A political row has broken out in Jharkhand over the proposed Chief Minister’s residence, with the Bharatiya Janata Party accusing the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha-led government of planning an excessively lavish project.
The BJP alleged that the government under Hemant Soren is constructing a “Sheesh Mahal”-style residence that could cost around ₹100 crore. According to the party, the project includes high-end features such as a swimming pool, jacuzzi, luxury interiors, a ₹2 crore fountain, and a ₹2.5 crore landscaped garden, portraying it as an example of unnecessary extravagance.
Party spokesperson Pratul Shah Dev criticised the move, arguing that such spending is inappropriate at a time when many people in the state continue to struggle with basic needs like livelihood, healthcare, and education. He further claimed that while the official estimate for the main structure is about ₹47 crore, additional components and typical construction cost escalations could push the total expenditure close to or beyond ₹100 crore.
The BJP also questioned the timing and transparency of the project, pointing out that there are already plans to construct a new Chief Minister’s residence in a future smart city development. It alleged that key details about the approval were not clearly communicated during cabinet briefings and indicated that the issue would be raised publicly as a matter of accountability.
In response, the ruling Jharkhand Mukti Morcha rejected the allegations and defended the project as a legitimate government initiative. Party spokesperson Manoj Pandey stated that a Chief Minister requires proper official accommodation and dismissed the criticism as politically motivated. He argued that such infrastructure development is reasonable for a relatively new state and questioned whether elected leaders should operate from inadequate facilities.
Pandey also countered by highlighting large-scale projects undertaken elsewhere, including central government initiatives, suggesting that criticism of the Jharkhand project is selective. The exchange has intensified political tensions in the state, with both sides framing the issue as either misuse of public funds or necessary administrative development.
