The University Grants Commission’s (UGC) newly notified regulations aimed at promoting equity in higher education have been challenged before the Supreme Court, with two separate petitions questioning their constitutional validity. The challenges come against the backdrop of growing political, academic, and student opposition to the framework, which was notified earlier this month.
Both petitions are expected to be mentioned before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant later this week for directions on listing and hearing.
Petitions Against New UGC Rules Before Supreme Court
The first writ petition has been filed by Mrityunjay Tiwari, a post-doctoral researcher at Banaras Hindu University in Uttar Pradesh. Tiwari has challenged the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, contending that the framework is constitutionally flawed.
A second petition was filed on Tuesday by advocate Vineet Jindal, specifically assailing the validity of Regulation 3(c) of the 2026 regulations.
The regulations, notified on January 13, 2026, replace the UGC’s earlier 2012 framework governing equity and non-discrimination in higher education institutions.
Also Read: India-EU Seal ‘Biggest FTA In History’, Says PM Modi, Calls Trade Deal With 27-Member Bloc Historic
Why Are The New UGC Rules Facing Legal Challenge?
At the heart of the legal challenge lies Regulation 3(c), which defines “caste-based discrimination” as discrimination “only on the basis of caste or tribe” against members of the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
The final notified version of the regulations also removed a provision that had appeared in a draft circulated in 2025, which proposed penalties in cases of false complaints.
Critics argue that the narrowed definition excludes students from the general category, creates a presumption of guilt against them, and fails to build safeguards against misuse of the grievance redressal mechanism.
What Are The 2026 UGC Rules?
The UGC, a statutory body under the Union Education Ministry, introduced the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, to establish a uniform framework for preventing, identifying, and addressing discrimination across universities and colleges nationwide.
The regulations apply to students, teachers, and non-teaching staff and extend into nearly every aspect of campus life, including admissions, hostels, classrooms, committees, and administrative spaces. The 2026 framework places the burden of compliance squarely on institutions and their leadership, marking a significant shift from earlier approaches.
Institutional Heads as First Responders Under New UGC Rules
Under the new UGC rules, heads of universities and colleges are no longer mere administrators. They are designated as the first line of accountability in preventing and responding to discrimination.
The regulations mandate the creation of new institutional structures, reporting mechanisms, and strictly defined timelines, with serious penalties prescribed for non-compliance.
The objective clause of the regulations seeks to eradicate discrimination “only” on specified grounds such as religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, and disability. The use of the word “only” confines the scope of the regulations to identity-based discrimination, explicitly excluding general grievances or academic disputes.
At the same time, the framework prioritises certain groups through a remedial lens, including:
Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs)
Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (EBCs)
Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
Persons with disabilities
While the regulations formally extend protection to all stakeholders, this prioritisation reflects a focus on historically disadvantaged communities.
How Discrimination and Equity Are Defined Under New UGC Rules
The definitions section of the new UGC rules forms one of the most consequential parts of the framework. “Discrimination” is defined broadly to include explicit, implicit, indirect, and structural forms of unfair treatment. The definition also covers actions that impair equality or violate human dignity, even in the absence of overt discriminatory intent.
“Caste-based discrimination” is defined as discrimination against members of SCs, STs, and OBCs.
“Equity” is defined as ensuring a level playing field for all stakeholders with respect to rights and opportunities.
2026 UGC Rules Mandate Equal Opportunity Centres
Every higher education institution is required to establish an Equal Opportunity Centre (EOC). The Centre is tasked with policy implementation, counselling, outreach, awareness-building, and grievance redressal.
Smaller colleges lacking sufficient faculty strength are permitted to rely on the EOC of their affiliating university, ensuring uniform applicability of the requirement. The EOC is also expected to coordinate with civil society organisations, local administration, police authorities, and legal services bodies, situating campus equity within a broader social and legal ecosystem.
Tiwari’s Argument Against 2026 UGC Rules
In his petition, Tiwari contends that the definition proceeds on what he terms an “untenable presumption” that caste-based discrimination operates only in one direction.
He argues that, “by design and operation,” the regulations grant “legal recognition of victimhood” exclusively to certain reserved categories while excluding general or upper-caste students from the ambit of protection and grievance redressal. According to the petition, this exclusion renders the framework inherently discriminatory and constitutionally suspect.
Jindal’s Plea Against New UGC Rules
Advocate Vineet Jindal’s petition challenges Regulation 3(c) as unconstitutional, arbitrary, and violative of multiple fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The plea argues that restricting the definition of caste-based discrimination solely to SC, ST, and OBC communities denies equal protection of the law and amounts to impermissible State discrimination. It further contends that the regulation is ultra vires the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
Zubair Amin is a Senior Journalist at NewsX with over seven years of experience in reporting and editorial work. He has written for leading national and international publications, including Foreign Policy Magazine, Al Jazeera, The Economic Times, The Indian Express, The Wire, Article 14, Mongabay, News9, among others. His primary focus is on international affairs, with a strong interest in US politics and policy. He also writes on West Asia, Indian polity, and constitutional issues. Zubair tweets at zubaiyr.amin
