The Supreme Court will on Thursday hear three petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, after one of the pleas was urgently mentioned before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Wednesday.
The development came after advocate Parth Yadav mentioned the petition on behalf of activist and entrepreneur Rahul Dewan before the CJI on Wednesday morning. Yadav urged the court to take up the matter urgently, submitting that the operation of the regulations would lead to discrimination and that the issue required immediate judicial scrutiny.
Responding to the request, CJI Kant agreed to consider assigning an early date of hearing and asked counsel to remove all defects in the petition so that the matter could be listed.
Dewan’s petition is among at least three challenges that have reached the Supreme Court against the 2026 regulations, which were notified by UGC on January 13, replacing its 2012 framework. One of the earlier petitions has been filed by Mrityunjay Tiwari, a post-doctoral researcher at Banaras Hindu University. The second one was filed by advocate Vineet Jindal on Tuesday morning.
The court proceedings unfolded against the backdrop of a wider national debate over UGC’s newly notified equity regulations, which mandate the establishment of equal opportunity centres and equity committees in universities, colleges and deemed institutions to address complaints of discrimination and promote inclusion. The regulations are an outcome of an August 2019 Supreme Court petition seeking stronger anti-discrimination safeguards.
{{/usCountry}}The court proceedings unfolded against the backdrop of a wider national debate over UGC’s newly notified equity regulations, which mandate the establishment of equal opportunity centres and equity committees in universities, colleges and deemed institutions to address complaints of discrimination and promote inclusion. The regulations are an outcome of an August 2019 Supreme Court petition seeking stronger anti-discrimination safeguards.
{{/usCountry}}While marginalised student groups have welcomed the framework, several upper-caste organisations and students have opposed it, alleging that the regulations are vague and could be misused.
Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan has sought to assuage concerns. “I want to humbly assure everyone that no one is going to face any harassment. There will be no discrimination and no one will have the right to misuse the regulation in the name of discrimination,” Pradhan said on Tuesday.
The petitions assail Regulation 3(c) of the 2026 rules, which defines “caste-based discrimination” as discrimination “only on the basis of caste or tribe” against members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. The pleas argue that the definition proceeds on an untenable presumption that caste-based discrimination is unidirectional, excludes students from the general category from the scope of protection, and creates a presumption of guilt without adequate safeguards.
Jindal’s petition contends that the provision is discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights, and also ultra vires the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. It seeks a declaration striking down Regulation 3(c) as unconstitutional, or in the alternative, a direction to read down the provision and adopt a caste-neutral and inclusive definition of discrimination. An interim restraint on the enforcement of the provision has also been sought.
In his petition, Tiwari has argued that, “by design and operation”, the regulations accord “legal recognition of victimhood” only to certain reserved categories, while excluding general or upper caste students from the scope of protection and grievance redressal.
As reported by HT on Wednesday, government officials, however, have ruled out any rollback of the regulations, maintaining that the equity framework is designed to protect all stakeholders on educational campuses.