Delhi HC Refuses To Reopen Ruling Accepting Delhi’s Cash-For-Uniforms Policy For EWS/DG Students

Justice for All had filed a writ petition seeking implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, including provision of free books, uniforms and study materials to EWS/DG students in Delhi schools.

After the writ petition was disposed of on 13 April 2023, the Court kept the issue of uniforms under consideration while the Government took steps concerning their provision.

The Government subsequently adopted a policy dated 10 June 2025 citing practical and administrative difficulties in supplying uniforms and providing for financial assistance instead.

In a proceeding treated as an application to modify the 2023 order, the Court accepted that policy and directed the GNCTD to provide an adequate amount for uniforms.

The petitioner then sought review of the judgment dated 23 January 2026, alleging, among other things, that it had not been given an opportunity to reply and that the policy contravened the RTE Act.

Whether the review petition disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record or another ground warranting review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

Whether the Court’s acceptance of the Government’s policy to provide money in lieu of uniforms was contrary to the RTE Act and therefore required review.

Whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to respond to the application that resulted in the judgment under review.

Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits review on specified grounds, including discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason.

Relying on Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, (2006) 4 SCC 78, and the authorities discussed there—including Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma, Meera Bhanja and Parsion Devi—the Court reiterated that review is not an appeal: an error must be self-evident, and a decision cannot be reheard or corrected on the merits through review.

It also applied the principles in State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, including that an error requiring a long process of reasoning is not an error apparent and that review must be confined to the permissible grounds and the material considered in the original decision.

The Court further stated that policy decisions are not ordinarily interfered with unless they are so arbitrary, whimsical or capricious as to shock the conscience of the Court.

The Court rejected the claim that the petitioner had been denied an opportunity to respond, finding that adequate time had been available, counsel had argued the matter fully, and no time to file a reply had been sought.

It treated the challenge to the policy’s legality as a renewed argument on the merits: the statutory issue had been argued and considered when the modification application was heard, and the Court had concluded that the policy did not contravene the RTE Act.

The petitioner identified no material omission or self-evident error; the challenge instead sought a rehearing, outside the limited scope of review.

The Court also found no basis to hold that providing financial assistance instead of uniforms was so arbitrary, whimsical or capricious as to justify interference with the policy.

It dismissed the Review Petition and any pending applications.