The Union Budget 2026-27 projects science and technology as central pillars of India’s growth strategy. Large allocations for biopharma, semiconductors, carbon capture, and innovation-linked finance signal a shift from technology adoption to technology creation. Yet, beneath the headline numbers lies a deeper question: can India’s science ecosystem convert intent into sustained outcomes? Expert responses suggest that the challenge is not ambition but execution — reliable fund flow, institutional autonomy, and transparent innovation finance.
From Allocation to Actual Spending: A Pattern of Underutilisation
Recent budget data reveals a widening gap between Budget Estimates (BE), Revised Estimates (RE), and actual expenditure.
In 2023-24:
- The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) saw allocations revised down significantly, with actual spending falling below even the revised figures.
- The Department of Science and Technology (DST) experienced similar downward revisions and lower actual expenditure.
Even in 2024-25, while DBT’s revised allocation exceeded its initial estimate, DST faced sizeable cuts at the RE stage.
Such patterns raise structural concerns. Under-spending may not always reflect lack of political intent; it may result from administrative transitions, new fund-flow mechanisms, or institutional restructuring. The shift from the Science and Engineering Research Board to the Anusandhan National Research Foundation, for instance, has reportedly created transitional disruptions.
For a research ecosystem that depends on predictable, multi-year grants, such volatility weakens long-term planning and institutional morale.
Biopharma SHAKTI and the Manufacturing Push
The centrepiece of the science outlay is the ₹10,000 crore “Biopharma SHAKTI” programme over five years. It aims to address non-communicable diseases while scaling indigenous development of biologics and biosimilars. The initiative builds upon earlier efforts such as the DBT-National Biopharma Mission and seeks to expand into cell and gene therapy, biofoundries, AI-integrated biology hubs, and biomanufacturing clusters.
Technically, India has strengths in vaccines, diagnostics, and bioengineering. The policy question, however, is whether the programme will deepen only downstream manufacturing or also strengthen upstream life-science research — laboratories, tool development, and investigator-led discovery science.
If administered largely through the Department of Pharmaceuticals, the risk is that industrial scale-up may overshadow the broader life-sciences ecosystem that produces foundational ideas. A balanced design would require close coordination with research institutions and routine small- and medium-sized grants that often deliver high social returns.
Mission-Mode Infrastructure: Growth Engine or Policy Signal?
The Budget embeds research across multiple mission-mode initiatives:
- India Semiconductor Mission 2.0
- Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) mission
- Electronic components manufacturing support
- Critical minerals initiatives
This framing positions science as an enabler of self-reliance and industrial transformation. Platforms such as clinical trial networks and industry-linked training centres could enhance India’s “full-stack” technological capability — from research to commercialisation.
However, a recurring issue in India’s science policy has been the announcement of missions without assured, long-term, sector-specific funding. Policy perspectives often precede financial stability. Without consistent disbursement, mission-mode programmes risk becoming declaratory rather than transformative.
Astronomy and the Basic Research Debate
The Budget proposes ₹3,500 crore to upgrade major national observational facilities such as the National Large Solar Telescope and the National Large Optical Infrared Telescope. These investments are expected to generate technological spin-offs in imaging, instrumentation, and communications.
Yet concerns persist. While select facilities are being strengthened, support to institutions such as the Indian Institute of Astrophysics and several autonomous research institutes appears relatively stagnant. This has revived an older debate: does India privilege applied, “strategic” sectors while underfunding fundamental science?
India’s gross expenditure on R&D has hovered around 0.64–0.7% of GDP for years. Adjusted for inflation, this stagnation amounts to real-term constraints. The expectation that private capital would compensate for public underinvestment in domestic R&D has not materialised at the necessary scale.
Innovation Finance and the Credibility Question
The ₹20,000 crore Research, Development and Innovation Fund is another major announcement. However, earlier commitments — such as the ₹1 lakh crore innovation corpus announced previously — have seen limited disbursement so far.
This gap between promise and deployment affects credibility. For high-risk scientific ventures, timely and transparent financing mechanisms are as important as headline allocations. If innovation finance vehicles operate with delays or opacity, they undermine investor confidence and institutional planning.
Thus, the limiting factor may not be the scale of ambition but the performance of fund-flow systems and expenditure management frameworks.
Universities, Clusters, and the National Education Policy
The Budget’s emphasis on “university townships” seeks to integrate industry with education ecosystems. While this may catalyse innovation enclaves, it raises a structural concern: should new clusters bypass legacy State universities that educate over 80% of students?
A “thematic cluster” model — where legacy universities lead in basic sciences, humanities, and regional innovation while technical institutes provide advanced toolsets — may better align with the spirit of the National Education Policy 2020. Strengthening existing institutions alongside new hubs would ensure broad-based capacity building rather than selective concentration.
What to Note for Prelims?
- Biopharma SHAKTI programme – ₹10,000 crore over five years.
- Research, Development and Innovation Fund – ₹20,000 crore.
- Upgradation of four major astronomy facilities – ₹3,500 crore.
- India’s GERD (Gross Expenditure on R&D) – around 0.64–0.7% of GDP.
- Institutional transition from SERB to Anusandhan National Research Foundation.
What to Note for Mains?
- Shift from technology adoption to technology creation — implications for industrial policy.
- Gap between budgetary allocation, revised estimates, and actual spending.
- Debate between mission-mode applied research and long-term basic science funding.
- Need for predictable fund flow, institutional autonomy, and transparent innovation finance.
- Role of universities and NEP 2020 in building distributed research capacity.