Concerns loom over high security deposit at Chandigarh centre for persons with intellectual disabilities

In the run-up to the governing body meeting of the UTTHAAN Society for Group Homes — scheduled for Friday, June 13, under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, UT Administration — parents and caregivers of adults with mental and intellectual disabilities have come forward to raise urgent concerns about the policies and approach of the Social Welfare Department.

The families, many of whom have been advocating for the rights of persons with disabilities for years, are urging the Administration to ensure the Group Home is accessible, affordable and supported by the state—not treated as a burden to be shouldered by families alone.

A particularly controversial issue expected to be discussed at the upcoming meeting is the proposed security deposit of Rs 20 lakh for Group Home residents. Families say the demand is excessive and unjustified.

“The UT Social Welfare Department is making a blanket assumption that every resident will default on fees,” said Hardial Singh, 76, father of an adult daughter with mental illness. “So, to cover itself, the department is asking for an exorbitant Rs 20 lakh. This isn’t a security deposit—it’s an act of harassment.”

GK Jaggi, a single parent of an adult with mental disability, called for parity with existing state-run welfare schemes. “We are simply asking the UT Administration to do at least as much for the residents of the Group Home as it already does for residents of the Senior Citizens Homes in Sectors 15 and 43. At Sector 43, the government provides a 50% annual subsidy. At Sector 15, EWS residents receive a full 100% subsidy.”

Rajwant Sandhu, former IAS officer, noted that the government has precedents for running inclusive institutions. “The UT Administration manages its Senior Citizens Homes and the Institute for the Blind through registered societies. The UTTHAAN Group Home Society should be similarly supported—with professionals, family representation, and sustained government funding. Rehabilitation for persons with disabilities is a statutory responsibility.”

As the June 13 meeting approaches, families are calling on the governing body to recognise the urgent need for inclusive, rights-based care—and to ensure that the home truly serves the people.

How security deposits sparked prolonged dispute

The security deposit structure proposed for the UTTHAAN Society’s Group Home has become a major source of contention between families of persons with intellectual disabilities and the UT Administration.

Originally, the approved admission policy set steep deposit amounts: Rs 42 lakh for a suite, Rs 30 lakh for a single room, and Rs 19.2 lakh for twin sharing accommodation. These high figures immediately raised alarm among families, who argued that the model was financially exclusionary and ignored the social responsibility owed to persons with disabilities.

In response to mounting concerns, a verbal proposal was reportedly made to standardise the deposit at Rs 10 lakh across all accommodation types. However, the revised figure has never been officially accepted or implemented. The Department of Social Welfare has opposed the reduction, citing serious financial sustainability issues.

According to departmental estimates, the monthly cost of running the Group Home—covering food, electricity, water, accommodation, staff salaries, and medical care — adds up to approximately Rs 20,000 per month and yearly Rs 2,40,000 per resident. This estimate does not include any margin for unforeseen expenses or administrative overheads. Over a 10-year period, the Department claims, this amounts to a projected expenditure of Rs 24 lakh per resident. Currently, it has been rounded off to Rs 20 lakh, which was further described as unreasonable and discriminatory by Punjab and Haryana High Court in response to petitions filed by parents.

However, officials insist that without full security deposits and in the absence of any government grant-in-aid, the financial model cannot be sustained—especially if residents default or withdraw early.

Stark contrast

Amid discussions over security deposits at Chandigarh’s UTTHAAN Group Home, comparisons with NGO-run group homes across India are casting a critical light on the UT Administration’s financial model.

According to an internal review, most reputed non-governmental organisations providing similar residential services for adults with mental and intellectual disabilities charge far lower security deposits.

For instance, the Sambandh Foundation in Gurugram and Athma Shakti Vidyalaya in Bengaluru both require a modest deposit of Rs 1 lakh. Arunima in Dehradun charges Rs 3 lakh, while the Richmond Fellowship Society—considered one of the most established service providers in cities like Bengaluru and Delhi—requires Rs 5 to 6 lakh.

Notably, UT’s own Senior Citizens Home in Sector 43 asks for just Rs 25,000 as security deposit, with up to 50–100% subsidies available depending on the resident’s financial status.

Chandigarh