* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd JANUARY, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ REVIEW PET. 475/2025 & CM APPL. 58009/2025
IN
W.P.(C) 3684/2013
JUSTICE FOR ALL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Khagesh B Jha with Ms. Shikha
Sharma Bagga, Mr. Ankit Mann, Ms.
Jyoti Shokeen, Ms. Amisha
Dhariwan, Advs.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, SC with Mr.
Abhinav Sharma, Ms. Harshita
Nathrani, Ms. K. Mittal, Advs for
GNCTD.
Mr. Kamal Gupta with Ms. Tripti
Gupta, Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Ms.
Madhulika Singh, Ms. Sabrina Singh,
Advs for Action Committee.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
1. This Application has been filed by the Respondent seeking
condonation of delay of 838 days in filing REVIEW PET. 475/2025 seeking
review of the Order dated 13.04.2023.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
3. The delay is condoned.
4. The application is disposed of.
5. This Review Petition has been filed by the Respondent under Order
47 Rule 1 of the CPC seeking review of the Order dated 13.04.2023.
6. Since the Review Petition was filed on the basis of facts which
transpired after the Order dated 13.04.2023, this Court vide Order dated
12.12.2025 directed that the present Petition shall be treated as an
application seeking modification of the Order dated 13.04.2023 and
adjourned the Review Petition to 17.12.2025. Permission was also granted to
file an application to amend the prayer clause. An application being CM
APPL.80291/2025 seeking amendment in prayer clause of the Review
Petition was filed and this Court vide Order dated 17.12.2025 has allowed
the said application. The amended prayer clauses read as under:
"(a) Recall and modify the final order dated
13.04.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3684 of 2013, to the
limited extent that the observation/direction requiring
provision of school uniforms strictly in kind be
modified so as to permit the Respondent to implement
the uniform subsidy through Direct Benefit 19 Transfer
(DBT) in accordance with the Cabinet decision dated
10.05.2025, corrigendum dated 06.06.2025 and policy
order dated 10.06.2025, under the Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009;
(b) Grant leave to the Respondent to place and
implement the aforesaid policy decisions on record in
compliance with the modified directions of this
Hon'ble Court; and
(c) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit in the interest of justice".
7. The Writ Petition was filed for implementation of the provisions of
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the RTE Act') more particularly for ensuring the compliance
of mandate of providing of free books, uniforms and other study materials to
the students admitted under Economically Weaker Section (hereinafter
referred to as 'the EWS') and Disadvantaged Group Freeship Category
(hereinafter referred to as 'the DG Category') by the Government, in aided
and unaided recognized private schools of Delhi.
8. During the pendency of the present Writ Petition various directions
have been passed to ensure implementation of the RTE Act with regard to
providing of free books, uniforms and other study materials to the students
admitted under the EWS category and DG category. Various provisions of
the RTE Act and the Delhi Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2011 Rules'), which
are relevant for the present matter are being reproduced below for ready
reference and the same are as follows. Section 2(n) of the RTE, which
defines School, reads as under:
"Section 2. Definitions
(n) "school" means any recognised school imparting
elementary education and includes--
(i) a school established, owned or controlled by
the appropriate Government or a local authority;
(ii) an aided school receiving aid or grants to
meet whole or part of its expenses from the
appropriate Government or the local authority;
(iii) a school belonging to specified category; and
(iv) an unaided school not receiving any kind of
aid or grants to meet its expenses from the
appropriate Government or the local authority;"
9. Section 12 of the RTE Act, which provides for school's responsibility
for free and compulsory education, reads as under:
"Section 12. Extent of school's responsibility for free
and compulsory education.
