Supreme Court Issues Notice In Plea Challenging UGC Regulations 2026, 2023 and 2012

The Supreme Court today issued notice in a petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain regulations of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 (‘2026 Regulations’), University Grants Commission (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023 (‘2023 Regulations) and University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012 (‘2012 Regulations’). 

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the plea after hearing Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for the petitioners. 

Recently, in January 2026 the Supreme Court in Mritunjay Tiwari v. Union of India had stayed the operation of the 2026 Regulations, observing that 2026 Regulations suffer from certain ambiguities and that the possibility of their misuse cannot be ruled out. While doing so, the Court directed that the 2012 Regulations, will continue to operate and remain in force till further orders.

As per the petitioners, the 2012 Regulations ought not to be treated as a substitute when, in fact, the inadequacies of the said Regulations led to the framing of the 2026 Regulations.

"Discrimination of any kind has no place in any space, more particularly in educational institutions. Therefore, there can be no quarrel to the enactment of Regulations whose purpose is to enforce this mandate. However, in doing so, care must be taken to ensure that the instrument enacted to enforce this mandate does not become a tool of harassment or further discrimination. Tested on this anvil, both the 2012 and the 2026 Regulations suffer from fatal constitutional infirmities, which defeat the very object they claim to advance. Vagueness, arbitrariness, absence of procedural safeguards and safeguards against misuse afflict both Regulations, in addition to absence of a critical mass of empirical data warranting their promulgation, the existence of these Regulations cannot be justified without a proper revision exercise," the plea argues.

Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, notified on January 13, observing that the new rules appear vague and capable of misuse. Court directed that the earlier 2012 regulations will continue to govern the field until further orders.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had passed the order in a batch of three petitions, which contend that the 2026 Regulations dilute existing safeguards against discrimination by narrowing the definition of caste-based discrimination. The pleas argue that the new rules restructure grievance redressal mechanisms in a manner that allegedly excludes or disadvantages students from the general category.

Issuing notice in the petitions filed by Mritunjay Tiwari, Advocate Vineet Jindal, and Rahul Dewan, the CJI asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to place the Union government’s response on record. Appearing for one of the petitioners, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain submitted that the regulations proceed on an erroneous assumption that discrimination can only be attributed to a particular section of society. “A statute cannot operate on such a presumption,” he had argued.

During the hearing, the CJI had remarked that students coming from different regions carry distinct cultural practices, and insensitive remarks by those unfamiliar with such backgrounds can generate friction. Cautioning against segregation, the CJI observed, “You are talking about separate hostels… please don’t do that.”

Advocate Vineet Jindal’s petition assails the new rules to the extent they adopt what is described as an exclusionary and caste-specific definition of “caste-based discrimination.” The plea argues that by limiting protection to certain identified categories, the regulations deny equal protection of law to a substantial section of citizens solely on the basis of caste.

To demonstrate what it describes as the lived reality of caste-based hostility beyond reserved categories, the petition cites incidents reported from Jawaharlal Nehru University in December 2022. According to the plea, walls of the School of International Studies-II building were defaced with slogans such as “Brahmins Leave the Campus,” “There Will Be Blood,” and “Brahmino Baniyas, we are coming for you.” While the graffiti were widely condemned by student bodies, including JNUSU, and faculty associations, the petition claims that institutional responses were perceived as inadequate.

How The UGC Regulations 2026 Emerged:

The University Grants Commission (UGC), which is India’s statutory higher education regulator, notified the Regulations 2026 on January 13, replacing the earlier 2012 anti-discrimination framework. A key catalyst for this reform was a public interest litigation originally filed in 2019 by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, students who died by suicide amid allegations of caste-based hostility at their respective universities. In its early procedural directions, the Supreme Court asked for a “strong and robust mechanism” to tackle discrimination at higher educational institutions, inviting stakeholder suggestions on draft regulations that eventually informed the final text.

Political and Social Response:

Immediately after notification, the 2026 Regulations sparked widespread debate and campus protests across several states. Some student organisations and civil society groups supported stronger equity protections, while others, particularly members of the general category, protested the rules as discriminatory or constitutionally questionable. Moreover, multiple petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Regulations.

Case Title: Santhosh Tamilarasan and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr. 

Bench: CJI Kant and Justice Bagchi

Hearing Date: May 8, 2026