The Supreme Court has not only granted an interim stay but has also stated that a high-level committee should be constituted to examine the issue of discrimination and that its recommendations must be considered. The Court has further directed that, during the period of the interim stay, the UGC’s 2012 Equality Regulations must remain in force, that was framed to eliminate discrimination against SC and ST students, provided for Equal Opportunity Cells and listed 25 forms of discriminatory practices. However, rules should be exhaustive in scope, not merely illustrative. As the principle goes: any law or rule must be comprehensive, not just symbolic or selective.
The 2026 Equality Regulations adopt a broader framework to identify discrimination in multiple forms and to mandate corrective action. In contrast, the 2012 regulations made no reference to discrimination against OBC students. Does this omission itself not amount to institutional discrimination within oppressed communities?
In the past, a medical student from Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu, studying at AIIMS Delhi, died by suicide after being subjected to sustained mental harassment and discrimination that made it impossible for him to continue his studies. He did not belong to the SC/ST category, yet he faced caste-based discrimination. Had there been explicit protections for OBC students under the 2012 rules, his life might have been saved. Compared to the 2012 framework, the 2026 regulations contain clearer mechanisms to address discrimination.
Citing “lack of clarity” regarding the definition of discrimination, the Supreme Court has stayed the implementation of the 2026 UGC Regulations. If the Court felt there was ambiguity, it could have issued clarificatory directions instead of a blanket stay.
Further, while introducing 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), the Union BJP government defined it not simply as “economically weak persons,” but as “those not covered under any other reservation category.” Poverty exists in every community; yet the government deliberately framed EWS to benefit upper castes excluded from existing reservations. This is a strategic division, contrary to the very philosophy of social justice. A constitutional government must implement reservation – not undermine it.
In its order, the Supreme Court has used the term “non-reserved classes,” a phrase not found in the UGC regulations. Is this consistent with constitutional values? The real social reality is one of dominant castes versus oppressed castes, not “reserved versus non-reserved.” The Court has not explained why such terminology was necessary, making its stance appear parallel to the Union government’s EWS policy favouring upper castes.
Though the UGC is formally autonomous, it operates under Union government control. When dominant castes – ideological supporters of the Sangh Parivar – mobilised against the regulations, this confrontation was clearly anticipated, if not orchestrated, by the BJP government itself. To win the votes of oppressed communities, the BJP pretended to rock the cradle by introducing and ‘correcting’ the UGC regulations – but it has remained completely silent on the protests by dominant-caste students against those very rules. This is nothing but the act of “pinching the child while pretending to lull it.
While governments usually argue strongly in court to defend their own policies, the Union Government’s lawyer failed to robustly defend the UGC Regulations 2026 in the Supreme Court. The same BJP government and Sangh Parivar, which aggressively justified the EWS and SIR, showed no similar seriousness in defending the UGC Regulations. This double standard of the BJP-led Union Government must be clearly understood by oppressed communities
V.Kumaresan
