New Delhi, Nov. 5: The Central government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it is considering constituting a committee to revisit the University Grants Commission’s 2026 regulations aimed at preventing caste discrimination in higher educational institutions, with a view to address concerns of all sections of students.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed of the move while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, which were put on hold by the Supreme Court’s January 29 order.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the government was examining the issue to ensure that the interests of every student were protected and that no section was left dissatisfied or apprehensive.
“Why don’t you revisit the UGC Regulations?” the court asked.
Mehta informed the bench that the government was considering setting up a committee to examine the Regulations.
The UGC Regulations, notified on January 13, apply to higher educational institutions across the country and require them to establish Equal Opportunity Centres and Equity Committees to implement measures for disadvantaged groups and deal with complaints of discrimination.
They were challenged before the Supreme Court on the ground that the grievance redressal framework allegedly excludes students and staff belonging to the general category from protection against caste-based discrimination.
On January 29, the Supreme Court put the Regulations on hold, observing that the framework, if implemented without scrutiny, could have “dangerous” consequences and deepen social divisions.
A key concern flagged by the bench related to the apparent incongruity between Sections 3(c) and 3(e). While Section 3(c) defines “caste-based discrimination” as discrimination against members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, Section 3(e) defines “discrimination” more broadly to include unfair or biased treatment on grounds such as religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth and disability.
The court had questioned why a narrower definition under Section 3(c) was necessary when caste discrimination was already covered within the wider definition under Section 3(e).
The bench had also observed that Section 3(c), as framed, could potentially exclude persons from upper castes from raising certain complaints despite the broader protection contemplated under Section 3(e).
The petitioners have contended that limiting the grievance mechanism on the basis of caste identity amounts to impermissible discrimination and have sought reconsideration of the Regulations in their present form.
After being informed that the government was examining the issue and considering setting up a committee, the bench deferred further hearing of the petitions.
Pramod kumar is a Senior Journalist, Covering Supreem Court of India
