The Center told the Supreme Court that it may set up a commission to review the fairness of the UGC in campus regulations
The UGC announced the 2026 regulations in January after consultations, replacing the 2012 framework. File. | Photo credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
The Union government is “considering” a special committee to review the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Institutions) Regulations, 2026, it said in a Supreme Court filing on Thursday (November 5, 2026).
The regulations were meant to combat discrimination on educational campuses, but sparked protests from upper-caste students who claimed the rules were one-sided.
In a brief hearing before a panel headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, the government’s Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked for more time to come back with a comprehensive reply, but added that the Center was looking into criticisms of the 2026 order.
“The government is considering a special committee to review the UGC regulations,” said Mr. Mehta.
‘Too Sweeping’
In January 2026, the Supreme Court struck down the regulation, finding it “overbroad” and vague. He ordered that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012 remain in force.
The court further issued notices to the government and the University Grants Commission (UGC) on separate petitions challenging Regulation 3(c) of the 2026 order. These petitions argued that the provision defined “caste-based discrimination” narrowly and limited its scope only to prejudice against members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.
Caste discrimination in academia
The 2026 orders were prompted by a petition filed jointly by mothers Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi in the Supreme Court against “rampant” caste discrimination in higher education institutions. Vemula, a PhD student at Hyderabad Central University, and Tadvi, a tribal student of TN Topiwala National Medical College, committed suicide in January 2016 and May 2019, respectively, after being subjected to caste bias.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising and advocate Prasanna S., appearing for both mothers, challenged the court’s January stay order. They argued that keeping the regulations dormant was akin to “labeling a fully disabled person disabled.”
They said the 2026 Ordinance addresses the real issue of discrimination against Dalit and historically oppressed caste students in higher education institutions.
Published – 05 Nov 2026 19:35 IST