'UGC regulation under reconsideration', govt tells SC on controversial equity rules

The 2026 regulations had already been kept in abeyance by the Supreme Court on January 29.

NEW DELHI: The Centre on Thursday informed the Supreme Court that the 2026 University Grants Commission (UGC) equity regulations, which seek to address caste-based discrimination in higher education institutions, are currently being reconsidered.The development came during a hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The court was hearing several petitions challenging the validity of the regulations.”This is the UGC regulation matter. It is under reconsideration,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench.The Supreme Court subsequently directed the UGC to submit a comprehensive counter affidavit within four weeks. The petitioners will have two weeks after that to file their rejoinders, if any.

The 2026 regulations had already been kept in abeyance by the top court on January 29. At the time, the court said the provisions were “prima facie vague” and could have “very sweeping consequences”, warning that they could potentially divide society and have a “dangerous impact”.The court had also asked the Centre and the UGC to respond to three petitions challenging the new framework.”In exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, we further direct that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012, will continue to operate and remain in force till further orders,” it had said.The regulations had faced opposition in several places, with student groups and other organisations calling for their immediate withdrawal.

While examining the regulations, the Supreme Court raised questions about how some of their provisions were framed.One concern related to Regulation 3(1)(c), which separately defines “caste-based discrimination”. The court questioned why a separate definition was necessary when Regulation 3(1)(e) already contains a broader definition of “discrimination”.

The bench also questioned the exclusion of ragging from the regulations, noting that it remains a common form of harassment in educational institutions.The court had further observed that the wording of the 2026 regulations appeared “prima facie vague” and “capable of misuse”.Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing one of the petitioners, had challenged Regulation 3(1)(c). The provision defines caste-based discrimination as discrimination “only on the basis of caste or tribe” against members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.