State-Wise Smart City Projects in India (2025)
Rank
Region Name
Number of Smart Cities
1 Uttar Pradesh 10 2 Maharashtra 10 3 Tamil Nadu 12 4 Madhya Pradesh 7 5 Gujarat 6 6 Rajasthan 6 7 Karnataka 6 8 Andhra Pradesh 3 9 Kerala 3 10 Telangana 2 11 Haryana 2 12 Punjab 2 13 Bihar 3 14 Jharkhand 1 15 Assam 1 16 Chhattisgarh 2 17 Himachal Pradesh 1 18 Odisha 2 19 Jharkhand 1 20 Uttarakhand 1 21 Chandigarh 1 22 Delhi 1 23 Puducherry 1 24 Goa 1 25 DNHDD 1 26 Jammu and Kashmir 1 27 Ladakh 0 28 Manipur 1 29 Meghalaya 0 30 Mizoram 0 31 Nagaland 0 32 Sikkim 0 33 Tripura 1 34 Arunachal Pradesh 0 35 Lakshadweep 0
The Smart Cities Mission (SCM), launched by the Government of India in 2015, represents one of the most ambitious and transformative urban development programs in the country’s history. The mission was designed to develop 100 selected cities through the integration of sustainable infrastructure, digital technology, efficient governance, and citizen-oriented public services. Its core objective was to modernize India’s urban centers while simultaneously strengthening economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability.
After several extensions to the original timeline, the mission is now scheduled to conclude in November 2025. According to official progress reports, nearly 93% of the approved projects have been completed. More than 8,000 projects have been undertaken under the mission with a total estimated investment of approximately ₹1.5 lakh crore. This highlights the massive scale, financial commitment, and national importance of the Smart Cities Mission.
The regional distribution of smart cities across India reveals a significant imbalance. States such as Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra have been allocated 10 smart cities each, while Tamil Nadu leads with 12 cities. These states benefit from large urban populations, strong economic performance, developed industrial and service sectors, and higher levels of administrative efficiency and investor confidence. In contrast, several northeastern states and island territories such as Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Lakshadweep have no smart cities as of 2025. This uneven allocation reflects a widening urban development gap between economically advanced regions and geographically remote or demographically smaller states.
This imbalance is largely a result of the policy formula adopted by the central government for selecting and funding smart cities. The allocation process prioritizes urban population size, the number of statutory towns, and the administrative and financial preparedness of states. While this approach ensures that cities with higher infrastructure demands receive priority, it also places smaller and low-density states at a disadvantage. As a result, many regions with genuine development needs fail to qualify under the selection criteria. Consequently, modern urban development remains concentrated in already developed regions, reinforcing existing regional inequalities.
From an economic perspective, the Smart Cities Mission has made a positive contribution to national growth. Urban areas now contribute approximately 63% of India’s GDP while accommodating only about 31% of the population. This demonstrates the crucial role of smart infrastructure, digital governance, and improved service delivery in enhancing productivity and strengthening business efficiency. Major smart cities have witnessed increased domestic and foreign investment, rapid growth of startup ecosystems, expansion of the real estate sector, and greater employment opportunities in sectors such as technology, transport, energy, and urban services.
However, despite impressive progress in large urban centers, several challenges continue to restrict the participation of smaller and underdeveloped states. These challenges include low urban population density, limited financial resources, geographical isolation leading to higher project implementation costs, weak institutional and technical planning capacity, and poorly developed municipal governance systems. These structural constraints reduce the ability of underdeveloped states to effectively participate in large-scale national development programs and limit their access to modernization and long-term economic growth.
Although the Smart Cities Mission was initially designed to promote inclusive and balanced urban development, its implementation has resulted in disproportionate growth favoring already advanced regions. Leading smart cities now feature intelligent transport systems, digital governance platforms, renewable energy solutions, smart surveillance, and advanced public safety infrastructure. Meanwhile, many underdeveloped regions continue to struggle with inadequate basic infrastructure, weak digital connectivity, unemployment, poor healthcare facilities, and insufficient sanitation services. This imbalance risks widening the economic gap between regions, strengthening the digital divide, and intensifying migration from underdeveloped states to major metropolitan areas.
