Court reiterates limited scope of review jurisdiction and finds government's policy decision neither arbitrary nor violative of Right to Education Act
In a significant judgment delivered on October 12, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Mr. Subramonium Prasad and Renu Bhatnagar) dismissed a review petition filed by the petitioner "Justice for All" challenging the government's policy of providing cash allowances instead of uniforms to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and Disadvantaged Group (DG) students under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).
The original writ petition, filed in 2013, sought enforcement of the RTE Act's provisions to ensure free textbooks, uniforms, and study materials to EWS/DG students admitted to private aided and unaided schools in Delhi. Over the years, the court monitored compliance through several orders and contempt proceedings.
In April 2023, the court disposed of the writ petition noting the Government of NCT of Delhi's (GNCTD) willingness to provide textbooks and study materials but kept the contempt petition pending to verify uniform provision or cash alternatives. Subsequently, a policy dated June 10, 2025, was framed by GNCTD citing practical and administrative difficulties in supplying uniforms due to tender delays and diverse school uniforms, leading to the decision to provide a cash amount instead.
Justice for All challenged this policy through a review petition, contending that the court's earlier acceptance of the policy was erroneous and that adequate opportunity to contest was not provided. The court thoroughly examined the grounds of review, applying settled legal principles that restrict review jurisdiction to cases involving discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reasons-not to re-argue or appeal merits.
Citing Supreme Court precedents such as Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (2006), Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (1979), and others, the court emphasized that review proceedings are not an appeal in disguise. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record and noted that the policy decision was neither arbitrary, whimsical, nor capricious.
The court also rejected the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of opportunity to file a reply, stating that adequate time was granted and the petitioner's counsel fully argued the matter without seeking additional time.
Importantly, the court reaffirmed the principle that judicial interference in policy decisions is limited and will only occur if such decisions shock the court's conscience. Given the administrative complexities and the government's efforts to comply with the RTE Act, the decision to provide cash in lieu of uniforms was held to be valid and within the statutory framework.
The review petition was dismissed, effectively upholding the GNCTD's policy and directing the government to ensure that adequate cash amounts are provided to EWS/DG students for uniforms as per the policy.
This judgment clarifies the limits of review jurisdiction and underscores judicial deference to policy decisions made in good faith, especially in the context of welfare measures for economically disadvantaged students.
Bottom Line:
Review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 CPC is limited and cannot be used to re-argue the matter or treat review as an appeal in disguise. Court upheld GNCTD policy of providing cash amount in lieu of uniforms to EWS/DG students, holding that policy decision was not arbitrary and no error apparent on the face of record was shown.
Statutory provision(s):
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 114, Order XLVII Rule 1
Justice for All v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3001677
