New Delhi- The Supreme Court on January 29, stayed the implementation of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, citing concerns that the rules were "vague," "capable of misuse," and potentially divisive. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi kept the new regulations in abeyance while directing that the earlier 2012 UGC regulations continue in force until further orders. The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 19, with notices issued to the Union government and UGC.

The 2026 regulations, notified earlier in January, aimed to strengthen measures against caste-based discrimination in higher education institutions. They mandated the establishment of Equal Opportunity Centres, equity committees (with representation from SC, ST, OBC, PwD, and women), helplines, and stricter grievance redressal mechanisms, particularly to protect marginalized students from SC, ST, and OBC communities. The rules were introduced following long-standing concerns over caste discrimination on campuses, including high-profile cases like those of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi.

However, the regulations faced widespread protests from students, particularly from general category backgrounds, who argued that the definition of "caste-based discrimination" (in Regulation 3(c)) was exclusionary, focusing only on discrimination against SC/ST/OBC members while denying similar protections or grievance mechanisms to others. Petitioners, including Mritunjay Tiwari, Vineet Jindal, and Rahul Dewan, challenged the rules as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of constitutional equality under Article 14.

The Supreme Court observed that the provisions could have "very sweeping consequences" and "divide society," emphasizing the need for a free, equitable, and inclusive atmosphere in educational institutions without fostering division. The court invoked Article 142 to ensure continuity under the 2012 framework.

Prominent voices welcomed the decision as a step toward preventing social tension and ensuring fairness.

Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati described the Supreme Court's order as "appropriate." In a statement on X, she noted: "The new rules implemented by the University Grants Commission to prevent casteist incidents in government and private universities have created an atmosphere of social tension. Keeping in view such current circumstances, the decision today by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to stay the UGC's new rules is appropriate." She added that such tensions could have been avoided if the UGC had consulted all stakeholders beforehand and ensured proper representation for upper-caste society in inquiry committees under principles of natural justice.

MP Priyanka Chaturvedi welcomed the decision in a post. She wrote, " I am glad that Hon SC stepped in and stayed the UGC guidelines which were vague, arbitrary and an attempt to create further discrimination on campuses. I was trolled, abused and slurs thrown my way using my surname, so be it. What goes against natural course of justice I will continue to raise it and use my voice for it. That the GoI absolutely abdicated its responsibility to intervene & withdraw the UGC guidelines shows that they give no respect or consideration to peoples protests is now clear as daylight. And those who stayed silent, time will judge you."

Critics, including those advocating for stronger anti-discrimination measures, condemned the decision as a setback for social justice and substantive equality. The AIOBCSA strongly opposed the SC decision in a statement which read: "We firmly believe that these regulations are vital instruments to safeguard the constitutional rights of marginalized and backward communities in higher education institutions across the country." The organisation demanded that a larger bench of the Supreme Court treat this issue as a constitutional matter of national importance. AIOBCSA further urged that the bench adjudicating the UGC Regulations include judges from SC, ST, OBC, and women backgrounds to ensure diverse representation and a more inclusive perspective in the interpretation of constitutional principles related to equity, justice, and access to education.

Prakash Ambedkar, grandson of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and leader of the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi, strongly criticized the stay in a post on X. He wrote: "If the level of discourse surrounding the new UGC’s Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, was deplorable then the recent Supreme Court stay on the new regulations represents a troubling judicial capitulation to that very discourse! The stay is against the constitutional ideas and promise of substantive equality, social justice, and democratic access to education. The Supreme Court said the new regulations 'will divide the society'! But isn’t already? On the lines of caste!? And, this is what the regulations were! A safeguard against caste discrimination! I cannot fathom how anyone could oppose basic equity measures; the protests, itself, were a stab to the memories of Rohith Vemula, Payal Tadvi, and thousands more who faced and continue to caste discrimination in educational institutions. This is a sad day!"

The Dalit Shoshan Mukti Manch expressed its shock at the stay granted by the Supreme Court to the implementation of the recent UGC guidelines.  While these guidelines did not adequately address the violence, discrimination, psychological pressures and mental torture that students to oppressed castes face in institutions of higher learning, they were a first step taken in the right direction.

Maharashtra General Secretary of All India Independent Scheduled Castes Association Deepali Salve wrote in a post, " The Supreme Court's apprehension about the UGC Bill's potential impact on peace contrasts with the existing collegium system's lack of transparency and accountability. If the Court can raise concerns about possible misuse of the Bill, it should also examine the collegium system's susceptibility to misuse. Consistency in applying principles of accountability and fairness is essential for upholding the rule of law and public trust in institutions."