JUSTICE OUT OF REACH: DISSECTING THE UNDERFUNDED LEGAL AID CRISIS AND OUTLINING REFORM ROUTES

“A justice system that abandons the poor to navigate courts alone is not justice,it is a mockery of the rule of law.”

Fali S Nariman

         I.           INTRODUCTION:

In the shadowed alleys of rural India, Mamta, a resilient Dalit woman, bears the scars of exploitation wage theft, abuse, and widowhood. After a brutal assault, she seeks justice yet remains unaware of the Constitution’s promises: Article 14 (equality), 21 (life and liberty), 22(1) (arrest safeguards), 39A (free legal aid), and 38 (social welfare). These rights are reinforced through the Legal Services Authorities Act, Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and initiatives like Legal Aid and Defence Counsel schemes, Lok Adalats, and law school clinics.

Post Independence, a system of free legal aid gradually emerged. The 1958 ,14th Law Commission Report emphasized its requirement. Legal aid as a duty of the state was conceptualized by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in 1973. National schemes were advocated through the 1977 Juridicare report and resulted in the 1987 Legal Services Authorities Act and subsequently the creation of NALSA (National Legal Services Authority) in 1995. These legislative changes entrenched state, district, and taluk authorities and combined para-legal volunteers along with mediation centers to reach out to the margins of justice.

Yet, despite this arsenal designed to empower her, Mamta’s case drags endlessly in under-resourced courts, her overburdened lawyer a casualty of systemic neglect.

If justice is the bedrock of democracy, why does underfunding turn it into a luxury for the few, perpetuating inequality for the many?

      II.         WHY LEGAL AID IS THE POOR COUSIN OF INDIA’S JUSTICE BUDGET?

Despite Article 39A mandate, legal aid remains underfunded, leaving India’s poor without equal access to justice due to systemic inefficiencies, enshrined under of the Indian Constitution, is still elusive for India's.

A.    Political & Budgetary Neglect

At the heart of this issue lies the inadequate funding allocated to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). The justice system receives less than 1% of state budgets, with legal aid accounting for an even smaller share, despite legal mandates. Only ₹836 crore, or 0.49% of state justice budgets, was set aside for legal aid in 2024-2025; in states like West Bengal, per capita spending was as low as ₹2–₹7. Due to stringent fund usage regulations and low honoraria for panel lawyers, NALSA's fund utilization dropped to 59% in 2024. Initiatives are weakened by this persistent underfunding, which also feeds the false belief that more resources are unnecessary.

B.    Institutional & Structural Constraint

Ineffective institutional frameworks exacerbate underfunding. Legal Services Authorities (LSAs) deal with insufficient quality control, lengthy clearance processes, inefficient resource distribution, and bureaucratic hold-ups. Panel lawyers are deterred by low pay, and paralegal volunteers who are essential for outreach in rural areas frequently quit their jobs because they are not paid enough or in a timely manner. This restricts access to justice by causing major gaps in service delivery, especially in rural areas.

C.    Low Awareness & Weak Demand

Many qualified beneficiaries are unaware of their rights, even though the legal aid system is intended to bring justice to people. Just 15.5 lakh people, or a small portion of the 80% eligible population, accessed legal aid in 2023–2024. In light of this low uptake, authorities may leverage the justification of weak demand to defend lower funding. Furthermore, as noted in State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi (1979), which placed an emphasis on open and meaningful access to justice, lack of trust in the legal system fueled by overworked, underprepared lawyers and instances of pressure to settle cases further erodes confidence.

D.    Social Stigma & Narrow Perception 

The fiscal crisis is exacerbated by cultural prejudices. Legal aid's use is stigmatized and its professional significance is diminished because it is frequently perceived as a charity for the destitute. This perception coupled with misconception that legal aid involves subpar services, provides policymakers leeway to sideline it in budget allocations. "Legal aid to the poor does not mean poor legal aid," as former CJI U.U. Lalit rightly pointed out. Funding will continue to be insufficient and equal justice will remain unattainable if legal aid is not acknowledged as a crucial structural element of justice rather than as an empty gesture.

    III.         THE FALLOUT OF LEGAL AID UNDEFUNDING ON JUSTICE AND SOCIETY

A.    Perpetuation of Socio-Economic Inequalities and Cycles of Poverty

Underfunded legal aid deepens socio-economic disparities, denying equal justice and perpetuating poverty cycles for vulnerable groups. This violates Article 14’s equality guarantee, blocking access for women and children fleeing violence, defying P.N. Bhagwati’s principle that poverty and illiteracy must not impede justice.

