Supreme Court Puts UGC’s New ‘Equity’ Rules on Hold, Directs Centre to Revise Them

During the hearing, the apex court observed that the language of the regulations was “vague” and said the rules must be reviewed by experts to prevent the possibility of “exploitation”. The court also remarked that the unity of India must be reflected across educational institutions.

The court ordered that the UGC Equity Regulations, 2026, shall remain in abeyance and clarified that the earlier UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, will continue to operate. Invoking Article 142, the court said this was necessary to ensure that the existing grievance redressal mechanism for marginalised groups is not dismantled. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order required to do “complete justice”.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had earlier taken note of submissions seeking an urgent hearing of the matter after the new regulations sparked nationwide outrage.

The regulations, notified on January 13, mandate that all higher educational institutions constitute “equity committees” to address discrimination complaints and promote equity on campus. These committees are required to include representatives from Other Backward Classes (OBC), Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), persons with disabilities, and women.
The new framework replaced the 2012 UGC regulations, which were largely advisory in nature.

The petition challenging the rules argues that the definition of caste-based discrimination under the new regulations is limited to discrimination against SC, ST, and OBC communities. By restricting its scope, the plea contends, the UGC has effectively excluded individuals from general or non-reserved categories who may also face caste-based harassment or bias, thereby denying them institutional protection and grievance redressal.

Student groups and organisations have demanded an immediate rollback of the regulations, arguing that the new rules “aggravate existing differences instead of promoting sensitisation”.