The Centre on Thursday (August 20, 2026) told the Supreme Court that the 2026 University Grants Commission equity regulations on preventing caste-based discrimination on campuses is under reconsideration.

On January 29, the apex court had directed that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, be kept in abeyance.

The matter came up for hearing on Thursday (August 20, 2026) before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.

"This is the UGC regulation matter. It is under reconsideration," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Bench.

The Bench asked the UGC to file a comprehensive counter affidavit within four weeks.

It said petitioners may file rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter.

The apex court was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the validity of the 2026 regulations.

On January 29, the top court had stayed the 2026 UGC equity regulations, saying the framework was "prima facie vague", can have "very sweeping consequences" and may end up dividing society with a "dangerous impact".

The apex court had also sought responses of the Centre and the UGC on three pleas against the 2026 regulations.

"In exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, we further direct that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012, will continue to operate and remain in force till further orders," it had said.

The 2026 regulations triggered protests at various places, with student groups and organisations demanding its immediate rollback.

The top court had flagged concerns with the 2026 regulations and questioned the need for a separate definition of "caste-based discrimination" under regulation 3(1)(c), when regulation 3(1)(e) already provides a broad definition of "discrimination".

It had also questioned why ragging had been left out of the scope of the regulations, despite being a common form of harassment within educational institutions.

The apex court had said the language of the regulations appeared to be "prima facie vague" and "capable of misuse".