The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed unease over provisions in the University Grants Commission’s new Equality Regulations, warning that parts of the framework could legitimise segregation on campuses and undermine constitutional guarantees. The concern was raised while hearing a petition that challenges the legality and intent of the regulations, with the bench signalling that equality measures must not produce discriminatory outcomes by design or effect.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned a clause that could permit separate hostels or residential arrangements for students belonging to different castes. The judges observed that any regulatory architecture which appears to classify students by birth-based identities risks reviving practices that higher education policy has sought to dismantle for decades. The court noted that the Constitution mandates substantive equality and prohibits discrimination on grounds of caste, adding that universities are spaces meant to foster social integration rather than reinforce divisions.
The petitioners argued that the Equality Regulations, notified by the UGC to address discrimination and promote inclusive campuses, contain ambiguities that could be misused by institutions. According to submissions, the hostel-related provision, read alongside other clauses, may allow colleges to justify segregation under the guise of protection or welfare. Such an approach, they contended, would run counter to the spirit of social justice jurisprudence and earlier court rulings that emphasise integration and equal access.
The bench sought clarification from the UGC on the rationale behind the contested language and asked whether safeguards existed to prevent misinterpretation. Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked that while the objective of ensuring safety and dignity for marginalised students is legitimate, the means adopted must be constitutionally sound. He cautioned that well-meaning regulations can have unintended consequences if drafted without precision, especially in a country with a long history of caste-based exclusion.
Government counsel, appearing for the UGC, maintained that the regulations were framed after consultations and were intended to strengthen anti-discrimination mechanisms in universities. The Equality Regulations provide for grievance redressal committees, mandatory sensitisation programmes, and institutional accountability for discriminatory practices. On the issue of hostels, the UGC’s side indicated that the provision was not meant to mandate segregation but to allow flexibility where students themselves seek separate accommodation for reasons of safety or cultural comfort. The court, however, indicated that voluntariness must be explicit and protected against administrative coercion.
Legal observers note that the case sits at the intersection of affirmative action policy and constitutional equality. Over the years, the Supreme Court has upheld reservations and targeted welfare measures as tools to correct historical disadvantage, while simultaneously rejecting practices that entrench segregation. Earlier judgments have stressed that equality does not mean identical treatment but requires the State to avoid classifications that stigmatise or isolate communities.
Higher education experts say the debate reflects broader tensions on campuses, where institutions are under pressure to demonstrate inclusivity while managing diverse student populations. The UGC introduced the Equality Regulations amid growing scrutiny of discrimination complaints in universities, aiming to create uniform standards for prevention and redress. Yet critics argue that regulatory overreach, or imprecise drafting, can dilute the very protections such rules seek to establish.
During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi underscored that equality regulations must align with lived realities on campuses. He observed that policies framed in abstraction can falter when applied by administrators with varying levels of sensitivity and training. The bench asked whether the UGC had issued explanatory guidelines to ensure consistent interpretation across central, state, and private universities, and whether monitoring mechanisms were in place to detect misuse.