As ‘Ladki Bahin’ spends crores, malnutrition deaths persist in Melghat, Bombay HC asks State for explanation
Despite orders passed by the High Court since 2007, the State had done “too little” for the welfare of tribal communities and had not succeeded in preventing deaths caused by malnutrition in the region
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The Bombay High Court has strongly criticised the Maharashtra government over persistent malnutrition-related deaths in the tribal Melghat region. The court is hearing a Public Interest Litigation pending since 2007 and questioned the state's fiscal priorities, citing large expenditures on schemes like 'Ladki Bahin' while critical needs such as tribal welfare, healthcare infrastructure, and timely payment of wages are neglected.
UPSC Perspectives
Governance & Polity
This case is a classic example of judicial activism in response to governance failure. The , through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), is stepping in to enforce the socio-economic rights of vulnerable citizens due to the executive's apathy. The court's actions are grounded in the expanded interpretation of (Right to Life), which the Supreme Court has held includes the right to health, dignity, and a decent standard of living. The situation in Melghat underscores a severe implementation gap, where government policies and repeated court orders since 2007 have failed to achieve their objective of preventing malnutrition deaths. This highlights a crisis of accountability in the administrative machinery and raises questions about the state's commitment to its role as a welfare provider, especially when a hospital announced two decades ago remains unbuilt.
Social Justice & Tribal Welfare
The article brings to light the profound social exclusion and vulnerability faced by tribal communities in Melghat. Despite constitutional safeguards designed to protect them, the fundamental well-being of these citizens is compromised. Key constitutional provisions like Article 46 direct the state to promote the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, particularly Scheduled Tribes, and protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. Furthermore, the administration of such tribal areas often falls under the Fifth Schedule, which provides a framework to protect tribal land, culture, and autonomy. The persistence of malnutrition, lack of medical facilities, and non-payment of wages under the (a legal entitlement to work) indicates a systemic failure to uphold these constitutional and legal mandates, trapping communities in a cycle of poverty and deprivation and undermining the national goal of inclusive growth.
Economic & Public Finance
The High Court's observations force a critical examination of the state's fiscal priorities. The core of the debate lies in the allocation of public funds between broad-based, populist schemes versus targeted, capital-intensive developmental projects. The article contrasts the crores spent on the scheme—a direct benefit cash transfer of ₹1,500 monthly to women—with the alleged reduction in the tribal welfare budget and non-payment for essential services. This exemplifies the tension between populist welfarism, which can provide immediate income support but may not address structural deficiencies, and long-term developmental spending. The failure to pay wages and fund a critical 300-bed hospital points to a misallocation of resources that prioritises immediate consumption-based schemes over building essential public goods and infrastructure necessary for sustainable health and livelihood security.