Justice for the Few? How Budgetary ApathyReinforces Inequalities in Legal Aid Delivery

1. Introduction

“Justice delayed is justice denied, but justice denied to the poor is democracy betrayed.”

When India’s Constitution-makers gave us Article 39A, they promised that no citizen would be excluded from justice because of poverty. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, was meant to bring this vision alive by building a nationwide structure for legal aid.

The promise is, however, a mirage. Since 2019, the national per capita spending on legal aid has doubled from roughly ₹3 to ₹7. According to the Ministry of Justice, the UK spends more per person on its legal aid system than any other country. The numbers do not lie. They reveal a disturbing truth: legal aid in India is not a constitutional right in practice, but a reluctant concession.

The author argues that chronic underfunding of legal aid does not merely weaken the justice system rather it manufactures inequality. It creates two Indias: one where the privileged buy justice, and another where the poor queue up for crumbs.

2. The Constitutional Promise vs. Ground Reality

Article 39A guarantees equal access to justice, irrespective of economic barriers. The Supreme Court has declared legal aid a fundamental right flowing from Article 21. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court classified legal aid as an essential part of the right to life. In Khatri v. State of Bihar, the court went further, ruling that the state cannot plead lack of funds to escape this duty.

India now has a national legal aid system, which is currently governed by the Legal Aid Authorities Act, 1987. The Supreme Court of India has established the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) to provide free legal aid to the poor and marginalized and yet, the gap between law and life yawns wide. District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) are underfunded, clinics in villages exist only on paper, and lawyers empanelled under the scheme are poorly paid and often absent. The total number of para-legal volunteers dropped by nearly 38% between 2019 and 2024. From 5.7 per lakh population, there were only 3.1 per lakh population in 2023. The Supreme Court in Gupta v. Union of India stated that -

“Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right … and such person or determinate class of persons is by reasons of poverty, helplessness, or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for any relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ.”

This conveys that India’s constitutional promise of equal justice is honoured more in rhetoric than in reality. Legal aid is projected as a right, but delivered as charity.

3. Budgetary Apathy in Numbers

In 2023–24, the Union government disbursed ₹400 crore to NALSA, including ₹200 crore earmarked for the Legal Aid Defence Counsel Scheme. While this step is a welcomed increase, yet it still remains grossly inadequate in light of the need. Such figures underscore the disparity between constitutional ideals and financial commitment, reinforcing that access to justice remains a token gesture rather than a substantive right. Contrast this with the United Kingdom, which spends nearly £2 billion annually on legal aid.

Unsurprisingly, the more qualified, and arguably the best lawyers shun empanelment, leaving the poorest with inexperienced or overstretched representation.

This conveys not just a shortage of money, but also a shortage of political will. India spends billions on defense and infrastructure but throws scraps at legal aid. As Benjamin Franklin warned, “Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.”

4. How Underfunding Reinforces Inequalities

The damage is not abstract. It falls heaviest on the weakest.

1. Undertrials: Nearly 77% of India’s prisoners are undertrials. Many are jailed for petty offences, not because they are guilty but because they are poor. Liberty becomes a privilege, not a right. To underfund legal aid in a country where 77% of prisoners are undertrials is not inefficiency; it is constitutional bad faith.

2. Women: Survivors of domestic violence seeking protection or maintenance orders often find legal aid cells under-equipped. Justice delayed often forces them back into abuse.

3. Marginalized groups: Dalits, Adivasis, migrant workers, those who most need protection, find rural clinics defunct or absent.

The author contends that underfunding is not neutral inefficiency. It actively perpetuates injustice by entrenching caste, class, and gender divides.

5. International Comparison: Lessons from Abroad

Functional democracies treat legal aid as a pillar of governance. By treating legal aid as a pillar of governance, such states ensure that citizens, regardless of their economic or social status, can seek redress and protection under the law.

United Kingdom: The Legal Aid Agency guarantees state-funded counsel in criminal, family, and civil cases with around £2 billion annually on legal aid.

South Africa: The Legal Aid Board, a statutory body, ensures that indigent citizens receive professional representation.

Brazil: The Public Defender’s Office enjoys constitutional status and is mandated in every state.

The message that these models convey is clear: where democracies treat equality seriously, legal aid is built as infrastructure, not as token welfare. India’s neglect is not destiny; it is a choice.

6. The Way Forward: From Tokenism to Transformation

Justice in India has a price tag and the poor cannot afford it. If India is to live up to its constitutional ideals, legal aid needs a radical overhaul.

1. Raise the Budget: Peg legal aid to GDP growth, not crumbs.

            Conveys: Justice is not negotiable.

2. Value the Lawyers: Pay fair remuneration, provide training, and attract competent professionals.

Conveys: Poor litigants deserve dignity, not second-rate defense.

3. Strengthen Institutions: Empower DLSAs with staff, infrastructure, and accountability.

Conveys: Legal aid must function like healthcare, not a token office.

4. Leverage Technology and Law Schools: Helplines, mobile apps, and clinical legal education can expand reach.

           Conveys: Justice must adapt to the 21st century.

5. Promote Legal Literacy: Awareness campaigns will empower citizens to claim their rights.

           Conveys: Rights matter only when people know them.

As Gandhi said, “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” India’s treatment of legal aid is, therefore a litmus test of its democracy.

7. Conclusion

India spends under ₹1 per citizen on legal aid while three-fourths of its prisoners are undertrials. Women, Dalits, Adivasis, and migrants remain structurally excluded. This is not an accident of budgeting rather it is a betrayal of the Constitution. Democracies are not judged by skyscrapers or warships, but by the protections they extend to the powerless. If India wishes to remain faithful to its founding ideals, it must treat legal aid as a constitutional right worthy of robust investment, not as a symbolic afterthought or else, as Martin Luther King Jr. warned, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”