Back
"Fund Ladki Bahin, But Starve Child Homes?" Bombay HC's Stark Warning to Maharashtra
In a scathing rebuke to the Maharashtra government's spending priorities, the of the has ruled that the state cannot withhold salary grants for staff at NGO-run child care homes—known as Balgruhas —while pouring funds into schemes like the Ladki Bahin Yojana. A division bench of Justices Kishore C. Sant and Sushil M. Ghodeswar directed the government to frame a policy within six months for providing such grants to deserving institutions, emphasizing children's welfare as a non-negotiable constitutional duty.
The ruling, delivered on May 7, 2026, in a batch of writ petitions led by Yuvraj Santrao Bhole & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:20588-DB; 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 242), stems from pleas by superintendents, counselors, cooks, and caretakers at unaided Balgruhas .
From Orphans' Shelters to Salary Battles: The Petitioners' Plight
Employees from institutions like Shriram Balgruha in Latur approached the court after years of low pay despite performing duties identical to those in state-run homes. Registered under the Societies Registration Act and Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, these NGOs care for orphans, destitute children, and those with special needs under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).
A 2006 government resolution prescribed staffing patterns and pay scales, but no salary grants followed—unlike per-child maintenance aid of Rs 2,000 monthly (Rs 1,500 for upkeep, Rs 500 administrative). Earlier rulings, like the 2005 Malan Karale case at the , granted relief to similar workers at Children's Aid Society homes, prompting partial grants in 2014. Yet, most NGOs were left out, leading to 2012 orders for a chief secretary-led meeting—which yielded rejection.
Petitioners argued their conditions violate
"equal pay for equal work"
principles, with mandating state oversight of homes run by voluntary organizations for care, education, and rehabilitation.
State's Defense: "Your Own Staff, Your Own Funds"
The government countered that NGOs approached voluntarily, appointing staff independently without state ads or approvals. Grants are non-salary only, as per 2006 resolutions explicitly barring salary aid. Surprise checks revealed empty homes sans children or staff, and extending grants to 994 homes (82,859 capacity) would burden finances. Staff aren't government servants, and no JJ Act provision mandates parity. NGOs must fundraise via donations, they urged.
Court's Deep Dive: Constitution Trumps Cash Crunch
Quoting Nelson Mandela—
"We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear"
—the bench dissected the JJ Act's scheme. Section 50 empowers states to run homes directly or via NGOs, with detailing services like education, counseling, and skill-building, necessitating
"well educated, trained and experienced staff."
Citing (childhood protection) alongside (equality) and 21 (life/dignity), the court invoked precedents:
- Sheela Barse v. Secretary, Children’s Aid Society (1987): NGO as state instrumentality.
- Sampurna Behura v. Union of India (2018): Child rights as constitutional obligations; no excuse for fund shortages.
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): State can't dodge welfare via voluntary agencies.
- Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984): Positive state duty for child development.
The bench dismissed financial pleas, noting Ladki Bahin (Rs 1,500 monthly to eligible women since June 2024) highlights arbitrary denial.
"Such allocation of resources must satisfy the test of reasonableness under Article 14,"
it held, prioritizing child homes over "empty formalities" without qualified staff.
Key Observations Straight from the Bench
“If proper well educated and trained staff is not appointed... the purpose of the Act... shall be defeated.”
“The State is under higher constitutional obligation to prioritise the welfare, education, and rehabilitation of children, failing which the very object of the Juvenile Justice law would stand defeated.”
“When the State of Maharashtra is extending financial assistance to poor women... such as Ladki Bahin Yojana, it cannot, without any reasonable classification or justification, deny or delay financial aid to institutions catering to children in need of care and protection.”
“Children’s rights are not charity, but constitutional obligation and the State cannot plead lack of funds.”
A Policy Mandate, Not a Blank Check
The writs stand disposed, but with a firm timeline: Frame a policy in six months for salary grants to compliant NGOs. The court urged identifying one model child home per district with infrastructure and trained staff, expressing "disappointment" at prior inaction.
This could unlock parity for thousands, boost
Balgruha
quality, and set precedent for state-NGO partnerships. As media reports note, it underscores Maharashtra's 994 homes' scale, pressuring fiscal realignment for the state's most vulnerable—ensuring
"our greatest asset as a nation"
thrives.
