HC pulls up MP govt over UGC rules circular:Says, ‘denying grievance forum to general category students is questionable’

The Indore bench of the MP High Court has taken a strict stance on the state government’s circular regarding the implementation of UGC regulations. During the hearing, the double bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva made a clear observation questioning how far it is justified to deprive general category students of the grievance forum. What is the case? The case is Amber Sharma versus Union of India and others. His petition challenged the circular issued by the state government on February 2, 2026, through which the state government issued directions to implement the 2023 UGC regulations. One point in those directions is that complaints of alleged discrimination against Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, women, disabled persons, and minorities can be made to the Student Grievance Redressal Committee (SGRC). General category students were not included in this point. Arguments were presented on behalf of the petitioner that discrimination can happen with any class; it cannot be considered one-sided. The principle of equality applies equally to all. It was also argued whether the state government believes that discrimination can never happen with general category students. Relief also granted to general category students The High Court, through its order, has directed SGRC that complaints regarding discrimination of general and unreserved category students should also be heard similarly to students of other categories. Circular issued despite Supreme Court order During the hearing, it also came to light that the Supreme Court had stayed the UGC 2026 Regulation in the Mrityunjay Tiwari case on January 29, 2026. Just three days after this order, the state government issued a separate circular, which raised serious questions in the court. Questions on Govt’s intention It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Central UGC Regulation 2026 included only SC, ST, and OBC, but the state government’s circular completely excluded general category students and included women, disabled, and minority students along with SC, ST, and OBC, which is unconstitutional. Advocate Harshvardhan Sharma represented petitioner Amber Sharma.