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a school,--
(a) specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (n) of
section 2 shall provide free and compulsory
elementary education to all children admitted
therein;
(b) specified in sub-clause (ii) of clause (n) of
section 2 shall provide free and compulsory
elementary education to such proportion of
children admitted therein as its annual recurring
aid or grants so received bears to its annual
recurring expenses, subject to a minimum of
twenty-five per cent.;
(c) specified in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause
(n) of section 2 shall admit in class I, to the extent
of at least twenty-five per cent. of the strength of
that class, children belonging to weaker section
and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood
and provide free and compulsory elementary
education till its completion:
Provided further that where a school specified in
clause (n) of section 2 imparts pre-school
education, the provisions of clauses (a) to (c)
shall apply for admission to such pre-school
education.
(2) The school specified in sub-clause (iv) of clause
(n) of section 2 providing free and compulsory
elementary education as specified in clause (c) of sub-
section (1) shall be reimbursed expenditure so
incurred by it to the extent of per-child-expenditure
incurred by the State, or the actual amount charged
from the child, whichever is less, in such manner as
may be prescribed:
Provided that such reimbursement shall not exceed
per-child-expenditure incurred by a school specified
in sub-clause (i) of clause (n) of section 2:
Provided further that where such school is already
under obligation to provide free education to a
specified number of children on account of it having
received any land, building, equipment or other
facilities, either free of cost or at a concessional rate,
such school shall not be entitled for reimbursement to
the extent of such obligation.
(3) Every school shall provide such information as may
be required by the appropriate Government or the
local authority, as the case may be."
(emphasis supplied)
10. Rule 11 of the 2011 Rules, which provides for reimbursement of per-
child expenditure by the Government, reads as under:
"11. Reimbursement of per-child expenditure by the
Government. ─
(1) The total annual recurring expenditure incurred by
the Government, whether from its own funds or funds
provided by the Central Government or by any other
authority, on elementary education in respect of all
schools referred to in sub clause (i) of clause (n) of
section 2 divided by the total number of children
enrolled in all such schools, shall be the per child
expenditure incurred by the Government.
Explanation: For the purpose of determining the per
child expenditure, the expenditure incurred by the
Government or the Local Authority on schools referred
to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (n) of section 2 and the
children enrolled in such schools shall not be included.
(2) Every school referred to in clauses (iii) and (iv) of
clause (n) of section 2 shall maintain a separate bank
account in respect of the amount received by it as
reimbursement under sub-section (2) of section 12 of
the Act.
(3) The schools mentioned in second proviso of sub-
section (2) of section 12 shall continue to fulfil their
obligation for providing free education beyond
elementary education and till completion of
secondary/senior secondary education, as the case may
be, and shall not be entitled for reimbursement to the
extent of their obligation."
11. The abovementioned Rule, therefore, mandates that it is the duty of
the State Government to reimburse the per-child expenditure incurred by the
schools with regard to the provision of books and textbooks, uniforms and
other study material. Various Orders have been passed by this Court for
compliance of the said mandate.
12. On 05.08.2014, this Court directed the Director of Education to file an
affidavit clearly indicating the number of children falling within the EWS
and DG category between the ages of 6 years to 14 years in all the schools in
Delhi. This Court directed that separate figures be provided with regard to
government schools and private unaided schools as also other schools which
do not fall in these categories. This Court further directed the Director of
Education to clearly indicate in the affidavit the number of children, who are
being provided with free books and Uniforms in that year, i.e. 2014-15.
13. On 27.08.2014, an affidavit was handed-over to the Court which
indicated that the total number of EWS/DG category children studying in
private schools in the session 2014-15 is 68,951 and out of the said 68,951
children only 17,497 children were getting free textbooks and only 16,467
children were getting free uniforms. On the basis of the said affidavit, this
Court noted that roughly about 51,000 children are without textbooks and
uniforms. In the said Order, this Court emphasized that it is the duty of the
Government as well as the schools to ensure that free textbooks are made
available to children belonging to the EWS/DG categories and they are also
entitled to get free uniforms and writing materials.
14. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, Contempt Petitions were
also filed stating that the Schools are not complying with the directions
passed by this Court. On 06.02.2023, GNCTD filed an affidavit stating that
a fixed amount of money is being paid to the students belonging to EWS/DG
Category. It was the case of the Petitioners that the said action was contrary
to the directions issued by this Court on 27.08.2014.
15. This Court vide Order dated 13.04.2023 disposed of the Writ Petitions
noticing that the Government is willing to provide textbooks and uniforms to
the students. However, this Court kept the Contempt Petition pending to see
whether the Government is providing uniforms to the students or are they
giving cash in lieu of uniforms. GNCTD was directed to file a fresh affidavit
explaining as to why the Government has taken the decision to give cash
amounts in lieu of uniforms, textbooks and writing materials etc.
16. A Circular dated 14.03.2023 was issued by the Directorate of
Education stating that in compliance of the directions of this Court, the
Directorate of Education has decided to provide writing materials
(notebooks and stationeries etc.) in kind to the children belonging to the
EWS/DG category with effect from the academic session 2023-24. With
respect to providing uniforms in Government and Government aided
schools, it was stated that the Directorate of Education has constituted a
Committee to conduct market study regarding the cost of the readymade
uniforms and make recommendation for a revision of existing rates. It was
further stated that adoption of the recommended rates will be subject to
approval of the Finance Department and availability of the sufficient funds.
It was further stated that after the revision of rates gets approved by the
Finance Department, the funds will be provided to schools so that the Head
of Schools can procure the uniforms as prescribed in the school and supply
to students in kind from academic session 2024-25. With respect to aided
Schools, it was stated that the Head of Schools of Aided Schools will be
directed to procure text books and writing materials at their level and submit
proposals for reimbursement of expenditure which will be regulated as per
the Directorate of Education norms and in respect of private schools
admitting EWS/DG category children, it was stated that they are already
under a mandate to provide text-books, writing materials and uniforms in
kind to be eligible for reimbursement under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE
Act.
17. It is stated that the Committee which was formed on 14.03.2023
submitted its report regarding the market study/revision of rates for uniforms
on 16.11.2023 to the Directorate of Education and accordingly a proposal
regarding the school uniform rates & disbursement of school uniform in
kind was first submitted on 01.12.2023 for the approval of Finance
Department, GNCT of Delhi. However, the said proposal was returned back
and a final proposal dated 03.12.2024 was submitted for the approval of
Finance Department for disbursement of school uniform in kind only, but on
the existing rates. It is stated that the said proposal was also returned back on
11.03.2025 for want of clarifications.
18. On 30.09.2024, this Court recorded the submissions of the learned
Standing Counsel, GNCTD, that the GNCTD will positively start providing
uniforms to all the students in government run schools in Delhi from the
next academic session at least one month in advance before the
commencement of the next session. So far as the textbooks and Writing
materials are concerned, it was stated that the same are being provided in
kind to all eligible students strictly in terms of the provisions of the RTE Act
and the Rules framed thereunder.
19. It is stated that the proposal which was sent to the Finance
Department was approved by the Cabinet vide Cabinet decision dated
10.05.2025 and consequentially, a Policy Order dated 10.06.2025 was
passed. It is stated that the primary reasons for framing a new Policy were as
under:
"i. No complaints have been received in the existing
mechanism of DBT mode till date.
ii. The provision for uniform in kind is a tedious and
intensive process which shall over burden the
department or school in the non-core activity.
iii. The uniform in kind platform may result in
inefficiency and nontransparency in the overall
functioning
iv. The tender process through Govt. E-Marketplace
(GeM) is a time taking process and usually takes
approximately six months .
v. Procurement of the material at the larger level for
uniforms is difficult to manage. Moreover, it is a long
drawn process which is subjected to further litigation
in future.
vi. The difference color combination for each and
every school is varied and therefore the management of
different types/varieties/colors of school uniforms is
not feasible."
