Shivam Raghuwanshi and Navdeep Singh
The past few weeks have witnessed an intense political climate, largely fuelled by the contentious UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, which have sparked nationwide uproar. These regulations have reignited the deeply entrenched caste debate, a persistent feature of India’s social discourse since the freedom struggle, and one that has profoundly shaped the republic’s constitutional and legal architecture.
Caste-based reservations have long been politicised, particularly after the implementation of the Mandal Commission Report under the V. P. Singh government. Since then, caste has remained a decisive axis of electoral mobilisation and public policy. Ironically, regulations introduced in the name of equity within higher education institutions have instead intensified polarisation, sharpening existing social fault lines.
The controversy unfolded at a moment of symbolic significance. The world lost the eminent sociologist André Béteille, whose scholarship on caste remains foundational to understanding India’s layered inequalities. The debate surrounding the regulations thus acquired not merely a legal dimension but a sociological one.
Among the most contentious provisions was Regulation 3(c), which narrowly defined caste-based discrimination as acts directed against members of the SC, ST and OBC communities. Critics argued that such a formulation overlooked the multi-directional character of caste prejudice. By adopting a strictly unilateral lens, the regulation risked narrowing the conceptual understanding of discrimination rather than broadening it. In doing so, it raised an uncomfortable question: can equity be meaningfully pursued through definitions that appear exclusionary?
Article 14 and ‘General Category’ Question
Three petitions were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the impugned regulations. The petitioners contended, inter alia, that excluding the ‘general category’ community from the ambit of caste-based discrimination created no intelligible differentia and was therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that contemporary Indian society does not render students belonging to the ‘general category’ immune from caste-based discrimination. They placed before the Court instances of recent attacks and statements by certain political spokespersons, as well as incidents in which anti-Brahmin, anti-Thakur and anti-Baniya slogans were allegedly raised on university campuses.
Opposition to the regulations, however, was not confined to questions of drafting. Concerns were also anchored in the perceived misuse of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, reflected in low conviction rates and judicial observations in several cases. Particular reliance was placed on Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 454, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed procedural safeguards under the statute. For many petitioners, these precedents raised apprehensions that the new regulations could be vulnerable to politicised invocation within campus settings.
The constitutional challenge thus rested on a broader anxiety: whether an asymmetrical framework designed to correct historical injustice might, if inadequately calibrated, generate fresh claims of exclusion.
Caste, Mobility and Politics of Classification
Society is dynamic, shaped by education, economic mobility and shifts in political power. André Béteille, in his address at the XXII All India Sociological Conference in 1995, emphasised that caste in India has never been static. Its meaning and salience evolve in response to changing social and political contexts.
Political incentives have often reconfigured social identities. Communities that once asserted ‘Kshatriya’ status began, after the implementation of the Mandal Commission’s recommendations, to identify themselves as ‘backward’ in pursuit of affirmative benefits. Several communities earlier classified as martial by colonial administrators mobilised for reservation once Mandal-era politics reshaped the calculus of representation.
Indian anti-discrimination law has historically acknowledged structural asymmetry. In State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310, the Supreme Court recognised that equality sometimes requires differential treatment to remedy entrenched disadvantage. The philosophical premise of such jurisprudence rests on substantive equality rather than formal symmetry.
Yet a different complexity arises in the context of intra-category stratification. In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024 INSC 562), the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised disparities within the SC and ST classifications and permitted sub-categorisation. The judgment underscored that constitutional categories are not internally homogeneous.
The OBC classification presents an additional conceptual challenge. Unlike SC and ST lists, which are closely tied to caste identity, the OBC category incorporates multiple indicators of backwardness. Conflating these frameworks without confronting intra-group hierarchies risks doctrinal confusion.
The colonial experience further complicates the picture. Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, observed that honour constitutes a significant reward of professions. British administrative practice in India frequently categorised communities according to hereditary occupation, reinforcing hierarchies of perceived honour. Scholars such as Nicholas B. Dirks and Bernard Cohn have argued that colonial enumeration hardened fluid social distinctions into rigid caste categories.
With more than three thousand castes identified by the Mandal Commission, the reduction of Indian society into four broad classifications inevitably invites analytical strain. A jurisprudence attentive to distributive justice in the Rawlsian sense may offer a more refined normative compass for navigating this terrain.
Universities at the Centre of the Republic
Universities and colleges shape the intellectual and moral direction of the nation. They operate within a social environment marked not only by inherited inequalities but also by digital hyper-visibility, competitive pressures and political contestation.
Students already navigate academic stress and uncertain employment prospects. Regulatory mechanisms that embed intrusive oversight risk altering the character of campus life in unintended ways. At the same time, discrimination remains a lived reality for many and cannot be dismissed or minimised.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the impugned regulations, prima facie, may unsettle institutional balances carefully developed over decades. That caution invites reflection rather than polemic.
A sustainable framework must reconcile three imperatives: the eradication of discrimination, the preservation of academic freedom and the safeguarding of institutional autonomy. Policymaking in this domain should rest on empirical study, transparent consultation and carefully drafted safeguards. Oversight mechanisms must be clearly delimited, and grievance redressal processes must inspire confidence across communities.
Reform that strengthens student welfare, mental health support and equitable access to opportunity will carry greater legitimacy than measures perceived as surveillance-driven. The constitutional promise of equality cannot be reduced to categorical formulae. It demands sensitivity to history, clarity in drafting and vigilance against unintended consequences.
(Shivam Raghuwanshi is a practising advocate at the Supreme Court of India. Navdeep Singh is a law student at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi)
