General Category Students Get Interim Boost: MP High Court Challenges Exclusion from Discrimination Complaints

In a timely intervention echoing a recent Supreme Court stay, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore has directed student grievance redressal committees to accept discrimination complaints from all students, including those from the general category. This interim order in Amber Sharma vs. Union of India & Others (WP No. 5676 of 2026) comes amid scrutiny of a state circular accused of sidelining non-reserved category students.

Roots in Supreme Court Shadow: The Timeline Unfolds

The dispute traces back to the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 , which defined "caste-based discrimination" narrowly as targeting Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). On January 29, 2026, the Supreme Court in Mritunjay Tiwari vs. Union of India (W.P. Civil No. 101/2026) stayed these regulations, flagging ambiguities, potential misuse, and five key questions on their constitutionality—from nexus to equality under Articles 14 and 15 to omissions like "ragging."

Just three days later, on February 2, 2026, the Madhya Pradesh government issued a circular restricting discrimination complaints before Students Grievances Redressal Committees to SC/ST, OBC, women, minorities, and Persons with Disabilities (PWD)—explicitly excluding general category students. Petitioner Amber Sharma , represented by advocate Shri Harshwardhan Sharma, challenged this as discriminatory.

Petitioner's Fire: Discrimination Knows No Category

Amber Sharma argued the circular mirrors the stayed UGC regulations' flaws, presuming discrimination only affects reserved categories. It denies general category students access to grievance mechanisms, violating equality principles. Counsel highlighted the Supreme Court's prima facie concerns, including risks of "separate yet equal" arrangements in hostels and classrooms, and sought uniform treatment.

State's Silence, Union's Deferral: Reply Time Requested

Respondents— Union of India (through Ministry of Education, via Additional Solicitor General Dr. Ajnkya Dagaonkar) and the Madhya Pradesh government (via Government Advocate Shri Pradyumna Kibe)—accepted notice but sought four weeks to reply. No substantive arguments were advanced at this hearing.

Bench Draws from SC Playbook: Precedents and Principles

Justice Sumathi Jagadeesan , presiding, noted the identical issues pending before the Supreme Court, which framed probing questions on the regulations' rationality, protections for sub-classifications within reserved groups, and constitutional pitfalls like infringing fraternity in the Preamble. The circular's exclusionary clause was seen as perpetuating these issues post-SC stay, prompting interim action to maintain status quo.

As media reports note—such as headlines proclaiming "After SC Stay On UGC Equity Regulations, MP High Court To Examine Circular Excluding General Category Students From Discrimination Complaints" —this order underscores growing judicial unease with category-specific grievance silos.

Key Observations

"Petitioner has filed the subject petition impugning circular dated 02.02.2026 issued by State Government excluding general category students from entertaining the complaints of discrimination."

"The Supreme Court formed a prima-facie view that the regulations impugned before the Supreme Court suffered from certain ambiguities and possibility of misuse and accordingly framed the following five questions..."

"In the meantime, it is directed that the Students Grievances Redressal Committee shall entertain complaints of all categories of students including the general category, if received, on the ground of discrimination, in accordance with law."

A Holding Order with Ripple Effects

The court granted four weeks for replies (rejoinder in two weeks thereafter) and listed the matter after six weeks. Critically, the interim directive ensures no complaint is turned away based on category, promoting equal access to justice.

This could broaden grievance redressal in Madhya Pradesh's higher education institutions, potentially influencing similar state measures nationwide. Until the Supreme Court resolves the parent UGC challenge, general category students breathe easier—discrimination complaints now welcome across the board.