Supreme Court Petition on UGC New Rules

Supreme Court Petition on UGC New Rules

Why in News? 

Recently, the University Grants Commission’s newly notified Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026 to curb caste discrimination in higher education have sparked controversy. A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging these new rules made by the UGC. 

Provisions of the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026

• Definition of Discrimination: The regulations define discrimination as any unfair, biased, or differential treatment against Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) that undermines equal educational access or human dignity, including both explicit and implicit discrimination on grounds such as caste, religion, race, gender, place of birth, or disability.

• Mandatory Equal Opportunity Centres (EOCs): Every Higher Education Institution (HEI) must set up an Equal Opportunity Centre (EOC) tasked with fostering social inclusion, offering academic and social counselling, and acting as a first point of contact for reporting discrimination. EOCs are required to compile bi‑annual reports on activities, complaints, and campus demographic data to ensure transparency.

• Formation and Composition of Equity Committees: Under each EOC, HEIs must constitute an Equity Committee led by the Head of the Institution. These committees must include mandatory representation of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), persons with disabilities, and women.

• Reporting and Compliance: The regulations create a robust accountability framework: HEIs must submit annual equity compliance reports to the UGC, while the head of the institution is personally responsible for enforcement. This shift from advisory norms to duty‑based regulation makes equity compliance a core institutional responsibility.

• National Monitoring Mechanism: UGC is mandated to establish a national monitoring committee composed of representatives from statutory councils, human rights bodies, and civil society to periodically review implementation, assess complaints, and recommend systemic reforms. This committee must meet at least twice a year to strengthen oversight.

• Grievance Redressal Process: The regulations require HEIs to implement a multichannel grievance redressal system, including 24×7 equity helplines, online reporting portals, and designated Equity Ambassadors and Equity Squads in departments and hostels to identify and respond to discrimination swiftly.

• Penalties: Non‑compliance attracts stringent penalties: HEIs may face debarment from UGC schemes, prohibition from offering degree, distance, or online programmes, or even removal from the recognised list under Sections 2(f) and 12B of the UGC Act, 1956.

Need for UGC’s New HEIs Regulation

• Rise in Reported Discrimination Cases: Data indicates an alarming 118.4% increase in reported caste-based discrimination cases on campuses between 2019 and 2024. This trend highlighted the failure of previous guidelines to curb harassment and exclusionary practices.
• Addressing Fatal Institutional Gaps: High-profile cases of student suicides, such as those of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, served as evidence of systemic failures. The 2026 regulations were designed to move beyond advisory norms to a legally binding framework that forces institutions to confront these realities.
• Ineffectiveness of 2012 Regulations: The previous 2012 framework suffered from weak implementation, limited monitoring, and a lack of accountability. The new rules replace this outdated model with mandatory mechanisms and strict penalties for non-compliance.
• Expansion of Protected Categories: A 2019 IIT Delhi study exposing that 75% of marginalized students face campus discrimination highlights a crisis of ingrained, systemic bias in premier institutions. The 2026 regulations explicitly include OBCs, protecting a larger portion of the socially disadvantaged students. 
• Alignment with NEP 2020 and Constitutional Values: The regulations are designed to align higher education with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 mandate for equity and inclusion. They reinforce constitutional values under Articles 14, 15, and 21 by institutionalizing dignity and equal access as enforceable rights. 

Supreme Court Petition on UGC’s New Regulations

• A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the UGC’s new rules was filed in the Supreme Court of India soon after the rules were notified on 13 January 2026. The petitioner approached the apex court alleging that Section 3(C) of the 2026 regulations is arbitrary and discriminatory under law, undermining constitutional rights. 
• The petition argues that Section 3(C) violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 14 (Equality before law), Article 19 (Freedom of speech and expression), and Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty). This provision could be used to exclude certain groups from access to higher education. 
• Petitioner argued that Section 3(C) is unconstitutional and exceeds the regulatory authority conferred on the University Grants Commission (UGC) under the UGC Act, 1956. This section imposes arbitrary constraints that risk undermining equal educational opportunity, rather than promoting equity, by potentially chilling academic freedom and association. 
• The petition asserts that the challenged rule lacks clear procedural safeguards and adequate protections for due process, which are essential when rights such as freedom of speech, expression, and movement on campuses are potentially restrained.

Way Forward

• Educational institutions must institutionalise codes of conduct explicitly prohibiting caste-based discrimination, backed by regular social audits by bodies like the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC). This will promote accountability. 
• Systematic data collection on caste disparities should be mandated at all levels of education, from enrolment to faculty composition, dropout rates, and disciplinary actions. Detailed caste-segmented data would allow policymakers to track inequities.
• Teachers and educational leaders should undergo mandatory sensitisation workshops on caste issues and unconscious bias. Training must equip educators to identify micro-aggressions and prevent discriminatory practices in assessment.
• A reimagined merit framework that accounts for contextual disadvantages (e.g., school environment, socio-economic background) can reduce exclusionary outcomes inherent in score-based evaluations.