Delhi High Court Upholds Cash Assistance In Lieu Of School Uniforms For EWS Students, Rejects Review Plea

The Delhi High Court has held that the decision of the Delhi Government to provide cash assistance to students belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and Disadvantaged Group (DG) categories in lieu of school uniforms cannot be said to be “completely arbitrary, whimsical or capricious.”

A Division Bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Renu Bhatnagar observed that judicial interference with a policy decision is warranted only when it is so arbitrary, whimsical or capricious that it shocks the conscience of the Court.

The Court made the observation while dismissing a review petition filed by NGO Justice For All, which had challenged the High Court's January 23 judgment accepting the Delhi government's policy of providing financial assistance for uniforms instead of supplying uniforms directly.

The original writ petition was filed seeking the implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, particularly its provisions concerning free books, uniforms and other study materials for children admitted under the EWS and DG categories in recognised private schools in Delhi.

The Court noted that the Delhi government had framed a new policy on June 10, 2025, citing the administrative difficulties involved in procuring and distributing uniforms.

It also noted that the government had pointed out that the tendering process could take approximately six months and that different schools had different uniform designs, colours and specifications, making procurement and distribution difficult.

In its January 23 judgment, a coordinate bench had accepted the policy and directed the government to ensure that adequate amounts were provided to students for uniforms in accordance with the policy.

The NGO approached the High Court again, contending that it was not given an opportunity to file a reply in the earlier proceedings and that the January 23 judgment was contrary to the statutory mandate.

Rejecting the said contention, the Bench observed that the NGO was given adequate time and that its counsel had appeared and argued the matter at length without seeking time to file a reply.

The Court further held that the review petition was essentially an attempt to re-argue the case in its entirety, which falls outside the permissible scope of review jurisdiction.

It explained that review may be entertained, among other grounds, where new and important material is discovered despite due diligence or where an error apparent on the face of the record exists.

The Bench noted that the contention that the policy violated the RTE Act had already been considered during the earlier proceedings.

“These contentions were considered. The relevant Statute was looked into and this Court was of the opinion that the new policy is not contrary to the scheme of the Act. The Review Petition herein is once again agitating the very same arguments raised at the time of hearing,” the Court said.

Finding no error apparent on the face of the record and no omission to consider relevant material, the Court dismissed the review petition.