The Supreme Court declined to entertain a fresh plea challenging Section 5(7) of the UGC Regulations, where the petitioner alleged discrimination in committee representation. The CJI made it clear that the Court has already passed its order and will not allow further modifications.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a fresh plea challenging certain provisions of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations. The matter was mentioned before the Bench, where the petitioner’s counsel clarified that the issue raised in this case is limited and different from other petitions already considered by the Court.
The petition arises in the backdrop of recent UGC Regulations framed under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. These regulations lay down the framework for governance, academic standards, appointments, and constitution of committees in higher educational institutions across India.
Over the past few months, multiple petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court challenging different provisions of these Regulations, particularly questioning their constitutional validity and alleged inconsistencies with principles of equality and fair representation.
Some earlier petitions had challenged Section 3C of the Regulations, arguing that certain structural changes and policy measures introduced by the UGC were arbitrary or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had already passed orders in those matters, and the regulatory framework had been examined in that context.
Against this background, the present petition filed by Ishika Pandey specifically targets Section 5(7) of the UGC Regulations. According to the petitioner, Section 5(7) provides for the constitution of a decision-making committee but allegedly excludes representation from the general category.
The plea contends that such exclusion creates an imbalance in representation and amounts to discrimination, thereby violating the equality principles enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
When the matter was mentioned before the Court, the petitioner’s counsel emphasised that the challenge in this case is narrowly confined and distinct from the issues raised in previous petitions. The counsel submitted,
“My case is distinct. Others challenge Section 3C; I specifically challenge Section 5. Section 5(7) creates a decision-making committee with no representation from the general category, which itself evidences discrimination. That is the limited issue I press before Your Lordships.”
The argument sought to persuade the Bench that this was not an attempt to reopen the broader controversy surrounding the UGC Regulations but rather a focused constitutional challenge to a specific provision dealing with committee composition.
However, the Chief Justice of India responded by pointing out that the Court had already passed orders in relation to the Regulations and was not inclined to entertain further modifications. The CJI observed,
“we already passed the order no more modifications.”
With this observation, the Bench indicated that it was not willing to revisit or alter its earlier directions concerning the UGC Regulations. The exchange reflects the Court’s position that once a regulatory framework has been examined and orders have been issued, piecemeal challenges seeking further changes may not be entertained unless there are compelling grounds.
Also Read: Supreme Court: “UGC Must Be Given Teeth to Punish Caste Discrimination in Colleges”
The case highlights the continuing judicial scrutiny of regulatory reforms in the higher education sector and raises broader constitutional questions regarding representation, inclusivity, and equality in statutory decision-making bodies.
Whether the petitioner will seek further clarification or pursue alternative remedies remains to be seen, but for now, the Supreme Court has made it clear that no additional modifications to its earlier order will be permitted.
Case Title:
ISHIKA PANDEY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 192/2026
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read More Reports on UGC Regulation
