UGC equity regulations 2026 and constitutional basis
Background
The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 were challenged before the Supreme Court of India.
Petitioners argued that the Regulations are based on an unfounded presumption that caste discrimination is uni-directional.
According to them, the Regulations assume that only Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, and Other Backward Classes are affected by caste discrimination.
Origin of the regulations
The Regulations were prompted by a petition filed jointly by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi.
The petition highlighted rampant caste discrimination in higher education institutions.
Both students died by suicide after allegedly facing caste-based bias within their educational institutions.
Arguments raised by petitioners
The Regulations are accused of promoting reverse discrimination.
Clause 3(c), defining caste-based discrimination, is alleged to be restrictive and exclusionary.
Judicial scrutiny
The Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the 2026 Regulations on January 29.
The Court framed key questions, including:
Whether the definition of caste-based discrimination in Clause 3(c) has a reasonable and rational nexus with the objective of promoting full equity and inclusion in higher education institutions.
Constitutional basis of the regulations
The 2026 Regulations derive their strength from Article 15 of the Constitution.
Article 15 embodies the principle of non-discrimination.
Article 15(1) imposes an enforceable obligation on the State not to discriminate on grounds including caste.
Article 15(2) specifically prohibits discrimination faced by marginalised communities in access to public services and resources.
The inclusion of Article 15 reflects the historical oppression endured by marginalised communities over centuries.
Principle of substantive equality
In the Sukanya Shantha case, the Supreme Court upheld the principle of substantive equality.
Substantive equality requires the law to actively correct historical injustices rather than merely ensure formal equality.
The Court observed that the pervasive influence of caste necessitates continuous efforts to ensure equality and justice for all citizens.
Broader significance
The case highlights the tension between formal equality and substantive equality.
Raises constitutional questions on balancing non-discrimination with affirmative measures.
Has implications for governance of higher education institutions and the scope of regulatory intervention to address social inequities.
Prelims Practice MCQs
Q. With reference to Article 15 of the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
Article 15(1) imposes an enforceable obligation on the State not to discriminate on grounds including caste.
Article 15(2) specifically addresses discrimination in access to public services and resources.
Article 15 reflects the principle of substantive equality by recognising historical oppression.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A. 1 and 2 only
B. 1 and 3 only
C. 2 and 3 only
D. 1, 2 and 3
Correct answer: D
Explanation:
All three statements are correct and flow directly from the constitutional interpretation discussed in the article.
MCQ 6
Q. Consider the following statements regarding the concept of substantive equality:
It requires the law to correct historical injustices.
It treats all individuals identically regardless of social context.
It has been upheld by the Supreme Court in cases dealing with caste discrimination.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A. 1 and 2 only
B. 1 and 3 only
C. 2 only
D. 1, 2 and 3
Correct answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 and 3 are correct.
Statement 2 describes formal equality, not substantive equality.
Q. With reference to the Sukanya Shantha case, consider the following statements:
The case dealt with caste discrimination within prisons.
The Supreme Court emphasised that caste has a pervasive influence in society.
The judgment rejected the idea of substantive equality.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A. 1 and 2 only
B. 2 and 3 only
C. 1 only
D. 1, 2 and 3
Correct answer: A
Explanation:
Statements 1 and 2 are correct.
Statement 3 is incorrect because the Court upheld the principle of substantive equality.