2012 UGC regulations were advisory, focusing on prevention without such detailed enforceable mechanisms or specific OBC inclusion in caste definition. The 2026 version came after Supreme Court observations in 2019-2025 PILs (e.g., by Radhika Vemula post-Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi cases), urging “strong and robust” mechanisms against campus caste atrocities. NEP 2020’s equity focus also played a role.

Reactions from Stakeholders

Petitioners welcomed the stay as protecting equality. Government/UGC had defended the rules as constitutional and necessary. Political reactions varied: some upper-caste aligned groups supported protests; reserved category advocates and opposition like Congress/DMK highlighted ongoing discrimination. Centre reportedly said rules were within constitutional bounds under SC supervision, assuring “no injustice.”

Implications for Higher Education and Society

The stay brings temporary relief but highlights deep divides on caste, equity, and inclusion. Colleges revert to 2012 advisory approach until March 19. It may prompt redrafting for neutrality, misuse safeguards, and broader applicability. Broader debate: How to protect the vulnerable without alienating others or harming unity/merit? With rising campus complaints, balanced, transparent mechanisms seem essential. The case could shape future anti-discrimination policy.

FAQs

1. What exactly did the UGC 2026 regulations mandate for colleges?

Every college/university had to create an Equal Opportunity Centre for counselling and reporting, an Equity Committee (chaired by principal/vice-chancellor with diverse members including at least half from reserved categories in some descriptions) to probe complaints quickly (24 hrs meet, 15 days report, 7 days action), mobile squads for monitoring, ambassadors per department, and a 24/7 helpline. Awareness drives, undertakings, and reports were compulsory. Non-compliance risked losing funding and recognition. Detailed in official notification; aimed at SC/ST/OBC protection primarily.

2. Why did upper caste groups protest?

They said the caste discrimination definition excluded them from filing complaints under the specific mechanism, even if they faced bias. Fears: false complaints without punishment, biased committees, reverse discrimination, threat to merit in decisions, and social division. Groups like Savarna Army saw it as anti-Savarna and a “black law.”

3. What did the Supreme Court say in its stay order?

It called the rules vague, prone to misuse, too sweeping, capable of dividing society, and against India’s unity. Ordered stay, 2012 rules continue, notices issued, hearing March 19. Key: “Unity of India must be reflected…” “Are we going backwards?”

4. What is the difference between 2012 and 2026 rules?

2012 were more advisory; 2026 made mechanisms mandatory, enforceable with penalties, expanded to OBCs explicitly, added squads/helplines/ambassadors, shorter timelines, and reporting. Triggered by SC directions post-suicides.

5. Can general category students complain under these rules now?

With stay, back to 2012 framework, which had broader but less structured protections. The challenge was that 2026’s specific caste clause excluded them.

6. What happens on March 19?

Government and UGC respond; court examines constitutionality, possibly with 2019 plea. May order redrafting or modifications.

7. Are there real cases of caste discrimination in colleges?

Yes, reports show rising complaints (e.g., from ~173 to over 350 in some years). Cases like Rohith Vemula highlight suicides due to bias. Reserved category students often report ignoring of grievances.

8. Will this affect admissions or faculty hiring?

Indirectly – complaints could influence investigations into bias in processes. Critics feared misuse affecting merit-based selections; rules focused more on student/staff treatment but committees handle broader equity.

9. What should students do if facing discrimination now?

Use existing grievance cells, approach college administration, police if criminal (SC/ST Act etc.), or UGC portal. 2012 guidelines still apply.

10. Is the stay permanent?

No – temporary abeyance till final order. Court may uphold, modify, or quash after hearing.