THE SUPREME COURT today continued hearing Abeda Salim Tadvi v. Union of India, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta telling the Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 remain under reconsideration by the Centre. “It is under consideration,” Mehta submitted, adding that the Centre had also not been served with the affidavit filed by UGC, and that no counter-affidavit had yet been filed in response to the lead petition.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the lead 2019 petitioners, raised the question of a timeline for the reconsideration, submitting that without one, parties would “be arguing in the air.” The CJI noted that formulating the questions of law at this stage would be premature given the pending reconsideration exercise, and granted the Centre four weeks to complete it. The Bench indicated the matter would be mentioned once the outcome of the reconsideration is known.
Nodal counsel appointed
To manage the multiplicity of petitions and applications, the CJI asked parties to designate one competent counsel as nodal counsel for each side. “There are a lot of points. The nodal counsel can formulate the proposed questions,” the CJI observed.
Jaising agreed, and proposed her Advocate-on-Record, Disha Wadekar, as nodal counsel for parties supporting the UGC Regulations as published in 2026.
On the question of access to pleadings, Mehta flagged that parties did not have copies of petitions filed by others challenging the Regulations. The Bench accepted his suggestion that all parties upload soft copies of their petitions, applications, and affidavits to a shared, accessible link, rather than requiring physical service from each party. The CJI directed that parties and applicants supply soft copies of their respective petitions and applications to their side’s nodal counsel, who would collect and consolidate the issues raised on their behalf.
Sharp exchange over locus of petitioners
The hearing turned heated when one counsel questioned the maintainability of Jaising’s petition, submitting that “these are stated to be PILs... but petitioners have personal interest.” Jaising replied sharply, “These are mothers of two children who died. If they can’t raise this issue, who can?”
The exchange escalated when the opposing counsel submitted, “This is affecting trial... they say murder.” Jaising firmly pushed back, stating that the petitioners had never used the word “murder.” She also pointed out that the petition had been filed as far back as 2019, and that it was in this very petition that the Supreme Court had earlier directed UGC to frame regulations to deal with caste-based hostilities on campuses.
The CJI declined to entertain the locus objection at this stage, stating that the Bench was not considering any arguments today, and closed the exchange for the day.
Background
The 2026 Regulations originate from a 2019 petition filed before the Supreme Court seeking a mechanism to end caste-based discrimination in higher educational institutions. The petition was filed by two mothers, Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, whose children Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi respectively, died by suicide allegedly after facing caste-based discrimination.
In January last year, the Supreme Court had directed the University Grants Commission (‘UGC’) to frame new guidelines to combat caste based discrimination within six weeks, giving liberty to the petitioners and other stakeholders to suggest changes to be incorporated into the new draft. Much after the six week deadline, UGC notified the Regulations in January this year, superseding the earlier University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012.
On January 29, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing a petition challenging the new Regulations, stayed them after hearing preliminary objections. The matter has remained pending before the Supreme Court since, with the Centre indicating that the Regulations are under reconsideration.
While the 2026 Regulations remain stayed, the 2012 Regulations—which were the subject matter of the original petition and were repealed by the 2026 Regulations—continue to remain in force. Consequently, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities will continue to have access to a grievance redressal mechanism pending the reconsideration of the 2026 Regulations.
