Supreme Court stays UGC rules, says language lacks clarity, orders center to form a committee

The Supreme Court has stayed the new UGC rules. The court said that prima facie, it appears that the language of the rules lacks clarity. Therefore, an investigation is needed to improve the language of the rules to prevent misuse. The Supreme Court asked the central government to revise the regulations, and until then, the old 2012 rules will remain in effect. The next hearing in this case will be on March 19.

There is an uproar across the country against the new UGC rules. On Thursday, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant began hearing a PIL against the new regulations of the UGC Equity Rules regarding discrimination among students. After the hearing, the Supreme Court ordered a stay on the UGC Promotion of Equity Regulation 2026.

Key points what happened during the debate in the Supreme Court:

• The CJI said that prima facie, we can say that the language of the regulation is ambiguous, and experts need to examine it to revise the language so that it is not misused.

• Senior advocate Indira Jaising said that a petition has been pending in this court since 2019 challenging the 2012 regulations, which have now been replaced by the 2026 regulations. The Chief Justice said that while examining the 2012 regulations, we cannot go further back than that.

• The CJI said, "SG, please consider constituting a committee of some eminent persons to examine this matter so that society can develop together without any discrimination." • Justice Bagchi said that Article 15(4) empowers states to make special laws for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. But we understand your point, why should a progressive law have a regressive approach?

• Justice Bagchi said that I hope we don't go to segregated schools like in America, where Black and White students studied in separate schools. The Chief Justice said that such a situation can certainly be exploited. The lawyer said that there are also statements from political leaders saying that general category students will have to pay fees, etc.

• A lawyer said that if I am from the general category and I join a college, the seniors rag me, but there is no remedy for us. The CJI wondered if the general category is not covered? The lawyer said, absolutely not.

• During the hearing, the lawyer said that we have challenged the definition of Rule 3C. Caste-based discrimination has been done. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain said that this discrimination is against Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Such discrimination in the field of education will promote division in society.

• The CJI said that we are looking at the right to equality. Whether these rules stand up or not. You argue on that. Jain said that Article 14 clarifies classification and there are Supreme Court judgments on this with clarifications. Jain said that Section 3C is completely contrary to Article 14. Jain said that we are demanding a stay on this provision of caste-based discrimination.

• During the hearing, the lawyer said that we have challenged the definition of Rule 3C. Caste-based discrimination has been done. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain said that this discrimination is against Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Such discrimination in the field of education will promote division in society.

• The CJI said that we are looking at the right to equality. Whether these rules stand up or not. You argue on that. Jain stated that Article 14 clearly defines classification, and there are Supreme Court judgments that further clarify this. Jain said that Section 3C is completely contrary to Article 14. He added that they are seeking a stay on this provision that allows for caste-based discrimination.

Summary

The Supreme court believes that the language of these rules lacks clarity, making them susceptible to misuse. The court has directed the central government to revise the rules and constitute a committee. This decision was made while hearing a PIL filed against discrimination among students.