Context

• Access to justice is a constitutional promise in India, yet the gap between principle and practice remains stark.
• The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, mandates free legal aid for approximately 80% of India's population.
• Despite this expansive objective, the actual outreach of legal aid services remains significantly limited.
• The analysis of recent trends, particularly between April 2023 and March 2024, exposes both structural strengths and glaring systemic weaknesses that continue to hinder equitable access to justice.

Concerns Surrounding Free Legal Aid

• Modest Reach Amidst Expansive Mandate
  • In 2023–24, only 15.5 lakh people availed legal aid services, an increase of 28% from the previous year’s 12.14 lakh.
  • Although this rise appears promising, it pales in comparison to the sheer scale of India's eligible population.
  • Legal aid services are typically offered through front offices in local courts, prisons, and juvenile justice boards, supported by empanelled lawyers.
  • In rural areas, legal aid clinics serve as important access points.
  • Yet, the India Justice Report 2025 highlights that there is merely one legal service clinic for every 163 villages, underscoring the skewed distribution and limited penetration of services, especially in remote regions.
  • The situation is aggravated by inconsistent financial and human resource support.
• Budgetary Constraints and Skewed Prioritisation
  • Legal aid services receive less than 1% of the total justice budget, which includes police, prisons, judiciary, and legal aid combined.
  • Funding is provided both by State governments and the Centre through the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).
  • While the cumulative allocation rose from ₹601 crore in 2017–18 to ₹1,086 crore in 2022–23, primarily due to an increase in State contributions, NALSA’s share declined from ₹207 crore to ₹169 crore.
  • Even more concerning is the declining utilisation rate of NALSA funds, which dropped from 75% to 59% over the same period.
• Inadequate Per Capita Spending
  • Per capita expenditure on legal aid has increased from ₹3 to ₹7 since 2019, but remains far from adequate.
  • States like Haryana lead with ₹16 per capita spending, while populous and vulnerable states like Bihar (₹3), West Bengal (₹2), and Uttar Pradesh (₹4) fall below the national average of ₹6.
  • This unevenness not only highlights disparities in fiscal commitment but also signals an inequitable access to quality legal services across regions.
• Decline of the Frontline: Para-Legal Volunteers
  • One of the most alarming trends is the reduction in para-legal volunteers (PLVs), trained individuals who act as community-level intermediaries and educators.
  • Between 2019 and 2024, their numbers dropped by 38%, with deployment plummeting from 22,000 in 2019–20 to just 14,000 in 2023–24.
  • Despite their pivotal role, PLVs are poorly compensated; in most states, their daily honorarium remains below minimum wage levels.
  • Kerala is an exception, offering ₹750 per day, while states like Gujarat and Mizoram pay only ₹250—barely enough to cover daily sustenance.
  • This fiscal neglect severely undermines the sustainability and motivation of this critical workforce.

Innovations and Missed Opportunities: The LADC Scheme

• Since 2022, NALSA has attempted to address quality concerns in legal representation through the Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC) scheme, modelled after public defender systems.
• With ₹200 crore fully utilised in 2023–24 and the scheme operational in 610 out of 670 districts, early indications suggest promise.
• However, its budget has already been slashed to ₹147.9 crore for 2024–25.
• While still in its infancy, the LADC could alleviate the burden on empanelled lawyers and improve legal aid delivery, but only if sustained through robust policy and financial support.

Structural Deficiencies and the Way Forward

• Despite incremental financial improvements and administrative innovations, legal aid in India suffers from enduring deficiencies, uneven quality, low public trust, and insufficient accountability.
• These challenges are compounded by chronic underfunding and misallocation of existing resources.
• The over-regulation of fund utilisation hampers local initiative, while poor compensation and declining deployment of key personnel like PLVs compromise outreach and impact.
• If legal aid services are to fulfil their constitutional mandate, a radical recalibration is necessary which requires:
  • Increasing budgetary allocation and ensuring it is commensurate with the scale of need.
  • Flexible and needs-based fund utilisation, allowing local units to address contextual challenges.
  • Fair compensation and wider deployment of para-legal volunteers.
  • Sustained investment in promising schemes like the LADC with mechanisms for quality assurance and impact evaluation.
  • Greater integration with community justice mechanisms to develop trust and awareness.

Conclusion

• The legal aid framework in India stands at a crossroads and while legislative intent and institutional infrastructure exist, the system remains underpowered.
• Enhancing financial support, human resources, and decentralised governance can turn legal aid from a symbolic gesture into a tangible reality.
• Only then can India ensure that justice is not just a lofty ideal, but a lived experience for all its citizens, regardless of economic status or geographic location.