India Today: New Delhi: Thursday, 6th August
2026.
The UGC refused to explain how it framed its now-stayed equity rules in response to an RTI request and subsequent appeal. The stand relies on a sub judice claim that CIC rulings have repeatedly rejected under the RTI Act.
An RTI request asking the
University Grants Commission (UGC) to explain how it drafted its now-suspended
equity rules for colleges and universities has been met with a refusal, and
that refusal was then upheld on appeal without any fresh information being
shared.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NEW RULES?
In January 2026, UGC brought in stricter, mandatory equity rules to replace its softer 2012 guidelines, following years of pressure after the deaths of students Payal Tadvi and Rohith Vemula over alleged caste discrimination. The notification sparked immediate backlash: a city magistrate in Bareilly resigned citing the rules, several BJP functionaries in UP stepped down in protest, and then Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan had to publicly assure that the rules wouldn't be misused and that discrimination would not be allowed against anybody.
Two changes drew the sharpest criticism. The final rules dropped a penalty clause for false complaints that an earlier draft had included, and they defined caste discrimination as applying only to SC, ST and OBC students, prompting advocate Vineet Jindal to challenge in the Supreme Court why general category students were left unprotected. Student groups split on expected lines: RSS student wing ABVP sought clarity from UGC and the Court, Congress student wing NSUI welcomed the rules while demanding guaranteed SC/ ST/ OBC representation on committees, and AISA defended the regulations outright.
Within weeks, the Supreme Court stayed the new rules, reviving the 2012 framework.
It's in this context that an RTI request was filed, asking UGC to explain how it arrived at the narrower definition, whether it took any legal advice on it, why the new rules seem to offer less protection than the old ones, whether it consulted students, teachers or experts before finalising them, and what it plans to do now that the Supreme Court has stepped in.
WHAT UGC ACTUALLY SAID?
UGC took over four months to reply. Its full answer to all five questions was a single sentence, stating that the regulations were sub judice before the Supreme Court and that no comments or clarifications could be furnished while the matter remained under judicial consideration.
An appeal was then filed. Nearly six months after the original request, the appeal was disposed of with a finding that the CPIO had already furnished the available information in accordance with the RTI Act, and that the appeal was accordingly closed.
In effect, a one-line refusal citing a pending court case was treated as if it were a full and satisfactory answer, even though no documents, details of legal opinions, or consultation records were ever shared - including on why the penalty clause for false complaints was dropped between the draft and final versions.
WHY THIS EXCUSE DOESN'T HOLD UP
UGC's justification - that it cannot answer because the matter is sub judice - has repeatedly been rejected by the Central Information Commission (CIC) as invalid under the RTI Act.
In Jitendra Pratap Singh v. CPIO, Ministry of Finance (2019), the CIC held that Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, which lists the only grounds for withholding information, contains no exemption for sub judice matters. This was backed by a Delhi High Court ruling in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v RK Jain and an earlier CIC decision, Ashu v CPIO/Sr Supdt of Posts, both holding that the only valid exception is where a court has expressly forbidden disclosure, or where disclosure would amount to contempt. UGC's reply cited neither in its response.
The order also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in CBSE v Aditya Bandopadhyay, clarifying that while authorities need not share "advice" or "opinion," this does not cover existing records, such as file notings or proof that legal advice was sought - which is exactly what was asked for here.
Based on this, the CIC in 2019 directed the authority to re-examine the matter and give a proper reply within 15 days, rejecting the sub judice excuse outright. UGC's handling of the present request suggests that precedent has yet to change how the Commission's own member.
Published By: Mridusmita Deka
The UGC refused to explain how it framed its now-stayed equity rules in response to an RTI request and subsequent appeal. The stand relies on a sub judice claim that CIC rulings have repeatedly rejected under the RTI Act.
 |
| UGC took over four months to reply. Its full answer to all five questions was a single sentence |
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NEW RULES?
In January 2026, UGC brought in stricter, mandatory equity rules to replace its softer 2012 guidelines, following years of pressure after the deaths of students Payal Tadvi and Rohith Vemula over alleged caste discrimination. The notification sparked immediate backlash: a city magistrate in Bareilly resigned citing the rules, several BJP functionaries in UP stepped down in protest, and then Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan had to publicly assure that the rules wouldn't be misused and that discrimination would not be allowed against anybody.
Two changes drew the sharpest criticism. The final rules dropped a penalty clause for false complaints that an earlier draft had included, and they defined caste discrimination as applying only to SC, ST and OBC students, prompting advocate Vineet Jindal to challenge in the Supreme Court why general category students were left unprotected. Student groups split on expected lines: RSS student wing ABVP sought clarity from UGC and the Court, Congress student wing NSUI welcomed the rules while demanding guaranteed SC/ ST/ OBC representation on committees, and AISA defended the regulations outright.
Within weeks, the Supreme Court stayed the new rules, reviving the 2012 framework.
It's in this context that an RTI request was filed, asking UGC to explain how it arrived at the narrower definition, whether it took any legal advice on it, why the new rules seem to offer less protection than the old ones, whether it consulted students, teachers or experts before finalising them, and what it plans to do now that the Supreme Court has stepped in.
WHAT UGC ACTUALLY SAID?
UGC took over four months to reply. Its full answer to all five questions was a single sentence, stating that the regulations were sub judice before the Supreme Court and that no comments or clarifications could be furnished while the matter remained under judicial consideration.
An appeal was then filed. Nearly six months after the original request, the appeal was disposed of with a finding that the CPIO had already furnished the available information in accordance with the RTI Act, and that the appeal was accordingly closed.
In effect, a one-line refusal citing a pending court case was treated as if it were a full and satisfactory answer, even though no documents, details of legal opinions, or consultation records were ever shared - including on why the penalty clause for false complaints was dropped between the draft and final versions.
WHY THIS EXCUSE DOESN'T HOLD UP
UGC's justification - that it cannot answer because the matter is sub judice - has repeatedly been rejected by the Central Information Commission (CIC) as invalid under the RTI Act.
In Jitendra Pratap Singh v. CPIO, Ministry of Finance (2019), the CIC held that Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, which lists the only grounds for withholding information, contains no exemption for sub judice matters. This was backed by a Delhi High Court ruling in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v RK Jain and an earlier CIC decision, Ashu v CPIO/Sr Supdt of Posts, both holding that the only valid exception is where a court has expressly forbidden disclosure, or where disclosure would amount to contempt. UGC's reply cited neither in its response.
The order also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in CBSE v Aditya Bandopadhyay, clarifying that while authorities need not share "advice" or "opinion," this does not cover existing records, such as file notings or proof that legal advice was sought - which is exactly what was asked for here.
Based on this, the CIC in 2019 directed the authority to re-examine the matter and give a proper reply within 15 days, rejecting the sub judice excuse outright. UGC's handling of the present request suggests that precedent has yet to change how the Commission's own member.
Published By: Mridusmita Deka
.JPG)
.JPG)
