CivilsWisdom.
Updated · Today
Polity & Governance May 20, 2026 6 min read Daily brief · #13 of 42

Analysing India’s budgets for justice

An analysis of India's state and central budgets for the justice system reveals a persistent structural imbalance: police (enforcement) receive the overwhelm...

GS Paper 2

What Happened

  • An analysis of India's state and central budgets for the justice system reveals a persistent structural imbalance: police (enforcement) receive the overwhelming majority of justice-related spending, while judiciary, legal aid, and prisons remain chronically underfunded.
  • According to the India Justice Report 2025, police receive the highest per capita justice expenditure at ₹1,275, while judiciary receives only ₹182 per capita and legal aid a negligible ₹6 per capita annually.
  • The 11 high-GDP states studied allocate an average of 4.56% of their budgets to justice delivery (FY 2024–25), with the total allocation reaching approximately ₹1.96 lakh crore — but the distribution within this envelope is heavily skewed toward enforcement.
  • The Union Budget 2026–27 allocated ₹4,509 crore to the judiciary (down from revised estimates of ₹5,189 crore in 2025–26), with judicial infrastructure spending declining to ₹812 crore — the lowest since 2022–23.
  • No state spends more than 1% of its annual expenditure on the judiciary (except Delhi and Chandigarh), while India's national judiciary budget remains under 0.1% of GDP, with over 90% going to salaries and establishment costs rather than infrastructure or technology.

Static Topic Bridges

Architecture of India's Justice System — The Four Pillars

India's justice system rests on four interconnected pillars: police, judiciary, prisons, and legal aid. Each is governed by a distinct legislative and constitutional framework, and each depends on adequate funding to perform its constitutional mandate. Imbalanced funding distorts the system — a well-funded police force feeding cases into an underfunded judiciary creates case pendency and prolonged pre-trial detention.

  • Police: A State List subject (List II, Seventh Schedule, Entry 2). Each state has its own police act; the Model Police Act (2006, based on Padmanabhaiah Committee recommendations) has not been universally adopted. Central forces (CRPF, BSF, CISF etc.) are Union List subjects.
  • Judiciary: Article 247 allows Parliament to establish additional courts for central laws. High Courts are under Article 214; District Courts under Article 233 (appointment of district judges by Governor in consultation with HC). Infrastructure is a Concurrent List subject (Entry 11A, inserted by 42nd Amendment 1976 — "administration of justice").
  • Prisons: State List subject (List II, Entry 4 — "prisons, reformatories, Borstal institutions"). The Prisons Act, 1894 is the primary legislation, though 2023 Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act has been recommended for state adoption.
  • Legal Aid: National Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 — NALSA provides free legal aid to eligible persons (includes economically weaker sections, women, SCs/STs, persons with disabilities). Article 39A (DPSP) mandates equal justice and free legal aid.

Connection to this news: The budgetary analysis shows that the first pillar (police/enforcement) consumes the largest share, while the fourth pillar (legal aid) — which protects rights of the most vulnerable — receives less than ₹6 per capita annually. This is the "enforcement and surveillance" architecture the article critiques.

Article 39A and Access to Justice as a Constitutional Obligation

Article 39A is a Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP), inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976. It directs the State to ensure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity and, in particular, provides free legal aid by suitable legislation or schemes to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.

  • Article 39A is in Part IV (Directive Principles) — not enforceable in courts as a Fundamental Right, but operative as a guide to legislative and executive action.
  • However, the Supreme Court has read legal aid as a component of the right to fair trial under Article 21 (Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1979; M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, 1978).
  • NALSA (National Legal Services Authority) — apex body under the NALSA Act, 1987; headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge; provides legal services through State LSAs, District LSAs, and legal services clinics.
  • Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2002 introduced Lok Adalats (People's Courts) — awards are deemed decrees of civil courts, binding and not appealable.
  • India's per capita legal aid spend: ₹6 per annum (India Justice Report 2025) — vs. ₹1,275 per capita on police.

Connection to this news: The ₹6 per capita legal aid figure starkly illustrates the gap between the constitutional aspiration of Article 39A and ground reality. Access to justice for economically marginalised groups — most criminal defendants — remains structurally under-resourced.

