The Central government on Thursday, November 5, informed the Supreme Court that it is considering constituting a committee to revisit the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, which the Court had stayed earlier this year.

Source: LiveLaw

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the government is examining the issue to ensure students' concerns are addressed and that "no section feels dissatisfied or apprehensive." He added that the government has decided every student should be taken care of and that the interests of the younger generation are being considered. "The government is contemplating appointing a committee," the Solicitor General said.

The Chief Justice stressed the need to protect the interests of every student. After the Centre's statement, the Court adjourned the batch of petitions for four weeks, Bar and Bench reported.

Source: Bar and Bench

A framework stayed since January

The matter arises in Abeda Salim Tadvi v. Union of India and connected cases. The 2019 petition was filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, who died by suicide after allegedly facing caste discrimination on campuses, and sought stronger safeguards against such discrimination in higher education institutions. The UGC notified the 2026 Regulations in January this year after consultations, superseding the 2012 framework.

In January 2026, the Supreme Court stayed the 2026 Regulations, observing that they appeared prima facie vague and capable of misuse, and directed that the 2012 Regulations would continue to operate in the interim. The regulations require higher educational institutions to establish Equal Opportunity Centres and an Equity Committee to implement policies for disadvantaged groups and to enquire into discrimination complaints.

Key concerns centred on the definition of "caste-based discrimination" under Regulation 3(1)(c), which focused on unfair treatment directed at members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. Petitioners from general categories argued the framework was exclusionary and could promote discrimination against non-reserved students, while others defended the need for targeted protections. The Centre had earlier, in August 2026, informed the Court that the regulations were under reconsideration.