UGC Equity Regulations 2026 Under Reconsideration, Centre Tells Supreme Court

New Delhi, August 20, 2026: The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, aimed at addressing caste-based discrimination in colleges and universities, are under reconsideration.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana about the development.

Visit biznow.biz for more information.

The court adjourned for four weeks a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the regulations and asked the UGC to file a comprehensive counter affidavit within that period. The petitioners may file their rejoinders, if any, within two weeks thereafter, Live Law reports.

Why The Regulations Are Back Under Scrutiny

"This is the UGC regulation matter. It is under reconsideration," Mehta told the bench. He requested the court to defer the formulation of questions to be determined until the reconsideration process was over.

The development puts the contentious regulations back in focus months after the Supreme Court halted their operation. On January 29, the court kept the 2026 regulations in abeyance after observing that the framework appeared "prima facie vague", could have "very sweeping consequences" and was "capable of misuse". The court had also warned that it could end up dividing society with a "dangerous impact".

The court had sought responses from the Centre and the UGC on three petitions challenging the regulations. Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, it directed that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012, would remain in force until further orders.

Mothers Of Vemula, Tadvi Seek Timeline

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, assisted by advocate Disha Wadekar, appeared for Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, mothers of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi, respectively. She sought a timeline for the Union Government to take a decision on the regulations.

Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi died by suicide after facing caste discrimination. Their mothers had approached the Supreme Court through a public interest litigation (PIL) in 2019, seeking a mechanism to end caste-based discrimination on campuses.

During Thursday's proceedings, a counsel questioned the maintainability of their petition, arguing that although the matter was described as a PIL, the petitioners had a personal interest.

"These are mothers of two children who died. If they can't raise this issue, who can?" Jaising responded.

The other counsel submitted that the proceedings were affecting the trial and referred to claims of "murder". Jaising said the petitioners had never used the word "murder". She also pointed out that the petition was filed in 2019 and that it was in this case that the Supreme Court had earlier directed the UGC to frame regulations to deal with caste-based hostilities.

The bench said it was not considering arguments on Thursday and adjourned the hearing for four weeks.

How The 2026 Rules Came About

The UGC framed the latest regulations following the 2019 PIL by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi.

In early 2025, the Supreme Court told the Union Government that it was looking to create a "very strong and robust mechanism" to "really" tackle the issues. It also allowed the petitioners and other stakeholders to submit suggestions for inclusion in the UGC's draft regulations.

After considering suggestions from stakeholders, the UGC notified the regulations in January 2026, superseding the 2012 regulations. The new framework was formulated with the objective of promoting equity in higher education institutions.

The regulations, however, quickly became contentious. Student groups and organisations protested at various places and demanded their immediate rollback. Sections of non-reserved categories have sought the withdrawal of the regulations, while sections of reserved categories have opposed such a move.

‘Caste-Based Discrimination’ Definition Challenged

Petitions before the Supreme Court contend that the regulations discriminate against "general classes". Some petitioners have specifically challenged Regulation 3(1)(c), which defines caste-based discrimination as discrimination "only on the basis of caste or tribe" against members of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

The petitioners contend that the provision should instead be "caste-neutral". Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for one of the petitioners, had challenged the provision when the matter was heard in January.

The Supreme Court had also questioned why a separate definition of "caste-based discrimination" was necessary under Regulation 3(1)(c) when Regulation 3(1)(e) already contained a broader definition of "discrimination".

The court had further questioned why ragging was excluded from the regulations despite being a common form of harassment in educational institutions.

Also Watch:

Supreme Court Questions English As ‘Non-Native’, Asks CBSE To Revisit Three-Language Policy Rollout

The Centre's decision to reconsider the regulations now opens the door to possible changes in a framework that has generated competing concerns over how universities should tackle caste discrimination.

The challenge before policymakers remains significant: devising safeguards strong enough to address discrimination while ensuring that the rules are clear, fair and resistant to misuse.

What shape that balance eventually takes will depend on the Centre's reconsideration and the Supreme Court's subsequent examination of the regulations.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/

Read full story at source