As the Smart Cities Mission approaches its conclusion in 2025, the future direction of India’s urban development will largely depend on how effectively regional inequalities are addressed. If current trends continue, developed states will keep attracting capital, industries, and skilled labor, while smaller and weaker states may face long-term economic stagnation. Increased inter-state migration could also place added pressure on already congested metropolitan cities. However, the introduction of revised urban policies focused on equity-based funding, institutional capacity building, and regional inclusiveness can help reduce these imbalances. Such measures have the potential to create a more balanced, sustainable, and inclusive model of urban growth for India’s future.
- Smart Cities Mission as India’s Largest Urban Transformation Drive: With over ₹1.5 lakh crore investment and 8,000+ projects, SCM stands as the most expansive urban reform initiative in India’s history.
- Urban India as the Core Economic Engine: With just 31% of the population generating 63% of GDP, smart cities have amplified the productivity dominance of urban India.
- Regional Imbalance as the Central Structural Weakness: The heavy concentration of smart cities in richer states has resulted in systematic exclusion of smaller and northeastern states.
- Policy Design Favored Capacity Over Need: The selection framework rewarded administrative and financial readiness rather than development deficit, reinforcing inequality.
- Digital & Infrastructure Divide Has Deepened: Advanced surveillance, IT systems, and renewable energy in major cities stand in sharp contrast with inadequate infrastructure in backward regions.
- Migration Pressure Is Now a Major Side Effect: Underdeveloped regions face sustained out-migration while metro cities are experiencing rising congestion and resource stress.
- Future Urban Strategy Will Define India’s Regional Balance: Without corrective regional targeting, smart urbanization may permanently lock weaker states into economic marginalization.
The Smart Cities Mission has successfully modernized India’s major urban economies but has not fully achieved balanced and inclusive urban development. Its capacity-based allocation model, while administratively efficient, has intensified regional inequalities.
As India enters the post-2025 urban development phase, future policy must shift from:
- City-selection based models → System-wide urban transformation
- Capacity-based funding → Equity-based funding
- Metro-focused growth → Regionally distributed development
Only then can India achieve sustainable, inclusive, and nationally balanced urbanization.
The state-wise distribution of smart cities under India’s Smart Cities Mission reveals a significant regional imbalance, marked by a dominant concentration in northern, western, and southern India. This pattern is largely shaped by the mission’s allocation framework, which prioritized urban population size, number of statutory towns, and institutional preparedness, while ensuring at least one smart city per state or region to maintain minimum national representation. As a result, economically and administratively stronger states have benefited more substantially from the mission.
Northern and western India emerged as the major beneficiaries of smart city allocations. Uttar Pradesh, with 10 smart cities, leads the national distribution due to its massive urban population exceeding 44 million. Cities such as Agra and Varanasi benefited directly from this demographic advantage, enabling the state to secure the maximum allowable projects under the proportional allocation formula. By July 2025, Uttar Pradesh had secured 100% of its ₹4,900 crore central allocation and successfully deployed 99.5% of these funds, especially in projects such as Integrated Command and Control Centers in cities like Lucknow. This high level of fund utilization reflects strong administrative efficiency and clear political prioritization.
Maharashtra, also with 10 smart cities, achieved similar success due to its strong economic base. Mumbai’s global financial position and Pune’s technology ecosystem played a key role in accelerating digital governance, intelligent traffic management, and startup-driven urban innovation. The state effectively leveraged its advanced technological and financial capacity to speed up smart city implementation.
