LawLoveLegal

Introduction The Supreme Court’s decision to list for hearing a plea challenging the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 has reopened a critical debate on how caste-based discrimination is defined, addressed, and remedied in Indian higher education institutions (HEIs). The challenge, filed in Rahul Dewan and Ors. v. Union of India , raises fundamental constitutional questions: Can anti-discrimination regulations selectively protect certain caste groups while excluding others? And can regulatory dilution be justified in the name of administrative flexibility? Background of the Supreme Court Proceedings While agreeing to list the matter, the Chief Justice of India observed that defects in the petition must be cured before formal listing. The petitioner’s core grievance is that the 2026 Regulations create a narrow and exclusionary framework for caste-based discrimination by limiting its scope primarily to Scheduled Cast...

Introduction The Supreme Court of India has strongly reaffirmed the finality and binding nature of Constitution Bench judgments , rejecting a writ petition that sought to reopen the settled issue of minority educational institutions’ exemption from the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) . In a stern order, the Court not only dismissed the plea but also imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner NGO , calling the petition a “gross abuse” of judicial process and a threat to the institutional integrity of the judiciary. Background of the Petition Petitioner and Relief Sought The petition was filed by an NGO, United Voice for Education Forum , invoking Article 32 of the Constitution , seeking: A declaration that the exemption granted to minority educational institutions from the RTE Act is unconstitutional Inclusion of minority schools— aided and unaided —within the ambit of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act , which mandates 25% reservation at entry leve...