The Supreme Court on Thursday paused the implementation of the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) new anti-discrimination rules, raising concerns over their vague wording and possible misuse. The court also issued a notice to the government and the UGC, stating that the controversial regulations will remain on hold until further orders.

The new rules, notified by the UGC earlier this month, made it mandatory for all higher education institutions to form equity committees. These committees were meant to address complaints of discrimination and promote inclusion on campuses. According to the regulations, the committees must include members from the Other Backward Classes (OBC), Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), persons with disabilities, and women.

However, the rules exclude general category students from filing complaints under the grievance redressal mechanism. This exclusion became one of the main reasons for the legal challenge against the regulations. The rules also triggered protests by students in several states, with critics alleging that they could be misused.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that intervention was necessary because the guidelines were capable of dividing society and could have a serious impact. The Chief Justice observed that the court needed to step in to prevent possible harm caused by the regulations.

“If we don’t intervene it will lead to a dangerous impact, will divide society and will have a grave impact,” the Chief Justice said. He further added, “Prima facie, we say that the language of the regulation is vague and experts need to look into for the language be modulated so that it is not exploited.”

The court also clarified that the 2012 guidelines, which were advisory in nature, would continue to operate while the new regulations remain suspended.

During the hearing, the petitioners argued that the regulations were exclusionary in nature. They claimed that the rules denied institutional protection to those who did not belong to the SC, ST, or OBC categories. Their counsel stated that such a selective framework could encourage hostility against non-reserved categories and turn the regulations into a tool for division rather than equity.

The petitioners’ counsel stressed that protection should be extended to everyone. They said that “all citizens must be protected,” calling it the “very mandate of the Constitution.”

Justice Joymalya Bagchi also raised concerns over the way discrimination was defined in the regulations. He said the court was keen on ensuring a “free and equitable atmosphere in universities.” He also questioned why ragging had been left out of the 2026 Regulations, pointing to gaps in the framework.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioners who supported stronger regulations to curb caste-based discrimination, presented a different view. She argued that the plea was rooted in the constitutional vision of equality and the need to build an inclusive society. She defended the need for robust measures to address caste-based discrimination in educational institutions.

The UGC had framed these regulations following a 2019 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the Supreme Court by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, the mothers of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi. Both students had died by suicide after allegedly facing caste-based discrimination in their universities. The PIL sought the creation of a mechanism to end caste discrimination on campuses.

The Supreme Court’s decision to pause the regulations highlights the tension between the need to address caste-based discrimination and the concern that poorly framed rules could lead to division and misuse. With the regulations now on hold, the government and the UGC will have to respond to the court’s notice, while the debate over inclusion, equality, and fairness in higher education continues.