Delhi High Court: In lieu of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi’s (GNCTD) policy decision dated 10-06-2025, whereby the earlier mode of supplying uniforms in kind was replaced with Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) policy. The respondent sought modification of the Court’s earlier order dated 13-04-2023, which required the Government to explain why cash was being paid instead of uniforms, a Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ., and Subramonium Prasad, J., upheld the Policy dated 10-06-2025 and modified the order dated 13-04-2023 to the extent it related to uniforms. The Court directed the GNCTD to ensure timely provision of adequate uniform subsidy strictly in accordance with the policy decision.
The Court held that provision of uniforms under the RTE framework does not mandatorily require supply in kind. A policy decision, i.e., DBT policy in lieu of uniforms in kind, taken on grounds of administrative feasibility and efficiency, does not violate the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) or the Delhi Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (Delhi Education Rules) and is not liable to judicial interference unless shown to be arbitrary or unconstitutional.
Factual Matrix
The present Revision petition arose from a long-pending writ petition seeking effective implementation of the RTE Act, particularly with regard to the obligation of the Government to ensure provision of free textbooks, uniforms and writing materials to children admitted under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and Disadvantaged Group (DG) categories in government, aided and unaided private schools in Delhi.
During the pendency of the writ petition, repeated directions were issued to ensure compliance with the mandate of the RTE Act and the Delhi Education Rules. An affidavit filed in 2014 revealed that out of 68,951 EWS/DG students in private schools, only 17,497 were receiving free textbooks and 16,467 were receiving free uniforms. The Court recorded that “roughly about 51,000 children are without textbooks and uniforms” and emphasised that it was the duty of both the Government and the schools to ensure supply of free uniforms and books.
In 2023, the Government began disbursing money in lieu of providing uniforms in kind. This led to further proceedings, and vide order dated 13-04-2023, the Court required the Government to explain why cash was being paid instead of uniforms.
Subsequently, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) framed a new Policy dated 10-06-2025, approving revised uniform subsidy rates and providing for Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) instead of physical distribution of uniforms, citing administrative and operational difficulties.
The present Review Petition was filed seeking modification of the order dated 13-04-2023 so as to permit implementation of the policy dated 10-06-2025.
Parties’ Contentions
The Government (GNCTD) contended that supplying uniforms in kind posed serious practical difficulties such as different schools have different uniform colours and patterns; measurement of each child and stitching uniforms was “a long and tedious process;” procurement through the GeM portal was time-consuming and prone to delay and direct cash transfer would ensure that uniforms reach children in time. It was argued that the revised subsidy rates (₹1250 to ₹1700) would enable families to purchase uniforms directly and fulfill the statutory obligation.
However, the petitioner argued that the policy of DBT was contrary to the directions of the Court, there was a mandate to provide uniforms in kind and cash payments defeated the purpose of uniformity and accountability under the RTE Act.
Moot Points
-
Whether the Government’s policy dated 10.06.2025 providing uniform subsidy through DBT is contrary to the RTE Act and the Delhi Education Rules.
-
Whether the Court should interfere with the policy decision of the Government regarding the mode of providing uniforms?
Statutory Framework
The Court examined Section 12 of the RTE Act, which casts responsibility on schools to provide free and compulsory education and provides for reimbursement by the Government. Rule 11 of the Delhi Education Rules mandates reimbursement of per-child expenditure and requires schools to maintain separate accounts.
The Court noted that “under the 2011 Rules, there is a mandate to provide uniforms but the Rules do not state that the Government has to provide uniforms in kind only.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Court accepted the Government’s explanation regarding logistical difficulties and observed that “undoubtedly, it would be impossible to carry-out the exercise of taking measurements of every student, placing orders for different kinds of uniform cloth on the GeM portal… and finally remember distributing the uniforms in schools before the commencement of a new session.”
The Court held that the decision to transfer money directly would ensure timely availability of uniforms and could not be said to violate the statutory mandate.
On judicial review of policy decisions, the Court reiterated that “Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy” and that interference is permissible only if the policy is arbitrary, unconstitutional or contrary to statute.
The Court held that it did not find any infirmity in the decision making process as Respondent’s policy decision did not show that “there was any intent of malafide or that the Policy is contrary to provisions of statutory rules or of the Constitution.”
Court’s Decision
The Court upheld the DBT policy in lieu of uniforms in kind. The Court allowed the Review Petition to the limited extent of modifying the earlier order dated 13-04-2023 insofar as it related to uniforms.
The Court directed the GNCTD to ensure that adequate amount is provided in accordance with the Policy decision taken by the Government well within time and at the earliest.
[Justice For All v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 281, Decided on 23-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Khagesh B Jha with Ms. Shikha Sharma Bagga, Mr. Ankit Mann, Ms. Jyoti Shokeen, Ms. Amisha Dhariwan, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Sameer Vashisht, SC with Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Ms. K. Mittal, Counsel for the GNCTD
Mr. Kamal Gupta with Ms. Tripti Gupta, Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Ms. Madhulika Singh, Ms. Sabrina Singh, Counsel for the Action Committee