Amid protests from upper caste groups who alleged discrimination against them and pushback from within the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), including resignations of its office bearers, the Supreme Court on Thursday (January 29) stayed the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. The regulations were notified on January 13, after a petition was filed in the apex court by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, calling for an end to caste-based discrimination on campuses.The court has now stayed the new regulations, saying they were vague and capable of misuse, and called for the 2012 regulations to stay in place. In an interview with The Wire, former University Grants Commission (UGC) chairman Sukhadeo Thorat said that the objections to the latest regulations were “prejudicial”.While questions have been raised whether the 2026 regulations were stringent enough, according to Thorat, the regulations had instead watered down the 2012 regulations and suffered from limitations, including leaving discrimination to be defined to equity committees, and covering a limited number of institutions.Further, while the provisions included creating an Equity Committee, headed by the institution’s head and including ten members, with half from the reserved categories (Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Classes, Persons with Disabilities and women) who would meet within 24 hours of a complaint, submit findings in 15 days and initiate action in seven more days, Thorat said this would create a conflict of interest.Read the interview below:The Supreme Court has stayed the 2026 regulations. You have said that these regulations watered down the 2012 regulations. What were the aspects that were watered down?The 2012 regulations listed the forms of discrimination and were uniformly applied to all educational institutions, just like the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The 2026 regulations left discrimination to be defined to equity committees, which would create confusion, as each education institution would make the list as per their understanding.The 2012 regulations were applied uniformly across institutions. The 2026 regulations mentioned higher educational institutions and referred to Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 which includes universities and colleges under its jurisdiction. However, there is no clarity whether it includes the Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management that are not under UGC and are institutes of national importance, or law universities under the bar council or agricultural institutions under the ICAR [Indian Council of Agricultural Research] or medical institutions under the Indian Council of Medical Research.It [the 2026 regulations], therefore, covered a limited number of institutions. But discrimination does not only [occur] in universities and colleges under the UGC – it takes place everywhere.Further, the Equity Committee was to be headed by the head of the institution, which would create a conflict of interest.What explained the objections to the 2026 regulations by upper caste groups, as seen in the recent protests?The objections to the regulations are not based on realistic provisions [in them]; they are political, extra-regulatory, ideological and not related to the regulations. These regulations also covered individuals, which meant that a higher caste person could also seek redressal.The regulations only said that Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and women must be mandatorily represented [on equity committees]. That does not mean that general castes will not be a part of it. Even if one looks at the heads of universities, the majority of the heads of central universities are upper castes, who would head these committees. The objections were prejudicial.Note: An error in the spelling of Sukhadeo Thorat’s name has been corrected since publication.