Southern India also demonstrated remarkable progress supported by high urban density and strong fiscal commitment. Tamil Nadu, with the highest number of smart cities at 12, stands out as a leading example. Cities such as Madurai and Coimbatore achieved full project execution by early 2025, supported by state matching funds exceeding ₹3,000 crore. This strong financial backing enabled large-scale infrastructure modernization, digital transport systems, and smart energy deployment. Karnataka, with six smart cities, focused development around Bengaluru’s expanding peripheral zones such as Tumakuru. The introduction of advanced e-governance platforms significantly reduced public service delivery times and enhanced overall governance efficiency.
Western India emerged as a national model for industrial-linked smart urban development through the effective use of public–private partnerships. Gujarat, with six smart cities, benefited deeply from industrial corridors and private-sector participation. Surat achieved full project completion by 2024 with support from more than ₹5,000 crore in private investment. Ahmedabad introduced artificial intelligence-based traffic management systems, resulting in a 25% reduction in congestion. Rajasthan, also with six smart cities, adopted a tourism-oriented development approach. Cities such as Udaipur and Kota introduced smart tourism infrastructure, digital visitor management systems, and heritage monitoring technologies. These efforts led to a 15% rise in tourist footfall, directly linking urban modernization with economic gains. The success of western states is largely attributed to the close alignment between smart city investments and regional economic strengths in textiles, logistics, manufacturing, and tourism.
Several southern and central states recorded steady but comparatively moderate progress. Andhra Pradesh promoted sustainability-focused smart city development, with Visakhapatnam emerging as a key example through the establishment of floating solar power projects generating 3,613 MWh annually and reducing nearly 3,000 tonnes of carbon emissions each year. Kerala pursued greenfield smart city development in Kochi and achieved nearly 95% project completion by 2025, despite facing frequent delays due to recurring monsoon disruptions. Telangana adopted a public–private partnership model for solid waste management in Hyderabad and achieved an impressive 80% urban waste recycling rate, positioning the city among India’s most environmentally efficient smart cities.
Smaller northern states such as Haryana and Punjab, each with two smart cities, followed a selective urban retrofitting strategy. In Gurugram, the installation of more than 1,000 CCTV cameras significantly strengthened public surveillance and law enforcement efficiency, improving overall urban safety and crime monitoring.
Bihar, with three smart cities, represents a remarkable example of smart urban transformation in a historically low-development setting. Cities such as Patna and Bhagalpur underwent major infrastructure upgrades. Patna developed flood-resilient smart infrastructure that now prevents an estimated ₹500 crore in annual economic losses, highlighting the long-term economic importance of climate-resilient urban planning.
The unequal regional distribution of smart cities is driven by several core structural determinants. These include urban demographic concentration, fiscal capacity of state governments, institutional readiness and governance quality, private-sector investment potential, and regional economic specialization. States that aligned smart city development with local industrial strengths—such as Gujarat in manufacturing and textiles, Maharashtra in finance and information technology, and Tamil Nadu in automobiles and electronics—experienced faster execution and stronger economic returns.
While the Smart Cities Mission has successfully transformed many of India’s leading urban economies, it has also reinforced existing regional development hierarchies. Northwestern and southern industrialized states moved ahead rapidly, while several eastern, northeastern, and hill states remained constrained by low urban density, weak fiscal capacity, and geographical challenges. This uneven pattern raises serious concerns regarding urban equity and balanced national development.
The experience of the Smart Cities Mission highlights the urgent need for future urban development programs to adopt need-based allocation models, provide special infrastructure support for lagging regions, and invest in institutional capacity-building for weaker municipal bodies. Only through such corrective measures can India achieve a more inclusive, balanced, and sustainable model of smart urban development.
