New Delhi, Jan. 30 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the operation of the University Grants Commission's (UGC) 2026 equity regulations, observing that the new framework was capable of dividing society and could have "dangerous impacts" if exploited by mischievous elements. The court directed that UGC's 2012 anti-discrimination regulations will continue to operate for the time being so that complainants are not left remediless. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi also issued notice to the Union government and UGC, seeking their responses to three petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. The matters were listed for further hearing on March 19. The bench said that "unity of India must be reflected in the institutions of India", and cautioned that the regulations were capable of being misused and could lead to regressive outcomes. "These regulations will have serious consequences. They are capable of dividing society and will lead to dangerous impacts," the bench observed. It described the regulations as "vague and omnibus", observing that several provisions were capable of misuse and required expert reconsideration. "We wanted to create a free, fair, equitable and inclusive atmosphere in universities. But when we look at these provisions, there are four or five serious issues," said the court, adding that many pertinent aspects, including ragging, were overlooked. Union minister of state for education Sukanta Majumder reiterated an assurance made by Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan two days ago that no student will be discriminated against. Issued on January 13, UGC's equity regulations mandate the setting up of equal opportunity centres and equity committees in universities, colleges and deemed institutions to address complaints of discrimination and promote inclusion. The framework traces its origins to an August 2019 petition before the Supreme Court that sought stronger anti-discrimination safeguards in higher education. The regulations were welcomed by marginalised student groups, but drew opposition from several upper-caste organisations and students, who contended that the provisions were vaguely worded and susceptible to misuse. Three petitions were filed in the top court by activist and entrepreneur Rahul Dewan, post-doctoral researcher Mrityunjay Tiwari, and advocate Vineet Jindal, all of whom challenged Regulation 3(c) of the 2026 framework, which defined "caste-based discrimination" as discrimination "only on the basis of caste or tribe" against members of the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Appearing for Dewan, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain argued that Regulation 3(c) completely excluded members of the general category from the scope of protection, despite the regulations otherwise defining "discrimination" and "stakeholders" in broader terms. He submitted that once discrimination is defined inclusively under Regulation 3(e), there was no reasonable nexus or intelligible differentia justifying a separate and narrower definition of caste-based discrimination. "This definition is hit by Article 14 (equality). It cannot be assumed that discrimination is only against one segment," Jain submitted, seeking a stay on the operation of Regulation 3(c). The bench clarified that it was examining the issue "at the threshold of constitutionality", but repeatedly flagged concerns about exclusion and misuse. Positing a hypothetical, the court asked how the regulations would address situations where students from different regions face humiliating remarks unrelated to caste. "What if a student from the south studies in the north, or a student from the north studies in the south, and sarcastic, humiliating remarks are made without anyone knowing the caste of the parties?" the bench asked. Jain responded that such situations would fall within the broader definition of discrimination under Regulation 3(e), reinforcing the argument that Regulation 3(c) was unnecessary and exclusionary. Advocate Neeraj Singh, appearing for Tiwari, highlighted the potential for reverse victimisation under the new framework. He gave the example of a senior belonging to a scheduled caste community ragging a junior from the general category. "The moment the junior complains, he will face a counter-complaint under the new regulations," Singh submitted, adding that the junior could also be exposed to proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. When the bench asked whether ragging was separately addressed under the regulations, Singh pointed out that it was not specifically defined, narrowing the scope of protection available to victims. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union government as the bench voiced broader constitutional and societal concerns. Reflecting on India's constitutional journey, the court questioned whether the regulations marked a step backwards. "Whatever we have developed in the last 75 years towards a casteless society, are we now moving towards a regressive society?" asked the bench, noting that ragging and harassment often target students from the north-east or other regions because of their appearance, culture or language rather than caste alone. The bench also expressed strong reservations about proposals such as segregated hostels or wards. "For God's sake, please don't do that. Casteless society is what we strive for," said the court, while acknowledging the need for meaningful protection for students from marginalised sections. While recognising that Article 15(4) empowers the State to make special provisions for SCs and STs, the bench stressed that progressive legislation should not regress from existing safeguards. Referring to the UGC's 2012 framework, the court asked why a policy meant to be progressive had narrowed protections. "If the 2012 framework talked about an all-inclusive definition, why should there be regression?" asked the bench, adding that the principle of non-regression also applies to laws aimed at social justice....