The Supreme Court on Thursday directed parties to file comprehensive counter-affidavits and proposed the appointment of nodal counsel to collate the issues raised across the batch of petitions challenging the UGC regulations.
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana noted the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the regulations themselves were still under reconsideration. The court directed the respondents to file one comprehensive counter affidavit within 4 weeks. The rejoinder may be filed 2 weeks after that.
“
“One comprehensive counter affidavit. In light of the particular averments made in the petition, counter affidavit is required to be filed. The counter affidavit to be supplied to all counsel for the petitioners within 4 weeks.”
The Bench also appointed nodal counsel for different groups of parties to collate the issues raised in the various petitions. Advocate-on-Record Nisha Wadikar was appointed as nodal counsel for the side supporting the 2026 Regulations, while AdvocateManoj Ranjan was appointed for the other side. The Court directed that soft copies of the petitions be supplied to the respective nodal counsel, who would collate the issues for further consideration.
Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Notice on Fresh Plea Challenging UGC Regulations of 2012, 2023 and 2026
A separate exchange took place over an objection to the maintainability of the 2019 PIL, which had been filed by two mothers who had lost their children. Counsel appearing for one side argued that the petitioners were personally interested in the matter and therefore could not maintain a PIL. He sought an opportunity to raise the objection formally in the counter-affidavit, also contending that the proceedings could create a perception that the deaths were murders. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising strongly objected to the submission, pointing out that the petition had been filed by mothers who had lost their children.
“
“This is not fair. The petitions have been filed by two mothers who lost their son and daughter. Who else has the locus to file these petitions? In 2019, the notice has been issued and he is raising the objection today.”
When counsel sought permission to raise the maintainability objection in the counter-affidavit and argued that the proceedings were creating a perception that the incident was a murder, Jaising clarified: “With respect, I never used the word murder. I said they lost their children. It is he who is creating a perception, my Lord. This court cannot be used for this kind of language.”
The Bench did not enter into the merits of the dispute at this stage and directed the respondents to file the counter affidavit.
Background of the case
The case stems from the institutional suicides of Payal Tadvi and Rohith Vemula, which raised concerns over caste-based discrimination faced by students from marginalised communities in higher educational institutions. Their mothers, Abeda Salim Tadvi and Radhika Vemula, approached the Supreme Court through a PIL seeking stronger safeguards against discrimination and harassment of students belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other marginalised communities.
At the time, the regulatory framework was governed by the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, which were framed to prevent discrimination and promote equity in higher educational institutions. The petitioners, however, raised concerns regarding the adequacy and implementation of the existing framework, particularly in addressing complaints of caste-based discrimination and ensuring effective institutional mechanisms for redressal.
The proceedings eventually led to the UGC undertaking a review of its regulatory framework and subsequently notifying the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. The new Regulations have now been challenged before the Supreme Court, giving rise to the another batch of proceedings.
While the mothers who filed the original PIL are supporting the 2026 UGC Regulations, another group of petitioners is opposing the new framework on the ground that its definition of “caste-based discrimination” is restrictive and exclusionary, as it limits protection to members of the SC, ST and OBC categories and leaves students belonging to non-reserved or general categories without a specific remedy against caste-based discrimination. The petitioners have also raised concerns over ambiguities and the possibility of misuse of the Regulations.