On 22 June 2026, the Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Law and Justice, Shri Arjun Ram Meghwal, approved the continuation of the Central Sector Scheme "Designing Innovative Solutions for Holistic Access to Justice" (DISHA), restructured as DISHA 2.0, for five years (1 April 2026 to 31 March 2031), co-terminus with the XVI Finance Commission cycle. The scheme carries a financial outlay of Rs 255 crore, funded entirely through 100% Gross Budgetary Support of the Union Government, and targets a cumulative outreach of 3 crore beneficiaries. For a CDS/OTA aspirant, the news itself is minor — but the constitutional doorway it opens is high-yield polity: the right to access to justice and free legal aid, anchored in Article 39A, read with Articles 14, 21 and 22(1), and operationalised through the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the NALSA machinery. This is exactly the kind of "scheme-as-a-hook" item the examiner loves, and it deserves a proper daily current affairs breakdown.
What DISHA 2.0 actually is
DISHA is implemented by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice. The earlier DISHA Scheme (2021–26), with an outlay of Rs 250 crore, had reached over 2.37 crore beneficiaries by 31 May 2026. DISHA 2.0 builds on three existing components and adds a fourth:
- Tele-Law (Reaching the Unreached): free pre-litigation legal advice through about 2,50,000 Common Service Centres (CSCs) run by Village Level Entrepreneurs at the Gram Panchayat level, covering 784 districts including Aspirational Districts and Blocks. Nyaya Sahayaks give doorstep assistance.
- Nyaya Bandhu (Pro-Bono Legal Services): advocates and law students offer free legal assistance and court representation to persons eligible under Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, expanded through Pro-Bono Clubs in law colleges.
- Legal Literacy and Legal Awareness Programme (LLLAP): spreads legal awareness via partnerships with ministries, PSUs, civil-society organisations and universities.
- VIDHI Sanjeevani (new fourth component): a centralised digital platform with an integrated dashboard and an AI-powered multilingual "Nyaya Setu" chatbot (built with BHASHINI) for legal-query resolution.
The scheme's own founding document says it fulfils the constitutional mandate of "Access to Justice" as enunciated in the Preamble and Articles 14, 21 and 39A, and advances UN Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). That single sentence is your exam map — let us unpack each anchor.
Central Sector vs Centrally Sponsored Scheme — the must-know distinction
The press release deliberately labels DISHA a "Central Sector Scheme", and the difference is a recurring polity-economy crossover.
- A Central Sector Scheme (CSS-central) is fully funded (100%) by the Union Government and is implemented directly by the Centre or its agencies, usually on subjects in the Union List. DISHA 2.0's "100% Gross Budgetary Support" is the giveaway.
- A Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS-sponsored) is cost-shared between the Centre and the States in a fixed ratio (commonly 60:40, with special ratios for North-Eastern and Himalayan States and 90:10 or 100:0 for UTs), and is implemented by the States, typically on State List or Concurrent List subjects (e.g., MGNREGA, PM Awas Yojana, Samagra Shiksha).
So the test-worthy line is: Central Sector = 100% Union money, Union implementation; Centrally Sponsored = shared funding, State implementation. DISHA 2.0 is the former.
Article 39A — the directive principle behind it all
The scheme exists to honour Article 39A, which reads:
"The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities."
Three facts here win marks. First, Article 39A is a Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP) — it falls in Part IV of the Constitution and is therefore non-justiciable (not directly enforceable in a court), but "fundamental in the governance of the country" under Article 37. Second, it was not in the original 1950 Constitution; it was inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 — the same amendment that added "socialist, secular" to the Preamble and Fundamental Duties (Part IVA). Third, it is the constitutional source of free legal aid: the State's duty to ensure justice is not denied by reason of "economic or other disabilities." Anyone building their polity base should pin these to memory through structured notes such as the Cavalier CDS/OTA polity study material.
How free legal aid became a Fundamental Right too
A DPSP cannot be enforced in court on its own — so how is free legal aid a right? Through judicial interpretation that fused Article 39A with Articles 14 and 21.
- Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court read this to mean justice must be equally accessible, not just formally available.
- Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the Court expanded to include the right to a fair, just and reasonable procedure, and within it a speedy trial and legal representation. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) — the landmark undertrial-prisoners case — the Court held that free legal aid to a poor accused is an essential ingredient of "reasonable, fair and just" procedure under Article 21. In Khatri v. State of Bihar and later rulings, it affirmed the State's duty to inform an accused of this right.
- Article 22(1) separately guarantees every arrested person the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice — a distinct procedural safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention.
So the layered answer the examiner wants is: Article 39A (DPSP) is the policy mandate; Articles 14, 21 and 22(1) make access to justice and legal representation enforceable. This DPSP–Fundamental-Rights interplay is a favourite conceptual question.
The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the NALSA pyramid
To give Article 39A statutory teeth, Parliament enacted the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. A timeline subtlety worth knowing: the Act was passed in 1987, but came into force on 9 November 1995 (after the 1994 Amendment), and the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) was constituted with that enforcement. The architecture is a neat pyramid:
- NALSA (National Legal Services Authority) — apex body at the national level. Its patron-in-chief is the Chief Justice of India, and its Executive Chairman is a sitting/retired Supreme Court judge nominated by the CJI. NALSA frames policies and schemes for legal services across the country. NALSA is the kind of statutory-cum-constitutional-adjacent body covered in the constitutional and statutory bodies section.
- SLSA (State Legal Services Authority) — in each State, headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court as patron-in-chief, with a sitting/retired High Court judge as Executive Chairman.
- HCLSC (High Court Legal Services Committee) — at the High Court level.
- DLSA (District Legal Services Authority) — in each district, headed by the District Judge.
- TLSC (Taluk Legal Services Committee) — at the taluk/sub-division level.
- SCLSC (Supreme Court Legal Services Committee) — for matters before the Supreme Court.
Section 12 lists who is eligible for free legal services: members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; women and children; persons with disabilities; victims of trafficking or begar (Article 23); industrial workmen; persons in custody; victims of mass disaster, ethnic violence or caste atrocity; and persons whose annual income is below the notified ceiling. Note that all women and all children qualify regardless of income — a frequently tested detail.
Lok Adalats — the alternative-dispute pillar of the same Act
The same 1987 Act gives statutory status to Lok Adalats ("People's Courts"), one of India's most distinctive Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) forums. Key examinable features:
- A Lok Adalat award is deemed a decree of a civil court and is final and binding, with no appeal lying against it.
- It can settle compoundable cases, and matters at the pre-litigation stage as well as those pending in court.
- It cannot decide non-compoundable criminal offences.
- National Lok Adalats are held on a single day across the country, disposing of lakhs of cases.
- The Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2002 introduced Permanent Lok Adalats for public-utility services (transport, postal, telegraph, etc.) with a pecuniary jurisdiction ceiling.
Lok Adalats reduce pendency cheaply, which is why they recur in judiciary-themed questions — covered alongside courts and tribunals in the judiciary study material.
Tele-Law, Nyaya Bandhu and the technology turn
DISHA's components correspond to a deliberate strategy of closing the justice gap with technology and volunteerism:
- Tele-Law uses the CSC network to deliver pre-litigation advice — catching problems before they become litigation, which is cheaper for the citizen and the system.
- Nyaya Bandhu institutionalises pro bono ("for the public good") lawyering — free professional service by advocates and law students, building a culture of service.
- VIDHI Sanjeevani and the Nyaya Setu chatbot layer AI and multilingual access (via BHASHINI) on top, so a non-English-speaking villager can get a first answer in their own language.
Together these tackle the demand side (awareness, advice) of the access-to-justice problem.
Why access to justice matters: the pendency context
The supply side is the crisis that makes all of this urgent. India's courts carry an enormous pendency of cases — running into crores across the Supreme Court, High Courts and subordinate courts — driven by judicial vacancies, a low judge-to-population ratio, and procedural delays. The Constitution's promise of "JUSTICE — social, economic and political" in the Preamble rings hollow if a poor litigant cannot afford a lawyer or wait years for a hearing. That is why the policy chain — Article 39A → Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 → NALSA/Lok Adalats → schemes like DISHA — is treated as a single governance story. The Prime Minister's framing, quoted in the release, captures it: "ease of doing business" and "ease of living" remain incomplete without "ease of justice." Aspirants who want this taught end-to-end by serving and veteran faculty can look at the upcoming Cavalier courses in Delhi.