20. It is the stand of the GNCTD that while approving the revision of
uniform subsidy rates, the Cabinet has not approved procurement and
distribution of uniforms in kind due to operational constraints. It is stated
that though the Policy has been implemented for class IX to XII, the
GNCTD is waiting for the Orders of this Court for its implementation under
the RTE Act for children up to class VIII. Therefore, the Respondent has
filed the present Review Petition seeking modification/review of the Order
dated 13.04.2023 by permitting the Respondent to implement the Policy
dated 10.06.2025.
21. In the Review Petition, it is stated that while approving the revision of
uniform subsidy rates, the Cabinet was of the opinion that procurement and
distribution of uniforms in kind would not be feasible due to operational
constraints and therefore, a new Policy dated 10.06.2025 has been brought
out. It is stated that different schools have got different uniforms and it is
impossible to get measurement of every student, placing a tender through
GeM portal for procuring the material is a time taking process and if all of
this is done, then getting the uniforms stitched is not feasible as the colour
combination for each and every school is different and therefore the
management of different types/varieties/colours of school uniforms is not
possible.
22. The Court has perused the Note for Council of Ministers which brings
out the recommendations of the Committee for revision of School uniforms.
Relevant portions of the said Note reads as under:
SINGH
Signing Date:23.01.2026
15:07:32
SINGH
Signing Date:23.01.2026
15:07:32
SINGH
Signing Date:23.01.2026
15:07:32
23. The said Note has been approved by the Cabinet on 13.05.2025 and
the Policy dated 10.06.2025 has been brought out.
24. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the GNCTD that it was found
that supplying uniforms in kind has got its own problems. He contends that
it is the duty of the State to provide uniforms, but to get the measurements of
each student of all the schools, which have different colour combination of
uniforms, and then placing tender for the cloth on the GeM portal and after
procurement of the cloth, getting the uniforms stitched so that they can be
supplied to students in time, is a long and tedious process and that is the
reason the Government has come up with the said Policy of increasing the
reimbursement amount so that the Government is able to undertake and
fulfil its responsibility and complete the mandate of the 2011 Rules. He
states that there is a significant increase in the rates of the school uniforms
and students are being paid between Rs.1250 to 1700 for uniform.
25. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that it is
the mandate to provide for uniforms in kind and that the Policy dated
10.06.2025, brought out by the GNCTD, is contrary to the directions passed
by this Court.
26. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material
on record.
27. We find that the difficulties faced by the Government regarding
measurement of uniforms, procurement of material, and processing of
individual orders and distribution of uniforms are genuine. 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, after procurement of the material getting the uniforms stitched
as per the measurements and finally distributing the uniforms in schools
before the commencement of a new session. In the opinion of this Court, the
decision taken by the Government to provide for money to the students
directly so that they can buy the uniforms would ensure that the uniforms are
available to the students in time. The decision taken by the Government
cannot be said to be contrary to the mandate of the RTE Act and the 2011
Rules. 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.
Therefore, the insistence of the Petitioners that actual physical uniforms be
provided cannot be accepted.
28. In a catena of judgments passed by the Apex Court, the scope of
interference by the courts in matters of policy is well established. Judicial
review is the cornerstone of constitutionalism and is a part of our basic
structure. Despite this understanding, the Supreme Court has time and again
reiterated how, by way of judicial review, policy decisions of the State
should not be interfered with unless they are grossly arbitrary or irrational as
there is a need to maintain separation of powers.
