The Delhi government has got a big relief from the High Court regarding the policy of giving cash in lieu of school uniforms to the children of poor families in Delhi. The court clarified that the policy of giving money in lieu of uniform cannot be called arbitrary. Along with this, the review petition challenging this policy was rejected. This decision was given by the division bench of Justice Subramaniam Prasad and Justice Renu Bhatnagar. According to available information, the court had passed the order on October 12.
Justice for All had filed the petition
In this case, the organization 'Justice for All' had filed a review petition. The organization had challenged the decision of Delhi High Court on January 23, 2026 and demanded reconsideration of the policy of giving cash in exchange for school uniforms. However, the High Court rejected the review petition. With this, the government has got relief in the legal challenge regarding this policy of Delhi government.
What was the whole matter?
The issue of providing cash assistance to poor children in Delhi in lieu of school uniforms is related to the demand for implementation of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009. The original petition demanded that children admitted in private schools under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and Deprived Class (DG) quota should be provided free books, school uniforms and other materials necessary for studies. It included recognized schools, both aided and unaided.
The controversy started when the Delhi government implemented the new policy on June 10, 2025. Under this, instead of directly distributing school uniforms to children, it was decided to provide financial assistance to purchase them. In this system, families are given assistance so that they can buy uniforms for their children as per their needs. The organization 'Justice for All' raised objection in the court regarding this policy and demanded reconsideration of the matter. The organization was of the view that the objective of providing free educational material to children should be effectively implemented. On the other hand, the government policy adopted the system of providing financial assistance in exchange for uniforms. After the case progressed, the Delhi High Court gave its verdict regarding the government's policy on 23 January 2026. The organization then filed a review petition, which was rejected by the court on 12 October 2026.
What argument did the government give?
The Delhi government argued in the High Court that the process of purchase and distribution of school uniforms is quite complex. This puts additional administrative burden on the education department and schools. According to the government, it usually takes about six months to issue tenders and complete the procurement process through the Government e-Marketplace (GeM). The government also said that the colour, design and size of uniform of each school is different. In such a situation, it becomes challenging to procure and deliver the right uniform on time to all the eligible students. In view of this problem, the government adopted the policy of providing financial assistance to the families of children instead of directly distributing uniforms. Considering the arguments of the government, the High Court changed its order of April 13, 2023 in January 2026. The court had directed the government to provide adequate financial assistance to eligible children to purchase uniforms.
What was said in the review petition?
The organization 'Justice for All' demanded reconsideration of the January 2026 decision of the High Court, saying that it did not get adequate opportunity to file its reply. The organization also argued that the policy of giving cash in lieu of uniforms is not in accordance with the spirit of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009. However, the division bench of the High Court did not accept the argument of not getting a proper opportunity of hearing. The court said that sufficient time was given to the petitioner after the petition was filed. The organization's lawyers appeared during the hearing and also presented their arguments in the case. According to the court, there was no demand for additional time from the petitioner to file the reply. On this basis, the court concluded that the argument of not getting adequate opportunity of being heard cannot be accepted. After this, the review petition was rejected, due to which there was no change in the earlier decision regarding the cash assistance policy of Delhi Government.
The court's opinion on the second argument of law
When the policy of giving cash assistance in lieu of uniform was said to be against the spirit of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, the High Court said that the provisions of the law and the policy of the government have already been considered. According to the court, the arguments raised earlier were reproduced in the review petition, whereas the scope of review is limited. The division bench clarified that the review petition is not an alternative to appeal. It can be accepted only under certain specified circumstances. These include the emergence of new and important evidence which, despite best efforts, could not be presented earlier. Moreover, an error clearly visible in the record may also become a ground for reconsideration, which does not require lengthy debate or detailed reasoning to be identified. Citing various decisions of the Supreme Court, the court said that the decision given earlier cannot be fully heard again through reconsideration. According to the bench, the petitioner's arguments did not present sufficient grounds to interfere with the original award.
What was the final stand of the court?
The High Court said that courts generally do not interfere in the policy decisions of the government. Interference is justified only when the policy is clearly arbitrary or unreasonable and creates a need for judicial intervention. In this case, the court did not find any obvious error in the previous decision on the basis of which reconsideration would have been necessary. Additionally, the petitioner could not prove that any material material was ignored during the decision. On these grounds, the division bench dismissed the review petition and all the pending applications related to it. Advocate Khagesh B. appeared on behalf of the petitioner organization 'Justice for All'. Jha had appeared.
Follow the LALLURAM.COM MP channel on WhatsApp