Centre tells Supreme Court it may set up a panel to review UGC equity on campus regulations

The Union government told the Supreme Court that it was “contemplating” a special committee to relook the University Grants Commission’s 2026 equity regulations. The move came after criticism that the rules were one-sided and after the Court had stayed them in January. The regulations were designed to address discrimination on higher-education campuses.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made the submission for the government during a brief hearing before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s Bench. He asked for more time to return with a comprehensive response. He also said the Centre was examining criticism of the regulations.

The proposal does not itself change the legal position immediately. The 2026 regulations remain stayed, while the 2012 regulations continue in force. A special committee could allow the government to reconsider disputed provisions, including Regulation 3(c), before presenting its next response to the Court.

The University Grants Commission’s Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations are intended to address discrimination on educational campuses. Their core purpose is to promote fair treatment and protect students from caste-based prejudice within higher-education institutions. This matters because the article describes caste discrimination as a continuing campus problem.

The 2026 regulations became especially important after the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi jointly petitioned the Supreme Court against “rampant” caste discrimination in higher education. Their cases focused attention on students from Dalit and historically oppressed castes. The regulations were meant to create a formal framework for responding to such discrimination.

Their legal future remains uncertain. The Supreme Court stayed the 2026 regulations in January, calling them “too sweeping” and vague. The 2012 regulations therefore continue to operate. The Centre is considering a special committee, which could lead to a review of the 2026 rules and their disputed definitions.

The Supreme Court’s January stay meant that the 2026 UGC equity regulations could not operate while the legal challenges continued. The Court found them “too sweeping” and vague. This paused the newer framework and preserved the older rules instead. The decision matters because it temporarily halted the latest attempt to regulate discrimination in higher-education institutions.

The Court ordered that the University Grants Commission’s Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2012, would continue in force. It also issued notice to the government and the UGC on petitions challenging Regulation 3(c) of the 2026 regulations. That provision became a central point of dispute because of how it defined caste-based discrimination.

The current position is therefore a legal transition, not a final rejection of campus-equity rules. The 2012 regulations remain applicable, while the 2026 framework is stayed. The Centre is now considering a special committee and examining criticism before giving the Court a comprehensive response.

The Court and petitioners focused on Regulation 3(c) because of the way it defined “caste-based discrimination.” Separate petitions argued that the definition was too narrow. They said it limited the provision’s reach to prejudice shown against members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes.

This mattered because the 2026 regulations were presented as a response to caste discrimination across higher-education institutions. A narrow definition could leave some forms of caste-based prejudice outside the regulation’s protection. The Supreme Court therefore issued notice to the government and the UGC on the challenges to Regulation 3(c), while separately staying the 2026 regulations as too sweeping and vague.

The dispute remains unresolved in the article. The Centre is examining criticism of the 2026 rules and may create a special committee to review them. The provision’s future could therefore depend on the government’s response and any later reconsideration of the regulations.

Regulation 3(c) explicitly named three social categories when defining the caste-based discrimination it addressed. They were the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. The article presents these three categories as the groups included within the disputed definition.

The controversy was not about the number alone, but about the definition’s scope. Separate petitions argued that Regulation 3(c) limited caste-based discrimination to prejudice against members of those three categories. Petitioners said this narrow wording could fail to cover other forms or experiences of caste prejudice in higher-education institutions.

The Supreme Court issued notice to the government and the University Grants Commission on the challenges. It had already stayed the 2026 regulations in January, calling them “too sweeping” and vague. Until the dispute is addressed, the 2012 regulations remain in force. The Centre is considering a special committee to review the newer framework.

Rohith Vemula was a PhD scholar at Hyderabad Central University. Payal Tadvi was a tribal student at TN Topiwala National Medical College. The article says both died by suicide after being subjected to on-campus caste bias. Vemula died in January 2016, and Tadvi died in May 2019.

Their mothers later filed a joint petition in the Supreme Court against “rampant” caste discrimination in higher-education institutions. That petition became the stimulus for the 2026 equity regulations. It connected individual tragedies with a broader demand for stronger systems to prevent and address caste discrimination on campuses.

The regulations were intended to respond to discrimination against Dalit and historically oppressed castes. However, the Supreme Court stayed them, finding them too sweeping and vague. The mothers’ lawyers opposed that stay, arguing that keeping the rules suspended ignored the real problem. The Centre is now considering a review committee.

The article names Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes but does not define them. In standard Indian usage, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are officially recognized communities listed under constitutional schedules, while Other Backward Classes refers to socially and educationally backward communities identified through government processes. These labels are used in public policy.

Indian public institutions have protective policies because these communities have experienced longstanding social exclusion, discrimination, and unequal access to education and public opportunities. Such measures can include reservations, anti-discrimination safeguards, and support schemes. Their broad purpose is to improve equal opportunity and representation, rather than treat historical inequalities as if they did not exist.

The article connects this policy context to Regulation 3(c). Petitioners said the provision focused only on prejudice against SCs, STs, and OBCs, making its definition too narrow. The Court stayed the 2026 regulations, while the 2012 rules continue and the Centre considers a review.