India unveiled its Union Budget for FY 2026-27, with the finance minister starting the budget speech appreciating the country’s foot forward in terms of maintaining sustained economic growth, stability, fiscal discipline and moderate inflation. The budget this year is anchored around a “three-Kartavya” (three duties) framework aimed at boosting growth and building resilience, fulfilling aspirations and building capacity, and ensuring universal access to opportunities across the nation through building supportive ecosystems. The government touted investments in infrastructure, manufacturing, service sector, digital connectivity, and tourism as engines of future growth. Yet beneath the grand rhetoric of economic expansion and reforms, the Budget’s provisions for those most vulnerable, that is, the poor, the women, and the marginalised, remain insufficient and superficial. In a country where deepening economic inequality traps millions in low-paying jobs, and where women contribute significantly to workforce and output, but remain economically marginalised, and where caste and class continue to shape life chances, this Budget falls short of meaningful empowerment and redistribution. In short, the budget seems to have underlined intent in terms of economic growth, but misses with regard to underscoring details and mechanisms for inclusive development. The reality of rising inequalityThe headlines of GDP numbers may seem impressive, with an estimation of around 7%. The numbers create a facade in portraying a picture of impressive growth strategy. However, this macroeconomic expansion has not translated into equitable welfare. The World Inequality Report 2026 highlights that India is among the top unequal countries in the world, where wealth inequality is higher. In the context of such widening inequality, government’s focus on capital expenditure (capex) of over Rs 12.2 lakh crore allocated majorly to infrastructure only further reinforces the gap. Such investments particularly in the current period disproportionately benefit capital owners but have very little impact on the marginalised and the poor. In this context while the budget should have come up with commitment to progressive redistributive policy, instead it continues to advance a growth-led fiscal strategy. Large increases in infrastructure spending and manufacturing incentives primarily benefit capital owners and established business groups. In contrast, the budget is notably silent on ground-level redistribution, such as policies aiming at targeted income transfers, expansion of public services or the strengthening of social safety nets for those at the bottom of the income ladder. By prioritising capital-intensive growth over redistributive welfare, the fiscal architecture risks reinforcing existing inequalities rather than correcting them. This is growth-led fiscal policy but without progressive redistribution.Also read: Chart: Union Govt Didn’t Spend What it Promised on Social Schemes in 2025-26Contribution of women in economy versus the BudgetThe Economic Survey’s celebratory narrative around rising female labour force participation (FLPR) masks deeper structural realities of women’s work in India. While higher participation rates are presented as evidence of progress, they obscure the nature of women’s economic engagement, one that spans formal and informal sectors, and paid and unpaid activities, and yet remains profoundly under-compensated. Moreover, FLPR figures must be read comparatively. Women’s participation remains lower than that of men, and women are overwhelmingly clustered in informal, low-wage, and insecure forms of employment. Rather than reflecting enhanced capabilities, skills or labour market inclusion, much of the recent increase in FLPR appears distress-driven, propelled by household income shocks, rising costs of living, and the erosion of employment security. However, the budget does not seem to take these into account.Proposals such as establishing girls’ hostels in every district, particularly aimed at improving access to education and STEM fields are welcome in principle. However, in the absence of sustained funding commitments, clarity on scale, and integration with broader labour market and care infrastructure policies, such measures risk becoming aspirational announcements rather than instruments of gender justice. Similarly, the Budget reportedly includes credit support for women entrepreneurs through initiatives such as SHE (Self-Help Entrepreneur) marts. Yet these proposals are strikingly thin on institutional details, where there is little clarity on the mechanisms of credit delivery, and eligibility criteria. More fundamentally, an over-reliance on credit-based strategies to promote women’s entrepreneurship, particularly in rural and poor households rests on a flawed assumption that access to credit alone can overcome structural constraints. Without addressing barriers such as asset ownership, market access, care burdens, and social norms, credit tends to become a source of financial vulnerability rather than empowerment. Where are the poor and the marginalised?The budget marginalises the poor and the vulnerable sections. Fiscal priorities outrightly favour capital-intensive growth over direct livelihood support. Capital expenditure has been increased to Rs 12.2 lakh crore, which will be used to finance high-speed rail industrial corridors, and rare-earth extraction. Although these investments may contribute to long-term growth, they provide limited employment opportunities for India’s extensive informal workforce and provide little to no immediate relief to the rural and urban households who are grappling with stagnant wages and increased living expenses. Substantial recalibration of subsidies that have historically supported the marginalised is also indicated in the budget. The combined subsidy bill is expected to decrease by approximately 28% from its previous apex, as a result of the phasing out of pandemic era measures, including the distribution of free foodgrains under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana. Although these reductions may contribute to fiscal consolidation, they occur during a period in which food inflation remains high and real incomes for low-income households have stagnated. Furthermore, employment support programs have also encountered stagnant allocation and utilisation challenges. Simultaneously, fiscal relief measures, including increased income-tax exemption thresholds and incentives for advanced manufacturing and biopharma (Biopharma Shakti), primarily benefit medium- to high-income earners and capital-intensive sectors. The budget, thus, seems to reinforce inequalities rather than mitigating them in the absence of more social protection, income support, or transfer payments for impoverished households.Growth versus distribution: What is actually happening? From a development economics perspective, fiscal policy should balance efficiency (growth) with equity (redistribution). High GDP growth driven by infrastructure investment improves national output but does little to alter income distribution unless complemented by redistributive policies that uplift the bottom segments.Not to forget, in India, though the direct income tax and indirect taxes such as GST are of significant share, they are rather regressive in nature as they do not take into account consumption of the households. Moreover, focusing merely on capex for infrastructure and asset creation leads to reduced fiscal space for expanding social support, despite the need for greater public spending on health, education and redistribution. The absence of a progressive direct tax reform structure that could fund social investments coupled with limited expansion of universal welfare measures means the budget prioritises macro-stability and capital spending over social equity. This trade-off, while arguable, leaves vulnerable groups under-served. Missed opportunitiesThere has been a complete absence of pro-poor redistributive policies and limited or lack of gender-specific benefits which indicates that the needs of those in the economic margins remain insufficiently addressed. In a country with significant low-wage informal workers, with widening class, caste and income disparities, mere focus on investment over inclusion cannot lead to equitable development. Real progress is achieved when we address structural inequalities, which will require re-imagination of fiscal priorities, with stronger social protection, expanded direct support to marginalised communities, progressive taxation to fund public goods, and policies that directly address barriers faced by women, the poor, and traditionally disadvantaged groups. India’s journey toward a just and equitable society depends not merely on growth figures, but on the lived outcomes of its most vulnerable citizens.Boddu Srujana and Aurolipsa Das work with the Department of Economics, Easwari School of Liberal Arts, SRM University – Andhra Pradesh.