Background: The UGC’s Controversial Regulation

On January 13, 2026, the University Grants Commission (UGC) notified the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026. The new rules explicitly defined caste-based discrimination as discrimination against members of the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). However, in a significant turn of events, the Supreme Court of India has stayed the implementation of these regulations pending further legal review.

The regulations caused immediate uproar, with protests from several upper-caste groups across India—with the notable exception of Kerala that there was not even a whimper about it in the print/ visual/ social media about it. Critics argued that the rules were themselves discriminatory, claiming they created a one-sided legal environment. Key points of contention include:

• Severe Penalties: If a student is found guilty of caste-based discrimination (including mocking someone based on caste), they face suspension or even criminal proceedings.
• Composition of Committees: The mandate to establish anti-discrimination committees with representation from SC, ST, and OBC members in every university.
• Alleged Lack of Safeguards: Protesters claim the norms lack penalties for filing false complaints, potentially enabling misuse. They also argue that accused students from the general category can be barred from classes, exams, or hostels immediately upon the filing of a complaint, prior to any investigation or disciplinary committee decision. Furthermore, they contend there is no clear recourse for general category students who face harassment.

Comparison with the 2012 Regulations

The UGC’s previous framework, the Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions Regulations, 2012, took a broader approach. It mandated protections against discrimination based on caste, religion, gender, disability, language, ethnicity, and place of birth. Institutions were required to:

• Appoint an Anti-Discrimination Officer.
• Establish an Equal Opportunity Cell.
• Prevent discrimination in admissions, evaluations, hostels, and scholarships.
• Resolve complaints within 60 days.

In practice, however, enforcement often centered on SC/ST students as primary beneficiaries, while OBCs were not explicitly named, creating an implementation gap.

The Legal Landscape: The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

The debate exists within the wider context of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This Act criminalises intentionally insulting or intimidating SC/ST members in public view by using their caste name.

The Legal Weight of the Stay

In a judicial context, the Supreme Court’s interim stay on the UGC Equity Regulations, 2026, functions as a procedural pause rather than a final rejection. By placing the rules in abeyance on January 29, 2026, the Court signaled that the constitutional questions—primarily regarding the principles of due process and the potential for societal division—are significant enough to require thorough scrutiny before implementation.

The reasonableness of this stay rests on a tension between two legal philosophies:

• Individual Civil Liberties: Protecting all students from potentially vague or overbroad rules. Critics and the Supreme Court have flagged Regulation 3(c) for its narrow definition of caste-based discrimination, arguing it excludes the general category and lacks safeguards against misuse or false complaints.
• Social Protection: Shielding historically marginalized groups from systemic bias. Proponents argue that the stay leaves vulnerable students—including those from SC, ST, and OBC communities—trapped in hostile environments without the rigorous, time-bound protections the 2026 rules were designed to provide.

A critical legal hurdle is whether the University Grants Commission (UGC), as a statutory body, has the authority to mandate rules that carry quasi-criminal consequences, such as institutional debarment or strict disciplinary penalties. Typically, such significant legal liabilities require Parliamentary debate rather than simple executive notification. Until these constitutional boundaries are defined, the Court has revived the UGC Regulations, 2012 to ensure that campuses do not operate in a legal vacuum.

Kerala: An Exceptional Case Study

Kerala stands alone as the state where such equity principles have seen more consistent application. This is attributed not merely to legislation but to deeper social changes. The breaking down of caste barriers is widely credited to historical investments in education (often pioneered by Christian missionary schools) and the socio-political movements led by communist parties. Notably, the world’s first democratically elected communist government came to power in Kerala in 1957.

The state’s proactive stance is evident in moves like the June 2024 decision to stop using the term Colony for SC/ST residential settlements, recognizing its use as a casteist slur.

A Personal Anecdote: Caste in the Indian Army

My personal encounter with overt caste identity occurred only after joining the Indian Army. Growing up in Kerala and training at the NDA and IMA, references to caste or creed were conspicuously absent.

I was commissioned into the 75 Medium Regiment, which had a unique class composition: one Battery of North Indian Brahmins, one of Jats, and one of South Indian soldiers. Our Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel AN Suryanarayanan (now Veteran Brigadier), wisely posted me to the Brahmin Battery.

There, I witnessed Brahmin soldiers referring to lower-caste tradesmen-soldiers by their caste names. The issue came to a head in 1991 when, as the Battery Commander, I allotted a family quarter to Sepoy Shyam Sunder, our barber. Brahmin soldiers in the residential complex, through their Senior Subedar, requested an interview. Their grievance was unequivocal: “How can a lower-caste soldier’s family live with Brahmins?“

I called a meeting with the aggrieved soldiers. “What makes you all Brahmins today?” I asked. “Aren’t we soldiers first? Is it just your surname—Sharma, Mishra, Dwivedi, Chaturvedi- that makes you a Brahmin today? Then I hereby baptise Shyam Sunder as a Brahmin. Henceforth, he will be Shyam Sunder Sharma.” The matter was settled forever.

There is no doubt that the need for the 2026 legislation is urgent and mandatory. Evolving societies must continually make efforts to make amends for the pitfalls of history. Hopefully, this stay is short-lived on concerns of due process alone.  The Supreme Court’s stay on the UGC’s 2026 regulations highlights the ongoing, deeply contentious debate around caste, equity, and justice in India.

Conclusion

While the intent to protect historically marginalised communities is clear, the execution raises valid concerns about due process and potential misuse. Kerala’s example suggests that meaningful progress requires not just laws but foundational social and educational reform. Ultimately, as the military anecdote illustrates, transcending deep-seated prejudice demands conscious leadership that insists on a common, superior identity—whether as soldiers or as students first.