State
No. of Smart Cities
Key Cities
Central Allocation (₹ Crore)
Fund Utilization
Key Achievements
Uttar Pradesh 10 Agra, Varanasi, Lucknow 4,900 99.5% ICCC centers, digital policing Maharashtra 10 Mumbai, Pune Not specified High Traffic automation, startup ecosystem Tamil Nadu 12 Madurai, Coimbatore 3,000+ (State share) 100% Smart transport, smart energy Karnataka 6 Tumakuru (Bengaluru zone) Not specified High E-governance reforms Gujarat 6 Surat, Ahmedabad 5,000+ (Private) 100% AI traffic control, PPP model Rajasthan 6 Udaipur, Kota Not specified High Smart tourism infrastructure Andhra Pradesh Not specified Visakhapatnam Not specified High Floating solar energy Kerala Not specified Kochi Not specified 95% Greenfield smart city Telangana Not specified Hyderabad Not specified High Waste PPP Model Bihar 3 Patna, Bhagalpur Not specified Moderate Flood-resilient infra Haryana 2 Gurugram Not specified High 1000+ CCTV network Punjab 2 Not specified Not specified Moderate Urban retrofitting
Region
Leading States
Performance Level
Major Strengths
Northern India Uttar Pradesh, Haryana Very High Population-based allocation, digital policing Western India Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan Very High PPP investment, manufacturing, tourism Southern India Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala High E-governance, renewable energy Eastern India Bihar Moderate Climate-resilient planning Northeastern & Hill States Limited Low Low urban density, terrain constraints
Sector
City / State
Innovation
Measurable Impact
Digital Governance Lucknow ICCC Real-time surveillance Traffic Management Ahmedabad AI Traffic Control 25% congestion reduction Renewable Energy Visakhapatnam Floating Solar Plant 3,613 MWh/year Tourism Udaipur, Kota Smart Tourism Tech 15% tourist increase Waste Management Hyderabad PPP Recycling Model 80% waste recycled Disaster Resilience Patna Flood-smart infra ₹500 crore annual loss prevented Public Safety Gurugram CCTV Surveillance Crime monitoring improved
Determinant
Impact on Smart City Allocation
Urban Population Higher cities get more projects Fiscal Strength Faster execution & matching funds Institutional Readiness Better fund utilization PPP Investment Rapid infrastructure growth Economic Specialization Stronger economic returns
Challenge
Recommended Solution
Regional Imbalance Need-based allocation model Weak Municipal Capacity Institutional training Low Infra in Eastern States Special infrastructure grants Climate Risk Cities Climate-resilient planning Equity Issues Balanced national urban strategy
Despite the overall success and national scale of India’s Smart Cities Mission, several northeastern states, island territories, Himalayan regions, and interior states remain significantly underrepresented. Many of these regions received either no smart city projects or only a single project, reflecting deep-rooted structural, economic, institutional, and geographical constraints that limit inclusive urban development. This uneven outcome highlights the gap between the mission’s original vision of balanced urban growth and its practical implementation across diverse regional contexts.
The most pronounced exclusion is observed in the northeastern and island regions. States such as Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and the Union Territory of Lakshadweep received zero smart city projects. This exclusion is primarily attributed to extremely low urbanization levels, often below 10%, scarcity of statutory towns, widely dispersed settlement patterns, and limited fiscal and administrative capacity. Since the Smart Cities Mission relied heavily on urban population size and statutory town density as key eligibility criteria, these regions were structurally disadvantaged from the very beginning of the selection process.
Even among the northeastern states that secured limited representation, implementation performance remained weak. Assam received only one smart city project in Guwahati, while Tripura secured one project in Agartala, which achieved about 95% completion by April 2025, making it one of the relatively stronger performers in the region. In contrast, Manipur’s smart city project in Imphal suffered from severe governance failures. The city reportedly conducted no advisory board meetings for five consecutive years, which led to prolonged delays in crucial infrastructure projects, particularly in the urban water supply sector. Several water-related initiatives missed their deadlines, clearly demonstrating how weak institutional monitoring and leadership gaps directly slow project execution.
