MRITUNJAY TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA
Date: 29 January 2026
ITEM NOS. 34, 35 & 45
COURT NO. 1 | SECTION: PIL-W
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Record of Proceedings
Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No. 101 of 2026
Mritunjay Tiwari … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr. … Respondents
(I.A. No. 27410 of 2026 – Stay Application)
With:
- Item No. 35: W.P. (Civil) No. 109 of 2026
(I.A. No. 28911 of 2026 – Stay Application) - Item No. 45: W.P. (Civil) No. 108 of 2026
(I.A. No. 28861 of 2026 – Grant of Interim Relief)
CORAM
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Appearance
(Detailed list of learned counsel and Advocates-on-Record for the respective parties, as recorded)
ORDER
- Issue notice, returnable on 19 March 2026.
- At the request of the Court, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
- We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner(s), the learned Solicitor General of India, as well as Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Advocate, and have perused the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2026 UGC Regulations” or “the Impugned Regulations”).
- The Petitioner(s) have primarily contended that the incorporation of Clause 3(c) in the 2026 UGC Regulations, defining “caste-based discrimination”, is restrictive and exclusionary in its formulation. It is urged that individuals belonging to non-reserved or general categories are rendered remediless under the statutory framework, even if subjected to caste-based discrimination or institutional bias within higher educational institutions. According to the Petitioner(s), the Impugned Regulations proceed on an unfounded presumption that caste-based discrimination is necessarily unidirectional and cannot operate against persons belonging to non-reserved or general categories.
- Upon a prima facie consideration, it appears that certain provisions of the Impugned Regulations suffer from ambiguities, and the possibility of misuse cannot be ruled out. We are of the prima facie view that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration and warrant detailed examination: (i) Whether Clause 3(c) of the Impugned Regulations, defining “caste-based discrimination”, bears a reasonable and rational nexus with the object and purpose of the 2026 UGC Regulations, particularly when no distinct or special procedural mechanism has been prescribed to address caste-based discrimination, as contrasted with the exhaustive and inclusive definition of “discrimination” under Clause 3(e)? (ii) Whether the introduction and operationalisation of “caste-based discrimination” under the Impugned Regulations has any bearing on the existing constitutional and statutory sub-classification of the Most Backward Castes within the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, and whether adequate safeguards exist to protect Extremely Backward Castes against discrimination and structural disadvantage? (iii) Whether the inclusion of the expression “segregation” in Clause 7(d) of the Impugned Regulations, in the context of allocation of hostels, classrooms, mentorship groups, or similar academic or residential arrangements—albeit on transparent and non-discriminatory criteria—amounts to a “separate but equal” classification, thereby infringing the constitutional guarantees of equality and fraternity under Articles 14 and 15, as well as the Preamble to the Constitution of India? (iv) Whether the omission of “ragging” as a specific form of discrimination in the framework of the Impugned Regulations, despite its express recognition under the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012, constitutes a regressive and exclusionary legislative omission; and if so, whether such omission results in unequal treatment of victims of discrimination, thereby violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?(v) Any other ancillary question that may arise or be urged by the parties during the course of the proceedings and which may warrant the intervention of this Court.
- During the course of hearing, it has been pointed out that the issues raised in W.P. (Civil) No. 1149 of 2019 would also have a bearing on the examination of the constitutionality and validity of the Impugned Regulations. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are directed to be heard along with W.P. (Civil) No. 1149 of 2019. All matters shall be listed before an appropriate three-Judge Bench on the date fixed.
- In the meantime, the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, shall remain in abeyance.
- In exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, it is further directed that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012, shall continue to operate and remain in force until further orders.
(Nitin Talreja)
Assistant Registrar-cum-P.S.
(Preethi T.C.)
Assistant Registrar
Read also
Supreme Court Daily Digest (19th Jan 2026)
Supreme Court Daily Digest (21st Jan 2026)
Supreme Court Daily Digest (26th Jan 2026)
Supreme Court Daily Digest (28th Jan 2026)