IJR(Indian Justice Report) 2025 further highlights a massive gap between entitlement and actual access to justice. Structural barriers, such as one legal aid clinic per 163 villages and a 38% reduction in paralegal volunteers (PLVs), coupled with only 20-30% of awareness of rights, stem from funding deficits and a perception of legal aid as “social work” rather than a professional service. Substandard prison representation disrupts education and employability, nurturing intergenerational poverty and recidivism.

Underfunding forces many to act as litigants in person (LiPs), facing poorer outcomes due to unfamiliarity with court processes (Seron et al., 2001; Sandefur, 2015). Robust funding is critical to ensure equitable justice and break poverty cycles.

B.    Degradation of Legal Representation Quality and Beneficiary Dissatisfaction

Underfunded legal aid weakens representation quality, breeding dissatisfaction and an elitist justice perception. Insufficient funding leads to unsystematic lawyer allocation, arbitrary case allocation, and a lack of training, causing 45% beneficiary dissatisfaction. A per capita spending of ₹6.46, one of the lowest globally, limits infrastructure and outreach, diluting mediation and public legal education initiatives. This makes the justice system elitist, subverting the 1976 , 42^nd Amendment’s objective of non-discrimination in access to the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Thereby, underfunding deteriorates trust in legal aid, necessitating reforms to improve service quality and accessibility.

C.    Exacerbation of Judicial Backlogs and Prolonged Undertrial Detention

Underfunded legal aid worsens India’s judicial backlog and extends undertrial detention, undermining the right to a fair trial and imposing heavy economic costs. Per the IJR 2025 and National Judicial Data Grid, over 5.34 crore cases remain pending in early 2025, driven by inadequate legal representation that delays resolutions. For example, Delhi’s INR 18,000 cap for criminal cases, with delayed payments, deters competent lawyers, limiting their availability to 5 per 100,000 population. This impacts undertrials, who form 76% of prisoners and face 3-5 years in 131% capacity jails, violating Article 21’s speedy trial right due to weak bail applications and frequent adjournments.

Overcrowding costs INR 1848 crore annually in prison expenses (2010-2020, 763 facilities) and billions in forfeited wages for low-income inmates. Yet, legal aid clinics in prisons could save INR 1433 crore yearly by cutting conviction rates by 12.4%, yielding a 4.5:1 ROI. Thus, underfunding fuels delays, rights violations, and economic losses, while targeted funding promises significant relief.

    IV.         WAY FORWARD

A.    Enhancing Financial and Institutional Support

Make corporate pro bono or donations tax and CSR incentivized, earmark a specific portion of justice budgets for legal aid, and route NGO donations through NALSA/state funding to combine grassroots knowledge with public investment to ensure sustainable legal aid and eliminate expensive jail overcrowding.

B.    Reforming Legal Aid Delivery Mechanisms

Escrow accounts need to be introduced to safely hold and disburse honoraria payments for legal aid attorneys on case milestones for ensuring accountability and proper utilization of funds. Independent disciplinary committees need to handle misconduct by legal aid counsels. Lok Adalats and ADR mechanisms should be further enabled to lessen burdens in courts and extend access.

C.    Leveraging Technology and Systems

Aadhaar-linked accounts can automatically match beneficiaries with local champions, eliminating red tape and delay; integration with an ombudsman portal enables easy complaint filing with automated oversight checks, and SMS notifications fill rural online gaps by informing on advocate allocation and case status.

D.    Strengthening Human Resources

Enforce law final-year students to work in legal aid clinics and ADR under experienced counsel, offer concrete assistance such as scholarships and certificates to para-legal volunteers, and move from tenure-based to performance-based renewal to honor talented lawyers and eliminate complacent ones, with quality assistance and effective use of funds.

E.    Expanding Awareness and Education

Integrate legal literacy in panchayats, SHGs (self-help groups), and health missions to access communities through trusted frameworks. Pilot school modules to create civic awareness at a young age before country-wide launch. In addition coordinate campaigns with trusted legal aid services so that information is followed up by action.

       V.         CONCLUSION

Underfunded legal aid entrenches inequality, clogs courts, and extends undertrial detention. As P.N. Bhagwati wrote, it's a state responsibility, not charity. Targeted reform supporting funding, efficiency, tech, and awareness can provide strong legal aid and empower the marginalized to build a just society.

If justice delayed is justice denied, how long will we allow undertrials, battered women, displaced workers, and impoverished families to languish without legal recourse before we make robust legal aid the cornerstone of a fair society?