Security challenges also played a major role in disrupting implementation in conflict-sensitive regions. Jammu and Kashmir, with one smart city project in Srinagar, and Ladakh, with no projects at all, faced persistent law-and-order issues and border security concerns. Due to frequent disruptions, only around 60% of the approved initiatives in these regions were completed. Repeated work stoppages, labor shortages, and interruptions in material supply made large-scale infrastructure development both operationally fragile and financially risky.
Hill states faced a different but equally severe set of challenges. Himachal Pradesh, with one smart city project in Shimla, reflects the problem of poor expenditure prioritization. A significant portion of the project budget was reportedly spent on non-essential beautification works, such as decorative planters and surface-level cosmetic enhancements, instead of core smart infrastructure. As a result, Shimla achieved only about 70% project saturation, well below the national average. This case highlights how weak urban planning frameworks and the absence of strict accountability mechanisms can dilute the intended impact of smart city investments.
Central and eastern states faced technological and administrative barriers. States such as Chhattisgarh and Odisha, each with two smart city projects, remain heavily dependent on mining and extractive industries, sectors that traditionally exhibit slower adoption of digital and smart technologies. Administrative inertia and weak private-sector participation further slowed project implementation. Jharkhand’s Ranchi and Uttarakhand’s Dehradun, each with one project, faced severe terrain-related infrastructure limitations. In Dehradun, retrofitting on hilly terrain increased project costs by nearly 40% above original budget estimates. This demonstrates how geographic conditions significantly raise infrastructure costs and reduce overall project viability.
The performance of Union Territories under the Smart Cities Mission has been highly uneven. Chandigarh emerged as a national model for power-sector modernization through the successful implementation of smart electricity grids. Delhi, however, focused primarily on the Yamuna River rejuvenation project, indicating a narrow sectoral approach rather than integrated urban reform. In contrast, Puducherry, Goa, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu exceeded expectations by adopting tourism-focused smart city projects. Panaji in Goa achieved 100% project completion by using coastal sensor systems to monitor shoreline erosion and environmental changes, successfully integrating environmental protection with tourism-driven urban development.
Severe fiscal weakness further constrained underrepresented regions. Audit findings from 2022 revealed that northeastern states collectively contributed only ₹200 million, compared to the central government’s allocation of ₹1,000 crore for these regions. This imbalance reflects extremely limited own-source revenue generation and low borrowing capacity of local governments. As a result, these regions became almost entirely dependent on central funding, which weakened their bargaining power and restricted their independent implementation capacity.
The COVID-19 pandemic created widespread systemic disruption across the Smart Cities Mission. Approximately 30% of projects nationwide experienced delays. However, underrepresented and remote regions were disproportionately affected due to supply chain breakdowns, labor shortages, transportation bottlenecks, and reduced administrative oversight. These disruptions further widened the performance gap between metropolitan smart cities and peripheral regions.
Leadership instability also emerged as a major institutional drawback. Parliamentary reports indicate that the average tenure of Smart City Chief Executive Officers was only 2.5 years. Frequent transfers disrupted long-term project vision, weakened vendor continuity, and damaged inter-departmental coordination. Additionally, nearly 65% of Urban Local Bodies lacked formal master development plans. In Imphal, almost 20% of projects were abandoned due to incomplete land records and the absence of reliable geospatial data, clearly showing how weak urban documentation directly undermines smart infrastructure execution.
In analytical summary, the persistent challenges in underrepresented regions arise from a complex combination of low urbanization, weak revenue bases, difficult terrain, security risks, administrative instability, technological barriers, and chronic planning deficiencies. While the Smart Cities Mission succeeded in transforming India’s major economic and metropolitan centers, it also exposed deep institutional and regional vulnerabilities in marginalized states. Without targeted capacity-building programs, flexible funding mechanisms, conflict-sensitive implementation strategies, and terrain-responsive urban planning frameworks, these regions remain at serious risk of continued exclusion from India’s smart urban development trajectory.
