Introduction:

In Justice For All v. Government of NCT of Delhi, decided by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Subramonium Prasad, the Delhi High Court addressed a long-standing issue arising from a public interest writ petition filed in 2013 seeking effective implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), particularly the obligation of the State to provide free textbooks, uniforms and study material to students belonging to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Disadvantaged Groups (DG) admitted in aided and unaided private schools in Delhi, the litigation had earlier resulted in directions emphasizing that uniforms should ordinarily be supplied in kind rather than by giving cash, as the Court was concerned that monetary assistance might not be utilized for the intended purpose, however, faced with persistent administrative and logistical challenges, the Delhi Government approached the Court by way of a review/modification plea seeking permission to implement the uniform assistance component through Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) into the accounts of beneficiaries, contending that the rigid requirement of physical supply of uniforms was impractical, time-consuming and counter-productive to the objective of ensuring that children receive uniforms before the start of the academic session, and it was in this backdrop that the High Court was called upon to reconsider its earlier approach and balance statutory intent with administrative feasibility and ground realities.

Arguments:

On behalf of the petitioners, led by the NGO Justice For All, it was argued that the spirit of the RTE Act and the Delhi Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 mandates not merely financial support but actual facilitation of schooling needs, and that supplying uniforms in kind ensures uniformity, prevents misuse of funds, and guarantees that the child actually receives the benefit intended by law, the petitioners contended that DBT could result in diversion of funds for household expenses, thereby defeating the objective of providing school uniforms, they further argued that earlier judicial directions had already clarified that uniforms ought to be supplied physically, and allowing cash transfer would dilute compliance and weaken accountability mechanisms, according to them, where public funds are involved and children’s rights are at stake, the State must adopt a method that ensures certainty of benefit rather than leaving it to parental discretion, they also stressed that uniform supply promotes equality among students and prevents social discrimination based on clothing, which is an important component of inclusive education under the RTE framework, and therefore, they urged the Court not to permit deviation from in-kind supply, on the other hand, the Delhi Government, represented by senior counsel, submitted that while the objective of providing uniforms was fully accepted and never disputed, the method of implementation had to be practical and efficient, it was argued that taking measurements of lakhs of students across hundreds of private schools, placing procurement orders for different types and sizes of uniforms on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal, arranging stitching, quality checks and finally distributing the uniforms before the academic session begins was administratively unworkable, the Government explained that delays were inevitable under such a centralized procurement model and that students often ended up starting school without uniforms, which directly undermined the purpose of the scheme, it was further submitted that DBT ensures timely availability of funds, allowing parents to purchase uniforms locally according to school specifications, thus achieving faster and more flexible compliance, importantly, the Government argued that neither the RTE Act nor the 2011 Rules prescribe that uniforms must be supplied strictly in kind, they only mandate that uniforms must be provided, and therefore, DBT does not violate statutory provisions, it was also emphasized that the policy decision was taken in good faith, after assessing logistical bottlenecks, and was aimed at improving delivery rather than reducing benefits, the Government assured the Court that adequate amounts would be transferred well in advance of the academic session to ensure timely purchase of uniforms.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the rival submissions, the High Court modified its earlier direction and permitted the Delhi Government to provide uniform assistance through DBT, holding that the difficulties highlighted by the Government were genuine and could not be brushed aside, the Court made a realistic assessment of the process involved in physical supply of uniforms and observed that it would indeed be “impossible” to carry out individualized measurement, procurement of cloth, stitching of uniforms and distribution across schools within the limited time available before the start of a new session, the Bench acknowledged that procedural rigidity should not defeat substantive rights, and that administrative mechanisms must facilitate, not obstruct, the delivery of benefits to children, significantly, the Court examined the statutory framework and held that while the 2011 Rules mandate provision of uniforms, they do not stipulate that such provision must necessarily be in kind, therefore, insisting on physical supply as the only lawful mode was not supported by the text of the Rules, the Court rejected the argument that DBT would necessarily lead to misuse, observing that the law cannot presume lack of responsibility on the part of parents of EWS and DG students, and that timely financial assistance may in fact better serve the child’s interest by ensuring immediate availability of uniforms, the Bench further held that policy decisions of the Government, especially in matters involving administrative logistics and financial disbursement, should not be interfered with unless they are arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to statutory provisions, and in the present case, the Court found no element of bad faith or constitutional violation in the Government’s policy dated 10.06.2025, it thus concluded that the earlier order of 13.04.2023 requiring uniforms to be supplied in kind deserved modification to the extent it applied to uniforms, and accordingly directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to ensure that adequate amounts are provided through DBT well within time and at the earliest so that students are not deprived of uniforms at the beginning of the school session, the judgment thus reflects a pragmatic approach that prioritizes timely access to benefits over rigid adherence to form, while still safeguarding the core objective of the RTE Act, namely, removing financial barriers to education for disadvantaged children.