The Delhi High Court has held that cash in lieu of school uniforms for students admitted under the EWS and DG categories stands, dismissing a review petition against its January 2026 judgment that accepted the Delhi Government’s policy.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by the NGO Justice For All against its judgment of January 23, 2026, which had upheld the Delhi Government’s decision to give financial assistance to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and Disadvantaged Group (DG) students for school uniforms instead of supplying uniforms in kind [Justice For All v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi].
A Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that the review petition was an attempt to re-argue the case, which lies outside the scope of review jurisdiction, and found no error apparent on the face of the record.
Background
The writ petition, W.P.(C) 3684/2013, was filed to secure implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, particularly the provision of free books, uniforms and other study materials to EWS and DG students in aided and unaided recognised private schools of Delhi. Over the years the Court passed several directions and contempt orders in the matter.
On April 13, 2023, the writ petition was disposed of after the Court noted that the Government was willing to provide textbooks and study materials, but the contempt petition was kept pending to see whether uniforms or cash in lieu of uniforms were being provided. On September 30, 2024, the Government’s Standing Counsel recorded that uniforms would be provided to students in government-run schools at least one month before the next session.
A new policy was then framed on June 10, 2025. It records the Government’s view that providing uniforms is a tedious and intensive process, that the tender through the Government e-Marketplace takes about six months, and that every school has a different uniform, which makes managing the varieties and colours impossible. The petitioner sought review and modification of the 2023 order. Treating that application as one for modification, the Court on January 23, 2026 accepted the policy and directed the Government to ensure that an adequate amount is provided to the students for uniforms in accordance with it.
The review petition
Review Petition 487/2026 was filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Bench noted that a review over a review is ordinarily not maintainable, but proceeded because the earlier review had been treated as an application for modification of the 2023 order.
The petitioner argued that it was not given an opportunity to file a reply and that the January judgment was contrary to the statute. The Bench rejected the first contention:
“The learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner appeared and argued the matter in full and no time was sought to file any reply. The contention that the review petition was not heard is not correct.”
The legal position on review
The Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta to reiterate that review is not an appeal. A review lies only on the discovery of new and important matter, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or an analogous ground, and not because the decision is said to be erroneous on merits.
What the Court said on the policy
On the plea that the policy contradicts the statute, the Bench held that the argument had already been raised and considered when the modification application was heard, and that the Court had then found the new policy not contrary to the scheme of the Act. It added that the review was agitating the same arguments again.
“It is well settled that the Courts do not interfere with a Policy decision, unless the same is so arbitrary, whimsical and capricious that it shocks the conscience of the Courts. The decision of the Government that it shall provide cash to the students instead of providing uniforms because of the difficulties faced by the Government cannot be said to be completely arbitrary, whimsical or capricious.”
The Bench also recorded that all the material placed by the Government, including the June 10, 2025 policy and the Note for the Council of Ministers, had been considered before the Court concluded that the policy was not against the mandate of the statute.
“This Court does not find any error apparent on the face of record or that this Court has omitted to consider any material that was placed before the Court.”
With these observations, the review petition was dismissed along with pending applications.
ALSO READ: ‘Who Heads NCPCR?’: Supreme Court Directs NCPCR Chairperson To Appear Over 25% RTE Quota
Why the order matters
The order closes the challenge to the Delhi Government’s shift from supplying uniforms to transferring money for them, a change the petitioner had resisted on the ground that the statute required physical uniforms. It leaves the January 23, 2026 direction in place: the Government must ensure that an adequate amount reaches EWS and DG students in accordance with its policy.
The ruling also restates the narrow limits of review jurisdiction and the deference courts show to policy choices, which will be intervened in only where they are so arbitrary, whimsical or capricious that they shock the conscience of the Court.
Case Title: Justice For All v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [Review Pet. 487/2026 in W.P.(C) 3684/2013]
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Renu Bhatnagar, Delhi High Court
Date of Judgment: October 12, 2026
Appearance: Mr. Khagesh B. Jha, Advocate, for the Petitioner/Review Petitioner