New Delhi: The Union government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it is considering setting up a special committee to re-examine the University Grants Commission's 2026 regulations on promoting equity in higher educational institutions, which were stayed by the court earlier this year after they triggered widespread protests.
The submission came during a hearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and marks the latest turn in a controversy that has divided opinion across campuses and political parties.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the bench that the government was examining the criticism of the regulations and was contemplating appointing a committee to take a fresh look at them. The bench, which also comprised Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, had asked the government to consider revisiting the provisions. "Why don't you revisit the UGC Regulations?" the court asked, as it heard a batch of petitions challenging the rules.
The regulations at the centre of the dispute are the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, notified on January 13 this year. They were brought in to strengthen safeguards against discrimination in universities and colleges, and to replace the 2012 framework that had governed the subject until then.
The rules require higher educational institutions to set up Equal Opportunity Centres and Equity Committees, appoint nodal officers, and put in place systems to receive and redress complaints of discrimination based on caste, gender, disability and economic background.
The regulations snowballed into a political issue soon after they were notified, drawing objections from both general category groups and sections of Dalit and Other Backward Classes communities. At the heart of the row is Regulation 3(1)(c), which defines caste-based discrimination as discrimination on the basis of caste or tribe against members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.
Critics from general category groups argued that the definition left them outside the grievance redressal mechanism, and that students from unreserved categories who faced discrimination would have no remedy under the rules. Others questioned whether the definition was drawn too narrowly or too broadly, and whether it could be misused.
The Supreme Court stayed the regulations on January 29, observing that some provisions appeared prima facie vague and capable of misuse. The court described the rules as "too sweeping" and directed that the 2012 regulations would continue to operate and remain in force until further orders.
It also issued notice to the government and the University Grants Commission on separate petitions challenging Regulation 3(c), and framed a set of questions for consideration, including the scope of the definition and the fairness of the grievance mechanism.
The regulations have their roots in a 2019 petition filed in the Supreme Court by the mothers of Payal Tadvi and Rohith Vemula, two students who died by suicide over alleged caste-based discrimination, in 2019 and 2016 respectively. Their plea sought stronger institutional safeguards against discrimination on campuses, and it was in response to that long-running case that the UGC framed the 2026 regulations.
The tragedy behind the rules has meant that every debate about them carries an emotional charge, with the need to protect vulnerable students set against concerns about fairness and due process for all.
On Thursday, the Solicitor General told the court that the government was committed to equity but was also mindful of the concerns raised. He said the Centre wanted to ensure that no section of students felt excluded, threatened or apprehensive under the regulatory framework, and that the interests of the younger generation were being kept in mind.
A special committee, he indicated, would re-examine the regulations clause by clause and consult all stakeholders, including student bodies, teachers' associations, vice-chancellors and state governments.
The court took note of the assurance and said it would wait for the committee's report. It said the committee should ensure that the regulations are clear, fair and workable, and that the larger goal of eliminating discrimination in higher education must not be lost sight of. The bench then adjourned the batch of petitions for four weeks, to be taken up again after the committee submits its report.
The government's submission, however, falls short of announcing either a rollback of the regulations or a firm decision to constitute the proposed committee. This is not the first time the Centre has said the rules are under reconsideration. On August 20, it had already informed the Supreme Court that the regulations were being re-examined.
Nearly two-and-a-half months later, the government has yet to announce what changes, if any, it intends to make, and the committee itself remains only a contemplation rather than a constituted body.
That gap between assurance and action has not gone unnoticed. The controversy has grown through the year, with protests by upper caste students and growing political pressure ahead of Assembly elections in several states. Student groups have held demonstrations on campuses, and political parties have taken positions that reflect the sensitivities of their support bases.
For the government, the challenge is to frame rules that genuinely protect students from discrimination while also being seen as fair to every section, a balance that the current text, in the court's prima facie view, does not strike.
The legal questions before the court go to the heart of how anti-discrimination rules should be written. A definition of caste-based discrimination that names only certain communities raises questions about equal treatment, while a definition that names none risks losing the specific focus on the groups that have historically faced exclusion. The grievance mechanism raises similar questions: who can complain, who decides, and what safeguards exist against false complaints.
The court's intervention in January signalled that these are not matters to be settled by assertion, but by careful drafting and, where needed, by hearing all sides.
The proposed committee, if it is set up, will have a difficult task. It will need to reconcile the demand for strong, specific protections for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes students with the demand that no student should be left without a remedy.
It will need to define discrimination in terms that courts can apply consistently, and to design institutions — Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees, nodal officers — that work in the very different settings of a large central university and a small affiliated college. And it will need to do all this while the 2012 regulations remain in force as an interim arrangement, and while the Supreme Court watches the process.
For students and teachers, the adjournment means another month of uncertainty. The 2026 regulations remain stayed, the 2012 framework continues to apply, and the shape of the final rules is unknown. What is clear is that the court expects the government to return with a considered response, and that the committee's report, when it comes, will be examined closely.
The larger goal, as the court put it, is the elimination of discrimination in higher education, and the test of any new framework will be whether it protects the vulnerable without leaving anyone feeling excluded from its safeguards.
(Reporting based on The Hindu and The Indian Express.)