The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of multiple regulations framed by the University Grants Commission, including its 2026 Promotion of Equity rules and the 2023 and 2012 student grievance-related frameworks. These regulatory measures are now in dispute.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 (2026 Regulations), the UGC (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023 (2023 Regulations), and the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012 (2012 Regulations).
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice after hearing Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for the petitioners.
In January 2026, the Supreme Court in Mritunjay Tiwari v. Union of India had stayed the operation of the 2026 Regulations, noting that the new rules suffered from ambiguities and that misuse could not be ruled out.
While granting the stay, the Court directed that the 2012 Regulations would continue to operate and remain in force until further orders.
According to the petitioners, the 2012 Regulations should not be treated as an adequate substitute, arguing that it was the perceived inadequacies of the earlier framework that led to the formulation of the 2026 Regulations.
They submit that,
“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 petitioners argue that both the 2012 and 2026 Regulations suffer from constitutional defects, including vagueness, arbitrariness, and lack of procedural safeguards and anti-misuse protections, besides allegedly lacking sufficient empirical basis for their introduction.
The Supreme Court had previously stayed the operation of the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, notified on January 13, after observing that the new framework appeared vague and vulnerable to misuse.
The Court further directed that the 2012 Regulations would continue to govern the field until further orders.
Supreme Court Bench 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.
ALSO READ: UGC NET Exam Controversy: Delhi High Court Orders NTA To Probe History Paper Errors
The pleas further argue that the new rules restructure the grievance-redressal mechanism in a manner that allegedly excludes or disadvantages students from the general category.
When issuing notice in the petitions filed by Mritunjay Tiwari, Advocate Vineet Jindal, and Rahul Dewan, the CJI asked the 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 the erroneous assumption that discrimination can only be traced to a particular section of society.
He argued,
“A statute cannot operate on such a presumption,”
During the hearing, the CJI remarked that students coming from different regions carry distinct cultural practices, and that 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, caste-specific definition of “caste-based discrimination.”
The plea argues that by restricting protection to certain identified categories, the regulations deny equal protection of law to a significant section of citizens on the ground of caste.
To illustrate what it describes as the real-world experience of caste hostility beyond reserved groups, the petition cites incidents reported from Jawaharlal Nehru University in December 2022.
The plea claims that 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.”
It states that while the graffiti drew widespread condemnation from student bodies, including JNUSU, and faculty associations, the response of the institution was perceived as inadequate.
The UGC India’s statutory higher education regulator notified the 2026 Regulations on January 13, replacing the earlier 2012 anti-discrimination framework.
ALSO READ: UGC NET Exam Cancelled | What is the New ‘Anti-Paper Leak’ Law? And Punishments Under it?
A major driver for this update, the petitioners say, was a public interest litigation 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.
Early in the process, the Supreme Court had sought a strong and robust mechanism to address discrimination in higher educational institutions, inviting stakeholder suggestions on draft regulations that ultimately shaped the final text.
Following the notification, the 2026 Regulations triggered widespread debate and protests across multiple states.
Some student organisations and civil society groups supported stronger equity protections, while othersparticularly among members of the general category protested the rules as discriminatory and constitutionally questionable.
Multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Regulations were consequently filed before the Supreme Court.