The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, is not merely a legal pause; it is a timely constitutional intervention to prevent the institutionalisation of social division on university campuses. By describing the regulations as prima facie vague, capable of misuse and potentially having a dangerous impact on social cohesion, the Apex Court has echoed a concern that has been simmering across the student community since the framework was notified. The roots of this debate lie in the tragic death of Rohith Vemula in 2016. His mother’s writ petition sought accountability and systemic reform to prevent caste-based discrimination in higher education. The Supreme Court, responding to this legitimate concern, directed the Central Government to examine the issue seriously. A parliamentary committee was constituted, deliberations were held, and expectations were raised for a balanced, inclusive, and sensitive framework. What finally emerged in the form of the 2026 Regulations, however, sent shockwaves through campuses across the country.
Instead of fostering equity, the regulations introduced a narrowly defined and exclusionary concept of “caste-based discrimination”, restricting it only to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. This selective definition, as the Supreme Court correctly observed, risks creating new fault lines rather than addressing existing ones. Equality before law, enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, cannot coexist with a framework that presumes discrimination to be a one-way street. The Court’s decision to revive the 2012 UGC Regulations using its extraordinary powers under Article 142 is particularly significant. The bench’s insistence that experts re-examine the language and consequences of the regulations highlights an uncomfortable truth: policymaking in sensitive social domains has increasingly become disconnected from ground realities.
Indian campuses, especially schools and colleges, are not the segregated spaces some policy documents imagine them to be. Hostels, messes, libraries and classrooms function without caste-based seating or dining arrangements. There are no separate canteens or hostels demarcated by caste-nor should there be. Students, many of whom are still learning social boundaries as adolescents, often engage in banter and taunting within their friend circles. While such behaviour must be regulated through counselling and disciplinary mechanisms, equating every interpersonal conflict with caste-based discrimination risks criminalising normal student interactions.
The political class appears alarmingly unaware of this reality. The framing of the 2026 Regulations suggests a deeper intent to polarise rather than heal. With the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act already in force, and with judicial data repeatedly highlighting that an overwhelming majority of cases fail to withstand scrutiny, the creation of another one-sided regulatory regime is difficult to justify. The human cost of misuse-innocent individuals languishing in jail, careers destroyed, reputations irreparably harmed-cannot be brushed aside in the name of social justice. Moreover, the reservation system has already drawn visible economic and psychological divides on campuses. The disparity, if not handled sensitively, breeds resentment rather than inclusion. Layering additional punitive regulations onto this already complex ecosystem only deepens mistrust.
The Supreme Court’s sharp observations against regressive ideas such as separate hostels based on caste deserve special attention. Such measures would undo decades of social integration reflected in inter-caste marriages and shared public spaces. To reintroduce caste as an organising principle in educational institutions would be a step backwards. If the objective is to eliminate discrimination, the focus must shift from punitive lawmaking to awareness, education and dialogue. Discrimination is a social malaise, not merely a legal one. Multiple stringent laws already exist; what is lacking is effective implementation, sensitivity training, and grievance redressal mechanisms that are fair to all students, irrespective of caste.
At this critical juncture, India cannot afford caste-based unrest on campuses. Students are not criminals; they are young individuals shaping their futures. Laws that can potentially ruin lives must be crafted with restraint. The SC has acted as a constitutional sentinel. The widespread protests should serve as a wake-up call. The Government must revisit the issue with humility, consult stakeholders honestly, and remember a fundamental truth: we are humans first, citizens next, religion after that, and caste last. India’s progress depends not on reinforcing divisions but on dismantling them-carefully, consciously and collectively.
The post Stay Against Social Fragmentation appeared first on Daily Excelsior.