Government Contemplating A Committee To Revisit UGC Regulations, 2026: Supreme Court Informed

The Supreme Court was informed today that the Centre is mooting to formulate a committee to revisit the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 (‘2026 UGC Regulations’).

As a CJI Surya Kant led bench today took up the batch of petitions challenging the UGC Regulations, the CJI asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, "Why don't you revisit the UGC Regulations?"

"The government has taken a decision that every student should be taken care of. Nobody should have any apprehension. Nobody should feel dissatisfied. We are also considering the interests of the younger generation. The government is contemplating appointing a committee," SG Mehta told the Court in response.

Accordingly, the bench adjourned the batch of petitions.

In August, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had told a CJI Surya Kant led bench, "The Regulations are under reconsideration..please have it after some time". The bench had then directed the respondents to file one comprehensive counter affidavit within 4 weeks.

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.

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.

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: ABEDA SALIM TADVI Vs UNION OF INDIA

Bench: CJI Kant and Justice Bagchi

Hearing Date: November 5, 2026