Delhi High Court Allows Delhi Govt To Directly Transfer School Uniform Subsidy To EWS/DG Students, Instead Of In-Kind Supply
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subramonium Prasad on Friday permitted the Delhi Government to extend school-uniform assistance to Economically Weaker Section and Disadvantaged Group students studying in private unaided schools through Direct Benefit Transfer, instead of supplying uniforms only in kind. The dispute arose from a challenge to the government’s practice of paying a fixed amount for uniforms, with the petitioner contending that uniforms must be provided physically, while the government cited implementation constraints and a revised policy framework. Modifying its 2023 directions limited to uniforms, the Bench directed the government to ensure an adequate amount is released in line with the policy at the earliest.
The proceedings arose from a public interest writ petition filed seeking enforcement of statutory obligations under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, concerning the provision of free textbooks, uniforms, and study materials to students admitted under the Economically Weaker Section and Disadvantaged Group categories in recognised schools in Delhi. During the pendency of the writ petition, multiple directions were issued to ensure compliance with these statutory mandates.
Subsequently, issues emerged regarding the mode of providing school uniforms, with the government opting to disburse a fixed monetary amount instead of supplying uniforms in kind. This led to objections that such an approach was contrary to earlier court directions. After disposal of the writ petition by an order dated 13 April 2023, the government filed a review petition, later treated as an application for modification, seeking permission to implement a revised policy allowing uniform subsidy through Direct Benefit Transfer. The request was based on policy decisions taken after the original order, citing administrative and operational constraints in procurement and distribution of uniforms. The dispute centered on whether the statutory framework mandated physical supply of uniforms or permitted monetary assistance as an alternative.
The Court examined the operational difficulties highlighted by the government in supplying uniforms in kind, including measurement of students, procurement of cloth, tailoring, and timely distribution. It observed that “it would be impossible to carry-out the exercise of taking measurements of every student, placing orders for different kinds of uniform cloth… and finally distributing the uniforms in schools before the commencement of a new session.”
Addressing the statutory framework, the Court noted that while the rules impose an obligation to provide uniforms, “the Rules do not state that the Government has to provide uniforms in kind only.” It further recorded that “the insistence of the Petitioners that actual physical uniforms be provided cannot be accepted.”
On judicial review of policy decisions, the Court reiterated settled principles, observing that “policy decisions of the Government should not be interfered with unless they are grossly arbitrary or irrational.” Referring to precedents of the Supreme Court, the Court recorded that “courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy.”
Applying these principles, the Court stated that “the decision taken by the Government cannot be said to be contrary to the mandate of the RTE Act and the 2011 Rules.” It further observed that no mala fides, illegality, or constitutional infirmity was demonstrated in the decision-making process. Consequently, the policy allowing Direct Benefit Transfer for uniforms was found to fall within the permissible domain of executive policy-making.
Also Read: Adults Cannot Criminalise Breakups In Consensual Relationship Using Rape Law: Delhi High Court
The Court ordered that “the Order dated 13.04.2023 to the extent that it is applicable to uniforms is modified. 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. The Review Petition is disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Khagesh B. Jha, Advocate, along with Ms. Shikha Sharma Bagga, Mr. Ankit Mann, Ms. Jyoti Shokeen, and Ms. Amisha Dhariwan, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel, along with Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Ms. Harshita Nathrani, and Ms. K. Mittal, Advocates
Case Title: Justice For All v. Government of NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:582-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 3684/2013; Review Petition 475/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Subramonium Prasad