Region / State
No. of Smart City Projects
Completion Status
Key Challenges
Arunachal Pradesh 0 Not Applicable Very low urbanization, scattered settlements Meghalaya 0 Not Applicable Fiscal weakness, low statutory towns Mizoram 0 Not Applicable Geographic isolation, administrative constraints Nagaland 0 Not Applicable Limited institutional capacity Sikkim 0 Not Applicable Small urban base, ecological sensitivity Lakshadweep (UT) 0 Not Applicable Island geography, logistical barriers Assam (Guwahati) 1 Moderate Infrastructure bottlenecks Tripura (Agartala) 1 ~95% Completed Stable governance Manipur (Imphal) 1 Poor Governance failure, no advisory board for 5 years Jammu & Kashmir (Srinagar) 1 ~60% Security disruptions Ladakh 0 Not Applicable Border security, terrain Himachal Pradesh (Shimla) 1 ~70% Budget misallocation Chhattisgarh 2 Slow Low tech adoption Odisha 2 Slow Administrative inertia Jharkhand (Ranchi) 1 Delayed Terrain limits, documentation issues Uttarakhand (Dehradun) 1 Cost escalation (+40%) Hilly terrain Chandigarh (UT) 1 High Power sector success Delhi (UT) 1 Sector-limited Yamuna focus only Goa (Panaji) 1 100% Coastal smart tourism Puducherry 1 High Tourism-centered model Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu 1 High Tourism & port-based development
Category
Impact on Smart City Performance
Low Urbanization Excluded from selection criteria Weak Fiscal Base Heavy reliance on central funds Difficult Terrain High project cost, slow execution Security Risks Frequent work disruptions Poor Urban Planning Incomplete land records Leadership Instability Short CEO tenure (avg. 2.5 years) COVID-19 Impact 30% national delay; higher in remote areas
Indicator
High Performers (Panaji, Chandigarh, Puducherry)
Low Performers (Imphal, Srinagar, Shimla)
Governance Stability Strong Weak Funding Utilization Strategic Misallocated Technology Adoption High Low Sectoral Focus Integrated Fragmented Project Completion 90–100% 60–70%
Feature
Union Territories
Northeastern States
Central Funding Access High High Local Revenue Moderate Very Low Administrative Capacity Strong Weak Project Completion High Low Security Disruptions Low Medium–High
Region
Terrain
Cost Impact
Dehradun Hilly +40% project cost Shimla Mountain Budget diversion Imphal Valley + Conflict Time overruns Panaji Coastal Environment-linked efficiency
Final Analytical Conclusions (For Chapter Conclusion Section).
- Structural Exclusion at Entry Level: The Smart Cities Mission selection framework inherently disadvantaged northeastern and island regions due to rigid urban population thresholds. This led to systematic exclusion even before implementation could begin.
- Governance as the Primary Success Determinant: Cities like Agartala and Panaji achieved high completion primarily due to administrative stability, while Imphal and Srinagar stalled due to weak institutional leadership and security disruptions.
- Geography as a Cost Multiplier: Hilly and remote terrains inflated infrastructure costs, delayed execution, and reduced private-sector participation, making urban retrofitting economically fragile in states like Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh.
- Fiscal Dependency and Weak Bargaining Power: With northeastern states contributing only ₹200 million compared to the Centre’s ₹1,000 crore, local implementation capacity remains critically underdeveloped, reinforcing dependency rather than autonomy.
- Technological Divide Between Regions: Mining-dependent economies in Chhattisgarh and Odisha showed slower adoption of smart technologies, confirming that economic structure heavily influences smart infrastructure readiness.
- Leadership Instability and Planning Deficits: hort CEO tenures and the absence of master plans in 65% of cities caused fractured execution and project abandonment, as seen clearly in Imphal.
- COVID-19 as a Regional Amplifier of Delay: While the pandemic delayed 30% of projects nationally, underrepresented regions suffered disproportionately due to fragile supply chains and limited administrative resilience.