29. In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors., (1981) 1 SCC 568, the Apex Court has observed as
under:-
"35. A pragmatic approach to social justice compels
us to interpret constitutional provisions, including
those like Articles 32 and 226, with a view to see that
effective policing of the corridors of power is carried
out by the court until other ombudsman arrangements
-- a problem with which Parliament has been
wrestling for too long -- emerges. I have dwelt at a
little length on this policy aspect and the court process
because the learned Attorney-General challenged the
petitioner's locus standi either qua worker or qua
citizen to question in court the wrongdoings of the
public sector although he maintained that what had
been done by the Corporation was both bona fide and
correct. We certainly agree that judicial interference
with the administration cannot be meticulous in our
Montesquien system of separation of powers. The
court cannot usurp or abdicate, and the parameters
of judicial review must be clearly defined and never
exceeded. If the Directorate of a government
company has acted fairly, even if it has faltered in its
wisdom, the court cannot, as a super-auditor, take
the Board of Directors to task. This function is
limited to testing whether the administrative action
has been fair and free from the taint of
unreasonableness and has substantially complied
with the norms of procedure set for it by rules of
public administration." (emphasis supplied)
30. In Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors. v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors.,
(2007) 4 SCC 737, the Apex Court had observed as follows:-
"16. The scope of judicial review of governmental
policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot
act as Appellate Authorities examining the
correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a
policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on
matters of policy which the executive is entitled to
formulate. The scope of judicial review when
examining a policy of the Government is to check
whether it violates the fundamental rights of the
citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the
Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or
manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with
policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on
the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is
available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom
or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial
review (vide Asif Hameed v. State of J&K [1989 Supp
(2) SCC 364] , Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of
India [(1990) 3 SCC 223] , Khoday Distilleries
Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1996) 10 SCC 304]
, BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of India [(2002)
2 SCC 333] , State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash [(2005)
13 SCC 495 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1225] and Akhil
Bharat Goseva Sangh (3) v. State of A.P. [(2006) 4
SCC 162] )." (emphasis supplied)
31. The aforementioned observation had also been made in Indian
Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. v. Indian Railway Major
and Minor Caterers Association and Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 792. The Apex
Court held that policy decisions of the Government should not be interfered
with unless the policy is contrary to provisions of statutory rules or of the
Constitution. In the said case, no illegality or unconstitutionality had been
shown and the Apex Court held as under:-
"2. By the impugned order, the High Court has
interfered with the Catering Policy of 2005 in respect
of reservations. By now it is a well-settled principle of
law that policy decisions of the Government should
not be interfered with in a routine manner unless the
policy is contrary to the provisions of statutory rules
or of the Constitution. Nothing has been brought to
our notice that the Policy is contrary to the
provisions of the statutory rules or the Constitution.
For this simple reason, we set aside the order of the
High Court impugned herein." (emphasis supplied)
32. In Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India and Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC
533, though the Supreme Court was broadly examining policy decisions
pertaining to health, it had observed that in exercise of their judicial review,
Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the
Executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide,
unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness, etc. The relevant portion of the
judgment stating the same is as under:-
"21. We shall now proceed to analyse the precedents
of this Court on the ambit of judicial review of public
policies relating to health. It is well settled that the
Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review,
do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of
the executive unless the policy can be faulted on
grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness
or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality,
perversity and mala fide will render the policy
unconstitutional. It is neither within the domain of the
courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon
an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is
wise or whether better public policy can be evolved.
Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at
the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been
urged that a different policy would have been fairer or
wiser or more scientific or more logical. Courts do not
and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the
correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a
policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on
matters of policy which the executive is entitled to
formulate. The scope of judicial review when
examining a policy of the Government is to check
whether it violates the fundamental rights of the
citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the
Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or
manifestly arbitrary."
33. Applying the said principles to the facts in hand, this Court does not
find any infirmity in the decision making process. The policy decision
arrived at by the Respondent does not show that there was any intent of
malafide or that the Policy is contrary to provisions of statutory rules or of
the Constitution.
34. In view of the above, this Court does not find fault with the Policy
dated 10.06.2025. Resultantly, the Order dated 13.04.2023 to the extent that
it is applicable to uniforms is modified and the GNCTD is directed to ensure
that adequate amount is provided in accordance with the Policy decision
taken by the Government well within time and at the earliest.
35. With these observations, the Review Petition is disposed of.
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
JANUARY 23, 2026
Rahul
