UGC’s 2026 Equity Plan Stalled: SC Flags Ambiguity, Abuse Risks
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
Delhi, 29, January, 2026- In a significant judicial intervention, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday ordered the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, to be kept in abeyance, flagging them as prima facie vague and perilously susceptible to misuse.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing three writ petitions assailing the constitutional validity of the impugned regulations, issued notice to the Union of India and the UGC, with the matter returnable on March 19.
Pending adjudication, the 2012 UGC Regulations shall continue to govern, ensuring continuity in higher education equity measures.
The petitions, instituted by advocates Mritunjay Tiwari, Vineet Jindal, Rahul Dewan, and Dr. Vinod Kumar Tiwari, spotlighted glaring infirmities in the 2026 framework.
“The definition of “discrimination” is framed in expansive, subjective and indeterminate terms,
rendering it vulnerable to inconsistent interpretation and arbitrary application, thereby violating the doctrine of legal certainty.
ii. The Regulations vest wide, unguided and unstructured powers in institutional Equity Committees without prescribing a uniform procedural code, standards proof, burden of evidence, or safeguards against misuse.
iii. Most alarmingly, the Impugned Regulations consciously discard the safeguard against false, frivolous malicious complaints, a protection that formed an integral part of the UGC’s 2012 regulatory framework. Or the combined effect of these features is a regulatory regime in which reputation, academic standing and professional futures may be irreversibly damaged without a fair, transparent and reliable adjudicatory process. The Regulations thus invert constitutional morality by
institutionalising suspicion without procedural balance, thereby undermining the presumption of innocence-an inseparable facet of Natural Justice and Article 21. This framework produces a demonstrable chilling effect on academic expression, research, pedagogy a debate, striking at the heart of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution”
During the hearing, the bench voiced profound reservations, underscoring the regulations’ opacity and potential for arbitrary application. “Why is caste-based discrimination separately defined when the broader definition of ‘discrimination’ under Regulation 3(e) ostensibly encompasses all discriminatory practices?” CJI Kant queried, probing the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
“Mr. SG we would like to have your response. Today we do not want to pass any order…. some committee should be there with eminent jurist have 2-3 persons who understand social values and ailments society is facing. How entire society should grow …. How people are going to behave outside campus if we create this… they must apply their mind” CJI said.
The CJI further highlighted the inexplicable omission of ragging—a pervasive campus menace—from the regulatory ambit, questioning its exclusion when general category freshers face such victimization at the hands of scheduled caste seniors, leaving them remediless.
“When a student of south India, suppose he gets admission in an institution of north India, or vice versa, and some kind of sarcastic, insulting or humiliating comments are made against such student, and the caste identity of the victim and the attackers are not known, will this provision (Regulation 3(e)) address the issue. “CJI Surya Kant Asked. Jain answered in affirmative.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing one petitioner, dissected Regulation 3(1)(c), arguing it narrowly targets discrimination against Scheduled Castes and Tribes on caste or tribe grounds, conspicuously sidelining reverse discrimination against general category students.
CJI Kant interjected, noting that economically affluent individuals within Scheduled Castes complicate the equity narrative, urging a nuanced revisit.
“Why the regulations do not address ragging and why it is assumed that caste-based discrimination exists? There are divisions based on Junior-Senior everywhere and most harassment happens on those lines”
The bench mandated that the regulations be re-examined by a high-powered committee of eminent jurists to iron out these ambiguities and fortify constitutional safeguards under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
“One point is Article 15 (4) empowers the state to make special laws for SCs’ STs, but if 2012 regulations spoke of a more widespread. All-inclusive policy…. Why should there be a resignation in a protective, ameliorative framework? Principle ono-regression also pervades” Justice Bagchi said.
This stay underscores the Apex Court’s vigilant role as custodian of equity, balancing affirmative action against the perils of overreach in India’s stratified higher education landscape.
