Justice Underfunded: Why Legal Aid Receives Only Crumbs from the Justice Budget

Introduction

Access to justice is one of the most celebrated constitutional promises in India, yet it remains one of the most underfunded areas in practice. Despite the guarantee under Article 39A of the Constitution, which mandates the State to provide free legal aid, the allocation of financial resources to legal services continues to be negligible when compared to the overall justice budget. This imbalance raises a critical question: can justice be meaningful when those who cannot afford it are systematically excluded by design?

The Current Funding Reality

In India, legal aid is primarily delivered through the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which established the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and its state counterparts. Yet, reports show that less than 0.05% of the annual justice budget is earmarked for legal aid schemes. According to NALSA’s Annual Report (2021–22), over 1.2 crore beneficiaries received legal aid or advice in that year, but the expenditure per capita was dismally low, often amounting to less than the cost of a single legal consultation in metropolitan cities.Such figures reveal that while the government celebrates the outreach of legal aid schemes, the actual investment per beneficiary is minimal, leading to poor quality representation and lack of accountability.

Constitutional and Judicial Mandates

The underfunding of legal aid is paradoxical because the Indian judiciary has consistently affirmed that access to counsel is a fundamental right. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court held that the right to free legal services is implicit in Article 21. Similarly, in Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981), the Court directed that legal aid must be provided at the very stage of the first production before a magistrate.The constitutional vision is, therefore, clear: legal aid is not charity but a right. Yet, the budgetary neglect reduces it to tokenism.

Why Legal Aid Remains Underfunded

The chronic underfunding of legal aid stems from multiple structural and political factors:

1. Perception as Welfare, Not Right – Legal aid is often treated as a welfare measure for the poor rather than a constitutional guarantee, which affects how seriously budgets are allocated.

2. Administrative Neglect – State Legal Services Authorities frequently suffer from vacancies, poor infrastructure, and a lack of trained personnel.

3. Urban Bias – Resources are concentrated in urban centers, leaving rural and marginalized communities underserved.

4. Political Economy of Justice – Budgets for police and prosecution are consistently prioritized, as they are perceived to directly affect law and order, while legal aid is seen as low-visibility expenditure.

Comparative Insights

A comparative glance shows how stark India’s underfunding is:

- United Kingdom: The Legal Aid Agency manages a budget exceeding £1.5 billion annually.

- South Africa: Legal Aid South Africa operates as an independent public entity with guaranteed government funding and strong accountability mechanisms.

- United States: The Legal Services Corporation has a budget of over $560 million, directly funding nonprofit legal aid organizations.While each of these systems faces challenges, they reveal that dedicated institutional funding is possible when there is political will.

Structural Challenges in India

Even the limited funds earmarked for legal aid face systemic hurdles:- Underpaid Panel Lawyers – Lawyers empaneled under legal aid schemes are poorly compensated, leading to low motivation and compromised quality of representation.

- Poor Awareness – Many eligible beneficiaries, particularly women, Dalits, and Adivasis, remain unaware of their entitlement to free legal services.

- Weak Monitoring – State Legal Services Authorities rarely publish detailed accounts of fund utilization, leading to opacity and inefficiency

.- Marginalization of Voices – Vulnerable groups often find themselves excluded from decision-making processes on how legal aid services should be designed.

Way Forward

To move beyond crumbs, India needs structural reforms in both funding and implementation:

1. Increased Budgetary Allocation – At least 1% of the justice budget should be earmarked for legal aid, with clear guidelines for utilization.

2. Capacity Building – Regular training for legal aid lawyers and paralegal volunteers, along with fair remuneration, can improve quality.

3. Technology Integration – Programs like Tele-Law and online legal aid clinics should be scaled up with robust infrastructure.

4. Awareness Campaigns – Nationwide campaigns are essential to make citizens aware of their right to free legal aid.

5. Judicial Oversight – High Courts and the Supreme Court must continue to nudge governments through directions and suo motu actions.

Conclusion

The constitutional guarantee of equal justice will remain hollow unless legal aid is adequately funded and effectively delivered. The current system, where lakhs of beneficiaries share meager resources, reflects a deeper apathy towards the marginalized. If India is serious about its constitutional vision, legal aid must move from being an afterthought in the budget to a central pillar of the justice system. Justice cannot be real when it is only for those who can afford it.

Endnotes

1. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1979) 3 SCC 532.

2.  Khatri v. State of Bihar, (1981) 1 SCC 627.