Supreme Court Stays UGC’s New Rules, CJI Warns of Possible Misuse

The Supreme Court has put a stay on the new anti-discrimination rules issued by the UGC. The court made this decision while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenges these rules. During the hearing, the Chief Justice of India said that the rules could be misused, and therefore need careful examination. The petitioner told the court that the new UGC rules discriminate against students from the general category. It was also said that these rules have led to protests by students in many states. Taking note of the seriousness of the issue, the Supreme Court agreed to an urgent hearing and said it is fully aware of the situation. Under the new UGC rules, all higher education institutions are required to form equality committees. These committees must include representatives from OBC, SC, ST communities, women, and persons with disabilities. The aim of the rules is to prevent discrimination on campuses. However, critics argue that the rules do not clearly explain how complaints will be handled, which may lead to misuse. The petitioners claimed that the new framework assumes OBC communities to be victims of discrimination, while general category students are completely excluded. According to them, this creates an impression that general category students are always responsible for discrimination, which is unfair and unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan said that the government will ensure that the rules are not misused and that no student will face discrimination under the new system.

Hearing in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court began hearing the petitions challenging the UGC rules before a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya. Senior advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the rules are creating division in society. Jain specifically challenged Section 3C of the UGC notification. He said that this section defines caste-based discrimination only in relation to SC, ST, and OBC communities, while completely leaving out the general category. He argued that this violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.