The Smart Cities Mission achieved major transformation in India’s metropolitan and economically dominant regions but simultaneously deepened the digital and infrastructural divide between core and peripheral states. Underrepresented regions continue to suffer from structural urban exclusion, financial weakness, governance failures, insecure environments, and terrain-induced cost disadvantages. these marginalized regions will remain systematically sidelined from India’s smart urban development agenda.
The Smart Cities Mission has generated substantial economic and environmental impacts on India’s urban landscape since its launch. By 2025, the initiative attracted a total investment of approximately ₹1.64 lakh crore, with nearly 94% of the allocated funds expected to be fully utilized by May 2025. This large-scale capital infusion directly stimulated employment generation, infrastructure expansion, and technological modernization across participating cities. The mission has therefore acted as a powerful engine for urban economic growth while simultaneously advancing environmental sustainability.
One of the most immediate and visible economic outcomes of the mission has been large-scale employment generation. An estimated 1.7 million jobs were created primarily across construction and civil engineering, information technology and digital services, urban transport and energy systems, project management, and municipal services. Employment growth was especially strong in states with a higher concentration of smart cities, where the demand for both skilled and semi-skilled workers rose continuously throughout the project implementation period. This helped boost household incomes, strengthen local labor markets, and enhance economic mobility in major urban regions.
Smart city-driven economic acceleration was most clearly observed in leading states. In Uttar Pradesh, smart cities registered an 8% increase in local GDP growth, outperforming non-smart cities. This economic momentum attracted nearly ₹10,000 crore in foreign direct investment, particularly in real estate, logistics, digital services, and urban infrastructure. In Gujarat, Surat emerged as a major national logistics hub. The city’s smart port and digital cargo management systems enabled a 20% increase in cargo handling capacity, significantly strengthening Gujarat’s position in global supply chains and improving India’s export competitiveness. These outcomes demonstrate that smart infrastructure serves as a powerful catalyst for private investment, industrial expansion, and international economic integration.
From an environmental perspective, the Smart Cities Mission has made significant contributions to India’s low-carbon urban development goals. The construction of 1,740 kilometers of dedicated cycle tracks across smart cities transformed urban mobility by promoting non-motorized transport. This shift led to an estimated 15% reduction in carbon emissions across participating cities. All 100 Integrated Command and Control Centers (ICCCs) were equipped with real-time disaster monitoring systems for floods, cyclones, heatwaves, and industrial hazards. In Kerala’s flood-prone smart cities, these ICCCs played a crucial role in minimizing economic losses and ensuring rapid emergency response during periods of extreme rainfall. These interventions illustrate how technology-driven governance strengthens both economic efficiency and environmental resilience.
Despite these strong overall gains, the distribution of economic and sustainability benefits remains highly uneven. According to independent analysis by Down to Earth, only 18 smart cities—including Agra, Varanasi, and Surat—achieved 100% project completion by 2025. Several cities in the northeastern, hill, and interior regions lagged behind in both execution and performance, preventing them from fully capturing the economic multiplier effects of smart infrastructure development. This imbalance has intensified migration pressures as young workers relocate from slow-growing regions to metropolitan smart cities in search of better employment opportunities. As a result, urban housing, transport systems, water supply, energy networks, and sanitation infrastructure in leading cities face increasing strain, while inter-regional inequality continues to deepen.
Looking ahead to 2030, urban development projections suggest that the next phase of smart city expansion will focus on Tier-2 cities located near state capitals and emerging industrial corridors. Plans are underway to integrate nearly 50 additional cities into advanced urban development frameworks. The success of this expansion will depend critically on states increasing their matching fund contributions to 100%. This strategy is expected to strengthen state ownership, accelerate project execution, reduce dependence on delayed central funding, and improve accountability. If implemented effectively, it could help decongest overburdened metropolitan regions, distribute employment and investment more evenly, and promote balanced national urbanization.
