On January 13, 2026. The Bihar Cabinet approved the construction of a state-of-the-art Bihar Bhawan in Mumbai. It will be constructed at the Elphinestone Estate, Mumbai Port Trust area. A budget of Rs 314.20 crore has been allocated. It will consist of 30 storeys, which will include triple-basement and sensor-based parking for 233 vehicles. The Bihar Bhawan will be used as a relief centre for cancer patients from Bihar who are visiting the Tata Memorial Hospital. The centre will also include about 178 rooms for officials, a conference hall with 72 seats, a cafeteria and a medical room. The Bihar Cabinet also created three other bhawans, which are the Bihar Niwas(1994), Bihar Sadan(June 2021) and the Bihar Bhawan on Kautilya Marg. These bhawans are currently undergoing a lot of criticism for their quick expansion and high prices. The construction of these bhawans signals the shortcomings of Bihar’s healthcare system. The critics are questioning the government as to why Rs 314 crore is being spent on a dormitory in Mumbai instead of on constructing a high-level cancer hospital in Patna or Muzaffarpur. People wouldn’t have to walk 2,000 km and sleep on Mumbai streets if Bihar had good medicThese "Bhawans" outside the state have drawn a lot of criticism due to
In Delhi, the deconstruction of the 32-year old Bihar Niwas has gotten criticism from politicians. The RJD has alleged that the building is sturdy and that the deconstruction is only to remove Lalu Prasad’s name from the inauguration plate and to replace it with Nitish Kumar’s name.
This has also been criticised by the politicians from Maharashtra.In the earlier part of 2026, MNS leaders condemned the use of Mumbai’s land for other states’ projects. They said that Mumbai is being used as a “free resource” for other state governments, as the locals continue to struggle with housing issues. The activists have also argued that the Port Trust land should be used for Mumbai’s parks and reasonable housing instead of VIP guest houses.
Reports show that there is a disparity in space distribution. Under the current Mumbai project, there are about 240 beds for the public or patients and 178 rooms for the officials or VIP’s. It has been criticised for being a “holiday room for bureaucrats” instead of a place for poor people.
This shows where the Bihar Cabinet’s priorities lie; this is a cause of concern.
- Why is the government giving more importance to infrastructural development instead of making sure that there is availability of health facilities to everyone?
- Does the construction of a state-funded relief facility like Bihar Bhawan in Mumbai highlight welfare-focused governance or a failure of healthcare planning in Bihar?
- Should state governments be focused on providing relief to migrants instead of committing to long-term healthcare development within their own domain?
- Is investing Rs 314.20 crore for a patient facility outside the state a justified investment while Bihar lacks sufficient health facilities in cities like Patna or Muzaffarpur?
- Do these projects really address what leads to migration for healthcare facilities instead of just focusing on structural issues?
- Is it okay for the state government to build resources for its own people in another state?
A number of significant governance-related issues that transcend administrative effectiveness and touch on the ethical realm of public policy priorities are brought up by the Bihar Cabinet's recent decision to authorise the construction of a state-funded Bihar Bhawan in Mumbai. The project highlights the structural shortcomings of Bihar's own healthcare system while also being presented as a social initiative, specifically to help cancer patients from Bihar who travel to facilities like Tata Memorial Hospital.
On one level, this program would seem like a kind gesture toward disadvantaged immigrant groups who are compelled to flee their home states in pursuit of high-quality healthcare. But the necessity of such a facility itself suggests a more serious systemic issue. Why must people from urban areas and districts like Patna and Muzaffarpur travel great distances at great financial expense to receive necessary medical care in another state? Does the Rs 314.20 crore allotted for lodging and logistical assistance in a different state deal with the underlying causes of healthcare migration, or does it only deal with its effects?
The state's strategy seems to be focused on damage control rather than reducing the need for out-migration, as opposed to making significant investments in tertiary healthcare infrastructure within Bihar. This raises the question of whether this kind of infrastructure development outside state lines is an implicit admission of internal policy flaws or welfare-driven governance. While it is clearly vital to provide short-term relief to migrating patients, long-term planning is called into question given the lack of concurrent commitments to building strong healthcare ecosystems in Bihar.
Furthermore, the larger framework of state and federal accountability must be taken into consideration while assessing this progress. Is it feasible—or even acceptable—for a state government to spend tax dollars building support networks in another state while its own public hospitals continue to be understaffed and underequipped? Does this normalise the outsourcing of crucial healthcare tasks, or does it represent a practical adjustment to the situation on the ground?
In the end, these initiatives run the risk of turning into token gestures that focus more on publicity than on feasibility. Facilities like Bihar Bhawan may mitigate the symptoms of healthcare inequality without addressing its structural causes if there are no concurrent investments made in Bihar's accessible, reasonably priced, and high-quality healthcare services. Therefore, the challenge is not just to help individuals who relocate for treatment, but also to make sure that such migration doesn't become necessary in the first place.
. . .
References: