UGC equity rules under review after Supreme Court calls them ‘vague’

The Centre has told the Supreme Court that it is reconsidering the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) 2026 regulations aimed at promoting equity in higher educational institutions. The move comes months after the top court kept the rules in abeyance, describing them as “vague” and warning that they could be misused.

The submission was made on Thursday before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant while hearing petitions both challenging and supporting the regulations.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the court, “The 2026 Regulations are being reconsidered. Till this exercise is complete, the court may defer hearing on these petitions.”

The bench gave the Centre and UGC four weeks to file a composite affidavit responding to the concerns raised in the petitions. Petitioners will get another two weeks to respond, after which the matter will be heard six weeks later.

“Since the regulations are under consideration before this court, it will be appropriate that a decision is taken by the Centre before the next date of hearing,” the bench said.

Supreme Court had stayed rules in January

The Supreme Court had on January 29 stayed the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, shortly after they were notified on January 13.

The court had described the framework as “prima facie vague” and capable of “misuse”, while raising concerns about the scope of some of its provisions.

The regulations had also faced opposition from some student groups, including general category students who argued that the provisions were unfair to them.

Petitions question definition of caste discrimination

Several petitions challenged the regulations’ definition of “caste-based discrimination”, arguing that it did not cover discrimination faced by general category students.

The petitions also questioned the lack of a mechanism to deal with false complaints involving members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.

The court had earlier questioned why a separate definition of “caste-based discrimination” was needed when another provision already contained a broader definition of “discrimination”. It also raised questions over the exclusion of ragging from the regulations.

“There are so many issues and cross issues,” the bench said while asking the Centre and UGC to address the concerns through a composite affidavit.

Rules followed petitions over campus discrimination

The regulations were framed after a 2019 petition filed by the parents of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, who died by suicide following alleged caste-based discrimination.

The petitioners had argued that the UGC's 2012 Equity Regulations had not been implemented effectively.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing the parents, supported the 2026 regulations even as her locus was challenged by petitioners opposing them.

The UGC has said the regulations seek to promote equity, inclusion and non-discrimination in higher educational institutions in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.