UGC Regulations 2026 Revisit Committee: Centre Informs Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court was informed that the central government is considering forming a committee to revisit the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2026.
• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta conveyed the government's intention to ensure student welfare and address concerns regarding the new regulations.
• The 2026 UGC Regulations are challenged on grounds of arbitrariness, vagueness, and an unconstitutional sub-delegation of legislative powers.
• Petitioners argue the regulations narrow the definition of caste-based discrimination and disadvantage general category students.
• The Supreme Court previously stayed the 2026 Regulations in *Mritunjay Tiwari v. Union of India*, citing ambiguities and potential for misuse, directing the 2012 Regulations to remain in force.

The Supreme Court was recently informed that the central government is actively considering the formation of a committee to re-evaluate the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026.

The Supreme Court was recently informed that the central government is actively considering the formation of a committee to re-evaluate the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. This development emerged during a hearing of multiple petitions challenging the new regulations before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

During the proceedings, CJI Kant directly questioned Solicitor General Tushar Mehta regarding a potential review of the University Grants Commission Regulations 2026. In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta indicated the government's commitment to ensuring the welfare of all students, stating that no individual should experience apprehension or dissatisfaction. He affirmed that the government is prioritizing the interests of the younger generation and is contemplating the appointment of a dedicated committee for this purpose. Following this submission, the Supreme Court bench opted to adjourn the batch of petitions.

This is not the first instance of the government signaling a reconsideration of these regulations. In August, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had previously informed a CJI Surya Kant-led bench that the regulations were under review, requesting a postponement of the hearing. At that time, the bench had instructed the respondents to submit a single comprehensive counter affidavit within a four-week period.

The 2026 UGC Regulations have faced significant legal scrutiny, with petitions before the Supreme Court asserting that they suffer from arbitrariness, vagueness, and an unconstitutional sub-delegation of legislative powers. Key points of contention include the specific definition of “caste-based discrimination” outlined in the regulations, the proposed structure and composition of Equity Committees, and provisions that grant universities the authority to formulate their own disciplinary rules.

Petitioners, including Mritunjay Tiwari, Advocate Vineet Jindal, and Rahul Dewan, argue that the new rules dilute existing protections against discrimination by narrowing the scope of what constitutes caste-based discrimination. They contend that the revised grievance redressal mechanisms could potentially exclude or disadvantage students from the general category. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing one of the petitioners, argued that the regulations are based on an erroneous assumption that discrimination is solely attributable to a specific societal segment, asserting that such a presumption cannot underpin a statute.

Advocate Vineet Jindal's petition specifically challenges the regulations for adopting an exclusionary and caste-specific definition of “caste-based discrimination.” His plea contends that by restricting protection to certain identified categories, the regulations effectively deny equal protection under the law to a substantial portion of citizens based solely on their caste. To illustrate the reality of caste-based hostility extending beyond reserved categories, the petition references incidents reported from Jawaharlal Nehru University in December 2022, where slogans such as “Brahmins Leave the Campus” and “There Will Be Blood” were found defacing the walls of the School of International Studies-II building.

The current deliberations by the government follow a significant decision by the Supreme Court in January 2026, which stayed the operation of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. This stay was issued in the case of *Mritunjay Tiwari v. Union of India*, where the Court observed that the 2026 Regulations, notified on January 13, contained certain ambiguities and presented a possibility of misuse.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued the order, noting that the new rules appeared vague and susceptible to improper application. Crucially, the Court directed that the earlier 2012 Regulations would continue to govern the field and remain in force until further orders are issued. This means that the UGC Regulations 2026 stayed status ensures that the previous framework for promoting equity in higher education remains active while the new regulations undergo review and potential revision.

Lawyers advising higher education institutions or students must note that the 2012 UGC Regulations remain in force, as the 2026 Regulations are stayed and under review by a government-contemplated committee. Monitor the committee's recommendations and subsequent Supreme Court orders for potential changes to equity and anti-discrimination compliance frameworks.

Source: Original reporting via LiveLaw