What the Union Budget does — and doesn’t do — for women

Nari Shakti has long been a priority area for the Narendra Modi government, now in its third term. How do the Budget numbers reflect this focus? How does the Budget report on allocations for women and girls?

For latest updates on the Union Budget, click here.

The Gender Budget Statement

Since the Financial Year (FY) 2005-06, the Government of India (GoI) has been releasing the Gender Budget Statement (GBS) along with the Union Budget.

The GBS includes schemes across Union ministries and departments with full or part allocations for women and girls. It is important to note that the GBS is not a separate budget for women, but a reporting or accounting exercise for existing schemes.

For instance, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) states that it will guarantee at least a third of its allocation for women, and historically around half of the workers have been women. The GBS, thus, reports 47% of the total MGNREGS budget for women this FY.

Till FY 2024-25, the GBS had two parts: Part A which includes schemes that provide 100% allocations for women and girls, and Part B with 30-99% scheme allocations. Since last FY, the GoI has come up with a third part–Part C–which includes 1-29% scheme allocations for women and girls.

Trends in GBS over time

The GBS reports a total allocation of Rs 4.49 lakh crore in FY 2025-26, a welcome 37% increase from FY 2024-25. While trends in GBS allocations and expenditures show variations, there has been an overall absolute increase in prioritisation for women and girls over the years. In FY 2019-20, the GBS was 5% of total expenditure. It has steadily risen since then, and stands at 9% of total expenditure in FY 2025-26.

However, a closer look at the part-wise analysis indicates stagnation of Part A allocations over time. (See Figure 1)

Figure 1: Schemes with 30-99% allocations constitute a highest proportion of the GBS across years. (Note: Figures are Actuals, or GoI releases to states and UTs, till FY 2023-24. FY 2024-25 are REs and FY 2025-26 are BEs. Source: https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/)

This could imply two things.

One, that ministries and departments are increasingly trying to incorporate a gender lens in the scheme allocations, because of which Part B and C allocations have gone up. On the other hand, it could also suggest that ministries and departments are arbitrarily allocating, or misallocating, schemes with components for women and girls.

Examples from social sector ministries

To understand these nuances, we look at some schemes from social sector ministries.

The Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM), a flagship scheme of the Ministry of Jal Shakti launched in 2019, acknowledges the time women spend, and the physical toll it takes fetching water by providing functional tap connections to every rural household.

JJM features in Part B of the GBS this year, with a 31% allocation earmarked for women. This is despite the fact that in the previous two FYs, allocations and spending for women were both at 49%, reflecting the government’s intent and the programme’s successful women-focussed implementation. The JJM has been extended to 2028, but the decline in allocations for women suggest a lack of long-term, focussed commitment towards addressing the burden on women.

Additionally, the budget estimate for JJM was inexplicably missing from the GBS in FY 2023-24, suggesting an arbitrariness in the reporting of gender-focussed allocations.

The Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana–Grameen (PMAY-G), which is under the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), aims to build pucca houses with basic amenities for the rural poor. The scheme explicitly prioritises women, by ensuring ownership is in women’s names.

PMAY-G is in Part A of the GBS, meaning that 100% of the allocations are directed towards women, and suggesting that all houses are constructed in women’s names. However, since the scheme began, government data show that only 23% of houses have been allotted to women (as on February 1, 2025). The scheme’s stated goals and its accounting in the GBS, therefore, do not align with its implementation.

Mission Saksham Anganwadi and Poshan 2.0, the erstwhile Integrated Child Development Services scheme under the Ministry of Women and Child Development which focuses on promoting positive health and nutrition outcomes for women, features in both Part A and Part B of the GBS.

First, if a scheme is in Part A of the GBS, it automatically means that 100% of that scheme’s allocations are directed towards women. There is no explanation for why it features in both parts, or which specific sub-schemes are meant for Part A or Part B.

Second, when the Mission was restructured in FY 2021-22, a number of sub-schemes were no longer separately mentioned in the Budget. PM Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY), an entitlement of pregnant and lactating women, has vanished from the Budget and one can no longer see its total allocations. Such restructuring is not uncommon across social sector schemes; it makes schemes opaque and their monitoring difficult.

That said, some positives must also be mentioned. Last year, the government’s focus on Self-Help Group led empowerment for women was clearly reflected in its increased allocations for the MoRD-run National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM), and in the GBS. NRLM has shifted from Part B to Part A of the GBS since FY 2024-25. This move indicates that the government has the ability to prioritise allocations, and reporting based on actual programme objectives and implementation.

Further room for improvement

The addition of Part C reflects that all Union ministries and departments must have a gender lens.

However, the overall ambiguity on how and why ministries report schemes in the GBS is telling. If reporting allocations for women are arbitrary and ever-changing, it is difficult to hold the government accountable to its promises for prioritising women through its budget. It would be well advised for the methodologies and rationales used in drafting the GBS to be made public.

Moreover, only an accounting exercise that highlights allocations for women and girls is inadequate to deliver on the promise of ‘Nari Shakti’. It must be accompanied by measures such as gender-oriented audits conducted regularly across ministries. This will enable the government to go beyond the low-hanging fruit of reporting allocations for women and girls, and truly reflect their commitment towards empowering women.

Tanya Rana and Laavanya Tamang are Senior Research Associates at the Foundation for Responsive Governance