Funding Visibility Over Justice: Rethinking Budgetary Priorities For India's Courts

One of the four pillars of democracy in India is the judiciary, courts are not merely dispute- resolution forums; they are institutions that give meaning to rights, accountability, and the rule of law. Yet, in India, the judiciary continues to function within a paradox: while judicial pendency rises and court infrastructure remains visibly inadequate, budgetary priorities consistently favour politically visible expenditure such as government advertising, publicity campaigns, and image- building exercises. This imbalance raises a fundamental question - has visibility begun to matter more than justice?

India's judicial infrastructure crisis is well known and documented, Subordinate courts across states operate from decrepit buildings, lack basic amenities such as adequate courtrooms, record rooms, toilets, and digital facilities, and often function with severe staff shortages. According to the India Justice Report, many district courts still operate beyond sanctioned capacity, with judge-to- population ratios far below global standards. These conditions directly affect access to justice, case disposal rates, and public confidence in the legal system.

Despite this, the budgetary allocation to the judiciary remains strikingly low. Judicial expenditure covering the Supreme Court, High Courts, and subordinate judiciary accounts for less than 1% of combined Centre and States budgets, reflecting low budgetary priority for the judiciary despite its essential role. Most of this allocation is spent on salaries and fixed administrative costs, leaving limited fiscal space for infrastructure expansion or technological modernisation. Thus, Capital expenditure on courts remains marginal.

In contrast, government spending on advertising and publicity has steadily increased. Budget documents of both the Union and state governments reveal significant allocations to “information and publicity” and “media outreach.” The Union government's advertising expenditure alone has run into thousands of crores annually in recent years, while several states spend hugely on branding schemes, hoardings, television campaigns, and digital promotions. This imbalance becomes sharper when viewed through opportunity cost. A fraction of the money spent on large-scale advertising campaigns could fund additional courtrooms, digitise records, improve judicial housing, or strengthen court staff capacity which could help in the enhancement of judiciary.

This pattern reflects a deeper political economy problem. Advertising delivers immediate and visible returns such as public perception, electoral recall, and narrative control. Judicial investment, by contrast, yields long-term and less visible benefits such as reduced pendency, procedural fairness, and institutional trust. In a system driven by short political cycles, the latter often loses priority but are of much greater importance. International comparative studies, including those by the World Bank, show that judicial systems globally suffer from chronic underfunding, with courts receiving on average less than 2% of government expenditure and in India it is even less than 1% of the government expenditure. The Indian situation is particularly even more concerning because of the scale of litigation, population pressure, and constitutional reliance on courts to fill governance gaps. When courts are expected to take on expanding responsibilities; from public interest litigation to regulatory oversight without commensurate funding, institutional strain is bound to follow.

Poor infrastructure is not merely an administrative inconvenience; it also has constitutional implications. Overcrowded courtrooms, delayed hearings due to lack of space, and inadequate technological support undermine the right to speedy justice under Article 21. Moreover, infrastructural neglect disproportionately affects citizens from rural and marginalised backgrounds, for whom court access is already costly and intimidating.

While initiatives like e-Courts have improved case tracking and virtual hearings, the absence of reliable hardware, trained staff, and cybersecurity frameworks limits their impact. Budgetary data shows that only a small portion of judicial expenditure is earmarked for technology, reinforcing the cycle of partial reform. None of this suggests that government advertising is entirely unnecessary. Public awareness campaigns play a legitimate role in spreading information about welfare schemes and rights. The core issue lies in proportionality and priority. When spending on visibility consistently outpaces spending on justice delivery, it signals a skewed understanding of governance, one that values perception over institutional capacity.

Rethinking budgetary priorities does not require radical restructuring. It requires recognition that justice is a foundational infrastructure. Courts, like roads or hospitals, enable economic activity, social stability, and democratic legitimacy. Budgetary allocations must reflect this reality, with greater emphasis on judicial infrastructure, human resources, and long-term capacity building. Ultimately, a democracy cannot be sustained on advertising alone. Hoardings may shape narratives, but courtrooms determine rights. If India is serious about strengthening the rule of law, it must move beyond funding what is visible and start investing in what is essential.

Views Are Personal.