Judicial Pendency and the Case for Infrastructure Investment

India's judiciary faces a pendency crisis: estimates suggest approximately 4–5 crore (40–50 million) cases pending across all levels of the court system. This is partly attributable to judge-to-population ratios that remain among the lowest globally, but also to inadequate physical infrastructure, limited use of technology, and poor court management.

  • National Court Management Systems (NCMS) Committee (2012) recommended increasing judge strength to 50 per million population (from approximately 21 per million at the time).
  • The e-Courts Mission Mode Project (Phase I: 2007, Phase II: 2015, Phase III: ongoing) is a Government of India initiative to digitise courts and make records accessible online.
  • The Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Development of Infrastructure Facilities for the Judiciary (Judicial Infrastructure Scheme): central government funding to states for court buildings, residential quarters for judges. Allocation for 2026–27: ₹810 crore (down from ₹998 crore in 2025–26).
  • The Inter Operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) — links police (Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems, CCTNS), courts (eCourt), prisons, and forensic agencies for data sharing. Allocation rose 83% to ₹550 crore in 2026–27.
  • The Modernisation of State Police Forces scheme: ₹450.54 crore in 2026–27 (down from ₹587.97 crore in 2025–26).

Connection to this news: While overall justice spending is low, the distribution further disadvantages the judiciary: infrastructure allocation falls to a nine-year low while police modernisation continues. The analysis points to a structural priority — enforcement over adjudication.

Seventh Schedule and the Division of Justice Functions

Under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, legislative competence over justice-related subjects is divided between the Union and States.

  • Union List (List I): Supreme Court (Entry 77), High Courts (Entry 78 — to the extent of their constitution and organisation), NIA, CBI, Central Forces.
  • State List (List II): Police (Entry 2), Prisons (Entry 4), Administration of justice — constitution and organisation of all courts except Supreme Court and High Courts (Entry 3 — but note Entry 11A below).
  • Concurrent List (List III): Criminal law and procedure (Entries 1 and 2), civil procedure (Entry 13), legal, medical and other professions (Entry 26), administration of justice — constitution and organisation of all courts except Supreme Court and High Courts is also concurrent (Entry 11A, inserted by 42nd Amendment 1976).
  • This divided competence means that state governments control most spending on local police, lower courts, prisons, and district legal services — federal coordination gaps amplify the funding imbalance.

Connection to this news: The budgetary analysis spans both Union and State budgets because most justice delivery is a state responsibility — making state-level political will to fund the judiciary and legal aid as important as central allocations.

Key Facts & Data

  • Per capita justice spending in 11 high-GDP states (India Justice Report 2025): Police ₹1,275; Judiciary ₹182; Legal Aid ₹6; Prisons ₹57.
  • Total justice allocation by 11 high-GDP states (FY 2024–25): approximately ₹1.96 lakh crore.
  • Justice as share of state budgets: average 4.56% across 11 high-GDP states.
  • No state (except Delhi and Chandigarh) spends more than 1% of annual expenditure on judiciary.
  • India's national judiciary spend: under 0.1% of GDP; over 90% goes to salaries.
  • Union Budget 2026–27 judiciary allocation: ₹4,509 crore (down from revised ₹5,189 crore in 2025–26).
  • Judicial Infrastructure Scheme allocation 2026–27: ₹810 crore — lowest since 2022–23.
  • ICJS (Inter Operable Criminal Justice System) allocation 2026–27: ₹550 crore (up 83%).
  • NALSA Act, 1987; Article 39A (DPSP): free legal aid mandate.
  • Article 21 (right to fair trial includes legal aid): Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979); M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978).
  • 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976: inserted Article 39A and Entry 11A (Concurrent List — administration of justice).
  • Estimated pending cases across Indian courts: 4–5 crore (40–50 million).
On this page
  1. What Happened
  2. Static Topic Bridges
  3. Architecture of India's Justice System — The Four Pillars
  4. Article 39A and Access to Justice as a Constitutional Obligation
  5. Judicial Pendency and the Case for Infrastructure Investment
  6. Seventh Schedule and the Division of Justice Functions
  7. Key Facts & Data
Display