🎯 Practice MCQs
Q1. Article 39A of the Constitution, which provides for equal justice and free legal aid, is: (a) a Fundamental Right in Part III (b) a Directive Principle in Part IV (c) a Fundamental Duty in Part IVA (d) part of the Preamble → (b) — it is a Directive Principle of State Policy, non-justiciable but fundamental in governance.
Q2. Article 39A was inserted into the Constitution by which amendment? (a) 1st Amendment, 1951 (b) 42nd Amendment, 1976 (c) 44th Amendment, 1978 (d) 86th Amendment, 2002 → (b) — the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 added Article 39A (and Fundamental Duties).
Q3. The right of an arrested person to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice is guaranteed by: (a) Article 14 (b) Article 19 (c) Article 22(1) (d) Article 32 → (c) — Article 22(1) gives every arrested person this right.
Q4. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) was constituted under which law? (a) Advocates Act, 1961 (b) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (d) Right to Information Act, 2005 → (b) — the Act was passed in 1987 and enforced in 1995, constituting NALSA.
Q5. The Patron-in-Chief of NALSA is: (a) the President of India (b) the Union Law Minister (c) the Chief Justice of India (d) the Attorney General → (c) — the CJI is Patron-in-Chief; the Executive Chairman is a sitting/retired SC judge.
Q6. DISHA 2.0 is described as a "Central Sector Scheme." This means it is: (a) fully funded by the Union and implemented by the Centre (b) shared 60:40 with the States (c) funded entirely by the States (d) funded by the Finance Commission grants → (a) — Central Sector Schemes are 100% Union-funded; DISHA 2.0 runs on full Gross Budgetary Support.
Q7. Which of the following is correct about a Lok Adalat award? (a) it can be appealed to the High Court (b) it is deemed a decree of a civil court and is final (c) it can try non-compoundable offences (d) it has no legal force → (b) — the award is deemed a civil-court decree, binding, with no appeal.
Q8. Under Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which group is entitled to free legal aid irrespective of income? (a) industrial workmen only (b) women and children (c) senior citizens only (d) only persons below the poverty line → (b) — all women and children qualify regardless of income, along with SC/STs, persons with disabilities, victims of trafficking, persons in custody, etc.
📋 How this gets asked (PYQ pattern)
CDS and CAPF papers regularly test the access-to-justice cluster, and they rarely ask about a scheme by name. Instead, expect: a single-statement question on Article 39A ("equal justice and free legal aid" — match it to the right article and to DPSP, not Fundamental Rights); a "which amendment added it" item (42nd, 1976); the DPSP-vs-Fundamental-Rights placement of legal aid (it is a DPSP, while Article 22(1)'s right to counsel is a Fundamental Right); and the NALSA / Legal Services Authorities Act statutory facts (year 1987, who heads NALSA, Section 12 eligibility, Lok Adalat finality). The Central Sector vs Centrally Sponsored distinction is a standalone polity-economy favourite. The honest pattern: the concepts are perennial and high-frequency, even though the DISHA scheme itself is unlikely to be named. The 2026 hook is simply the fresh peg — DISHA 2.0's Rs 255-crore approval and the AI "Nyaya Setu" chatbot — that the examiner may use to dress up an otherwise standard Article 39A / NALSA question.
Preparing for CDS or OTA? Access to justice — Article 39A, the NALSA pyramid and Lok Adalats — is guaranteed polity territory and an easy SSB lecturette on "Justice for All." Track our daily CDS/OTA current affairs and train with serving and veteran faculty in the upcoming Cavalier courses in Delhi.
✍️ Written by Hitendra Deswal — Polity & current-affairs faculty at The Cavalier. Reviewed by the Cavalier Faculty Desk. The Cavalier, founded by ex-Army officers, has trained NDA/CDS/SSB aspirants since 2001 (Facebook · YouTube).
Source: PIB release, 22 June 2026. Facts cross-verified.