Policy Allowing DBT for School Uniforms in EWS/DG Category Is Legally Sound: Delhi High Court

In a significant decision addressing the operational challenges of public education, the Delhi High Court has approved the shift from distributing physical school uniforms to providing a cash subsidy through Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) for students in the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and Disadvantaged Group (DG) categories.

The division bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad, reviewed a long-standing petition from the advocacy group Justice for All . The case, which began in 2013, concerned the failure of the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) to provide mandated free uniforms and textbooks as per the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE Act), 2009.

The Long Road to Reform

The legal dispute originated in the uneven implementation of the RTE Act. Despite court directions in 2014 requiring free uniforms and study materials, subsequent affidavits revealed that thousands of EWS/DG students were left without essential supplies. For years, the government struggled to bridge the gap between court orders and logistical realities, eventually bringing the case to review in 2025 following a formal policy shift.

The core of the government's argument was practical: procurement of uniforms in kind for hundreds of thousands of students across schools with varying color codes and styles was an administrative nightmare. The GNCTD contended that the "in kind" mandate led to delays, inefficiency, and logistical bottlenecks, and that a DBT model—supported by a Cabinet decision in May 2025—would prove more effective.

Balancing Practicality and Legal Mandates

The petitioners argued that the intent of the RTE Act and the 2011 Rules was the provision of actual physical uniforms, not cash equivalents. However, the Court took a pragmatic approach. While acknowledging that the state has a duty to provide these benefits, the bench ruled that the law does not explicitly require provision in "kind only."

The judgment emphasizes the judiciary's limited role in policy-making, noting that unless a policy is arbitrary or unconstitutional, courts should not intervene.

Key Observations

The High Court drew upon foundational precedents regarding the separation of powers, particularly noting:

• "The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy," the Court stated, citing Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors. v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors.
• Regarding the operational viability, the Court observed: "Undoubtedly, it would be impossible to carry-out the exercise of taking measurements of every student, placing orders for different kinds of uniform cloth on the GeM portal, after procurement of the material getting the uniforms stitched as per the measurements and finally distributing the uniforms in schools before the commencement of a new session."
• "In the opinion of this Court, the decision taken by the Government to provide for money to the students directly so that they can buy the uniforms would ensure that the uniforms are available to the students in time."

A Shift in Compliance

The final judgment allows the GNCTD to proceed with the DBT scheme provided for in its June 2025 policy order. By permitting the move to direct cash transfers, the Court has effectively acknowledged the necessity of modernizing government delivery systems to comply with the spirit of the law, even if the physical method of compliance changes.

For the students of Delhi, this means an increased, inflation-adjusted subsidy meant to reach them directly, theoretically removing the procurement delays that plagued the system for over a decade. The ruling serves as a reminder that constitutional mandates for welfare are often best met through agile administrative policies rather than rigid, outdated procedural mandates.