5 min learnNew DelhiUp to date: Jan 30, 2026 02:16 AM IST
In a major order, the Supreme Court docket Thursday stayed the College Grants Fee (Promotion of Fairness in Larger Schooling Establishments) Laws, 2026, saying they increase a number of essential questions which, if not addressed, may have “very sweeping penalties…will divide the society”.
Issuing discover to the Centre and UGC on a clutch of petitions difficult the Laws, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stated, “In the meantime, the 2026 Laws be saved in abeyance. In train of our powers below Article 142, we additional direct that the 2012 Laws will proceed in pressure until additional orders.”
“There are 4-5 questions which come up for consideration. In any other case, it will have very sweeping penalties. It would divide the society. It would result in so many…very harmful impression,” stated CJI Kant.
Justice Bagchi stated, “We should always not go to a stage the place we go to segregated colleges as in america, the place colored kids go to 1 faculty, and White girls and boys go to a different faculty. The unity of India should be mirrored within the instructional establishments.”
‘Language fully imprecise, provisions are able to misuse’
Listening to the petitioners who principally challenged Part 3(1)(c) of the Laws, the CJI referred to a scenario wherein a scholar from one a part of the nation faces harassment in one other on regional traces and requested whether or not that is addressed within the Laws.
The petitioners identified that Clause (e), which outlined what constitutes discrimination, addressed this, prompting the bench to ask what, then, was the necessity for Clause (c).
Justice Bagchi stated, “We’re trying into the evolution of the Laws to create a free and equitable ambiance in universities… Once we see this, we see no purpose when Part 3(1)(e) continues to subsist because it did within the 2012 Laws, how does 3(1)(c) change into related? Is it a redundancy? How do you interpret it?… We fail to grasp when 3(1)(c) is already ingrained in 3(1)(e), why it was culled out as a separate definition clause?”
Story continues beneath this advert
CJI Kant additionally identified that there could also be situations of dominant college students inside a caste harassing others throughout the identical caste, and sought to know the way the Laws tackle it. The petitioners stated this has not been lined within the Laws. “The Laws are, we’re sorry to say, prima facie, the language there’s fully imprecise, the provisions are able to misuse,” stated the CPI.
Justice Bagchi stated, “The constitutional query is… Article 15(4) empowers the state to make particular legal guidelines for the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes. If the 2012 Laws spoke of a extra widespread and all-inclusive discrimination, together with discrimination within the nature of ragging, why ought to there be a regression in a protecting or ameliorative laws? The precept of no-regression has advanced primarily in environmental regulation. It additionally pervades in legal guidelines that are protecting of social justice and equality.”
The CJI stated, “This type of scenario might be exploited by the mischievous parts within the society”.
‘Are we entering into a regressive coverage?’
Searching for a reply from the Centre, the bench additionally advised Solicitor Common Tushar Mehta that the federal government should represent a committee comprising eminent jurists to deal with the difficulty. The CJI stated, “The courtroom needs to be taken into confidence, and we should approve the structure of the committee.”
Story continues beneath this advert
“We can’t have the college, colleges, and faculties in isolation. They’re a element of society. How ought to your entire society develop? Wherein path ought to we go? How will folks behave outdoors the campus if we create this type of atmosphere contained in the campus? We might not even be consultants on all these points, however those that perceive the societal points should apply their minds,” CJI Kant added.
Mehta stated that will probably be performed.
“In a rustic after 75 years, no matter now we have gained by way of growing a casteless society, are we entering into a regressive coverage?” CJI Kant requested, and in addition flagged the purpose in regards to the Laws talking of separate hostels.
“One other provision which I’m discovering is a sign among the many measures you take, you’re talking of separate hostels. For God’s sake, don’t try this. We have now lived in hostels. Each neighborhood has college students dwelling collectively. We have now developed inter-caste marriages additionally. We should always transfer ahead to develop a casteless society,” stated the CJI.
© The Indian Categorical Pvt Ltd
, the regulatory body for higher education in the country, had notified the regulations to deal with discrimination, including based on caste, in higher education institutions.){kind=link}