Critically examine the Central Sector Scheme model of funding in the context of legal aid delivery in India.

A Central Sector Scheme (CSS-Central) is designed and financed entirely by the Union through 100% Gross Budgetary Support, with no State cost-sharing. DISHA 2.0 (2026-31), approved with an outlay of ₹255 crore [1], is the current vehicle for delivering the Article 39A promise of free legal aid. The model brings coherence and reach, but its fiscal thinness and weak State ownership limit transformative impact.

Merits of the Central Sector model in legal aid

• Fiscal certainty: full central funding insulates legal aid from State fiscal stress, allowing a stable five-year horizon (2026-31) unaffected by State budget cycles [1].
• Pan-India uniformity: a single design of Tele-Law, Nyaya Bandhu, Legal Literacy and Awareness runs identically across States/UTs, avoiding regional dilution of entitlements.
• Scale demonstrated: DISHA achieved outreach to over 2.37 crore beneficiaries, including 1.13 crore+ pre-litigation advices [1].
• Centralised technology and monitoring: the VIDHI-Sanjeevani dashboard and a Programme Management Unit enable real-time tracking [1], while delivery piggybacks on central platforms — Common Service Centres, the UMANG app and helpline 14454 [2].

Limitations

• Modest outlay: ₹255 crore over five years for a nationwide justice mandate is small against unmet legal need; DISHA 1.0 ran on a comparable ₹250 crore [3].
• Parallel channels: the statutory machinery — NALSA, SLSAs and DLSAs under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — is separately funded via grants-in-aid [4], risking duplication rather than convergence with DISHA.
• Weak State ownership: with no cost-sharing, States have little incentive to invest, though administration of justice is a Concurrent List subject.
• Sustainability risk: finite scheme cycles offer no permanent entitlement, and last-mile quality depends on panel lawyers and 10,133 volunteer pro-bono advocates [2].
• Output-focused metrics: success is counted in consultations delivered, not case outcomes or grievance redressal.

The Central Sector model is well suited to building digital public infrastructure for justice, but cannot substitute for the statutorily funded legal services machinery. Converging DISHA 2.0's dashboard with NALSA-SLSA reporting, linking fund release to outcome indicators, and encouraging States to supplement locally would transform Article 39A from a directive principle into a lived guarantee of equal justice.