The Supreme Court has taken a very tough stance on the University Grants Commission's (UGC) controversial "Equity Regulations 2026," putting the Central Government and the UGC in the dock.

During the hearing, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant not only stayed these regulations but also made comments that raised questions about the government's intentions.

The court clearly stated that this regulation, introduced in the name of equality in education, could create new rifts in society.

"Are we going in the wrong direction?" - CJI's stern comment

During the hearing, the Chief Justice asked the UGC lawyer a sharp question. The court asked, "In an era when we are talking about a casteless society and universal equality, are these regulations not taking us backwards?"

The CJI expressed concern that the wording of the regulations is such that it will destroy brotherhood among students and divide them into groups based on caste on campuses." The court called this a "backward step" for a progressive society and stated that the rules should be inclusive, not divisive.

Serious Fears of Misuse of Rules

The Supreme Court expressed its greatest concern about the potential misuse of these rules. The bench stated that the way the rules have been drafted poses the risk of the grievance redressal mechanism being politicized or used to settle personal scores.

The court clearly stated that without any concrete checks and balances, such rules could be used as a weapon to destroy the career of any innocent student or teacher. Such ambiguity could seriously harm the autonomy and impartiality of educational institutions.

Silence on the Rights of General Category Students

According to an Aaj Tak report, petitioners argued in court that the new UGC rules leave General Category students completely unprotected. According to the definition of the rules, only treatment meted out to reserved categories would be considered discrimination.

The court remarked, "Justice should be equal for all." The court underlined that discrimination can happen to any student, regardless of their caste.

The law should protect every victim of campus harassment, not just a particular group.

Constitutional Challenge to 'Reverse Discrimination'

Vineet Jindal, the petitioners' lawyer, termed this as 'reverse discrimination.' He argued that Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits the state from discriminating against any citizen, but these UGC rules themselves create discrimination.

The court considered this constitutional aspect serious and stated that prima facie these rules appear to violate the fundamental principle of equality. It argued that the purpose of positive discrimination should be upliftment, not the complete elimination of the rights of one class over another.

Questions over the removal of the provision for punishment for false complaints

According to a live report, the court also debated the fact that the initial draft included a provision for punishment for filing false complaints, which was removed in the final notification. The court asked how accountability would be determined if someone resorted to these rules to defame a teacher or student.

The absence of a provision for punishment could lead to a flood of false complaints. This would not only harass innocent people but also diminish the seriousness of cases of students who are actually facing discrimination.

The issue of Bareilly Magistrate's Resignation Resonates

Social opposition to these rules was also mentioned during the hearing. The resignation of Magistrate Alankar Agnihotri, posted in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, in protest against these rules had brought the issue to national attention.

The petitioners argued that when a judicial officer identified inconsistencies in these rules and resigned, it can be understood how apprehensive the intelligentsia is about these rules. This resignation proved that the rules were not just a matter of paper but also a crisis in practice.

UGC's Argument and the Court's Disagreement

The UGC lawyer argued that the rules were intended to protect Dalit and backward class students, who have long faced discrimination. However, the bench did not fully agree with this argument. The court stated that you cannot make discriminatory laws against one class to protect another.

The protective shield should be such that every student on campus feels safe. The court questioned whether the UGC believes that only one class can be subject to discrimination.

Danger of Tension and Division on Campus

The Supreme Court warned that if these rules were allowed to be implemented, they could lead to a "caste war" within colleges and universities. Students would begin to see each other as representatives of a particular caste rather than as classmates.

The Court believes that the primary function of higher education institutions is to eradicate discrimination and foster scientific temper, not to further institutionalize caste identities through laws that could profoundly pollute the academic environment on campuses.