Mritunjay Tiwari v. Union of India - UGC Equity Regulations - Kept In Abeyance
UGC Equity Regulations' Definition Of "Caste Based Discrimination" Under Supreme Court Scanner
University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions)Regulations, 2026 - Supreme Court directed that Regulations, 2026 be kept in abeyance- The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012, will continue to operate and remain in force till further orders- The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration and would require detailed examination: (i) Whether the incorporation of Clause 3(c) in the Impugned Regulations, defining “Caste-based Discrimination”, bears a reasonable and rational nexus to subserve the object and purpose of the 2026 UGC Regulations, particularly in light of the fact that no distinct or special procedural mechanism has been prescribed to address caste-based discrimination, as opposed to the exhaustive and inclusive definition of “Discrimination” provided under Clause 3(e) of the Impugned Regulations? (ii) Whether the introduction and operationalisation of “caste-based discrimination” under the Impugned Regulations would have any bearing on the existing constitutional and statutory sub-classification of the Most Backward Castes within the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, and whether the Impugned Regulations provide adequate and effective protection and safeguards to such Extremely Backward Castes against discrimination and structural disadvantage? (iii) Whether the inclusion of the expression “segregation” in Clause 7(d) of the Impugned Regulations, in the context of allocation of hostels, classrooms, mentorship groups, or similar academic or residential arrangements, albeit on transparent and non-discriminatory criteria, would amount to a “separate yet equal” classification, thereby infringing the constitutional guarantees of equality and fraternity under Articles 14, 15 as well as the Preamble to the Constitution of India? (iv) Whether the omission of the term “Ragging” as a specific form of discrimination in the framework of the Impugned Regulations, despite its existence in the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012, constitutes a regressive and exclusionary legislative omission? If so, whether such 4 omission is violative of unequal treatment of victims of discrimination by creating an asymmetry in access to justice and thus falls foul of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India??
Case Info
Case Information
Case name and neutral citation Mritunjay Tiwari v. Union of India & Anr.; W.P. (C) No. 101/2026, heard with W.P. (C) Nos. 109/2026 and 108/2026.
A formal neutral citation is not mentioned in the extract. On the Supreme Court website this kind of order will usually later receive an SCC Online / neutral citation, but it does not appear in the text you’ve shared.
Coram
The matter was heard by:Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Judgment / Order date
The order is dated 29‑01‑2026.
Statutes / laws and instruments referred
Within the order, the Court refers to:
- Constitution of India: Articles 14, 15, 21, and the Preamble (equality and fraternity) – these are cited as the constitutional benchmarks allegedly violated.
- Article 142 of the Constitution – expressly invoked to continue the operation of earlier regulations.
- University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 – referred to as the “2026 UGC Regulations” / “Impugned Regulations”; in particular:
- Clause 3(c) – definition of “caste-based discrimination”.
- Clause 3(e) – definition of “Discrimination”.
- Clause 7(d) – deals with “segregation” in allocations like hostels, classrooms, mentorship groups.
- University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012 – directed to continue in force.