In analytical summary, the Smart Cities Mission has mobilized ₹1.64 lakh crore in public and private investment, created approximately 1.7 million jobs, driven GDP growth and foreign direct investment, supported significant emission reductions, and strengthened disaster resilience and environmental sustainability across India’s urban centers. However, uneven project completion and persistent delays in underrepresented regions indicate that these economic and sustainability gains are not yet equitably shared. Without targeted financial support, institutional strengthening, adaptive planning frameworks, and revised allocation mechanisms, the mission risks reinforcing long-term regional inequality rather than delivering truly inclusive and balanced urban transformation.
Indicator
Impact
Total Investment Mobilized ₹1.64 lakh crore Fund Utilization ~94% by May 2025 Total Jobs Created ~1.7 million Major Employment Sectors Construction, IT, Transport, Energy, Municipal Services GDP Growth in Smart Cities Up to 8% higher than non-smart cities FDI Inflow (UP alone) ~₹10,000 crore
State
Key Smart City
Major Economic Outcome
Uttar Pradesh Agra, Varanasi 8% GDP growth, high FDI inflow Gujarat Surat 20% rise in cargo handling Kerala Kochi, Trivandrum Flood-loss reduction via ICCCs Maharashtra Pune, Nagpur IT & real estate expansion Tamil Nadu Coimbatore Manufacturing & smart mobility
Indicator
Measured Impact
Dedicated Cycle Tracks 1,740 km Carbon Emission Reduction ~15% ICCCs Established 100 Disaster Coverage Floods, cyclones, heatwaves Climate-Resilient Cities Kerala smart cities (high performers)
Category
High-Performance Cities
Lagging Regions
Project Completion 100% in 18 cities <70% in NE & hill states Job Creation High Low Private Investment Strong Weak Infrastructure Quality Modern Inadequate Migration Pressure In-migration Out-migration
Indicator
Smart Cities
Non-Smart Cities
GDP Growth Higher (up to +8%) Slower Job Creation High Limited Infrastructure Quality Advanced Conventional Disaster Preparedness ICCC-enabled Manual Carbon Emissions Reduced Higher
Feature
Metro Smart Cities
Tier-2 Smart Cities
Investment Inflow Very High Moderate Migration High In-migration Potential for Decongestion Infrastructure Load Overburdened Growth Stage Environmental Stress High Manageable
Indicator
High Completion Cities (Surat, Agra)
Low Completion Cities (NE, Hills)
Economic Multiplier Strong Weak Employment High Limited Sustainability Impact Visible Minimal FDI Strong Negligible Urban Services Reliable Fragmented
FINAL ECONOMIC & SUSTAINABILITY CONCLUSIONS (CHAPTER CONCLUSION)
Smart Cities Mission as a National Growth Engine:
With ₹1.64 lakh crore investment and 1.7 million jobs, the mission has emerged as one of India’s largest urban economic stimulus programs.Strong Link Between Smart Infrastructure and GDP Growth:
Cities such as Agra, Varanasi, and Surat demonstrate that digital logistics, smart ports, and infrastructure modernization significantly accelerate local economic output.Foreign Investment Crowd-in Effect:
Smart infrastructure has increased investor confidence, contributing directly to FDI growth, particularly in real estate, logistics, and digital services.Major Environmental Gains Through Smart Mobility & ICCCs:
The introduction of 1,740 km of cycle tracks and disaster-responsive ICCCs has delivered measurable emission reductions and environmental resilience.Unequal Development and Migration Pressure:
Only 18 cities achieved full completion, causing uneven growth and pushing migration toward metros, intensifying housing, water, transport, and energy stress.Tier-2 Cities as the Future Growth Balancer:
The planned expansion to 50 additional Tier-2 cities by 2030 offers a strategic opportunity to redistribute growth and reduce metro over-congestion.State Contribution is the Key to Future Success:
Raising state matching funds to 100% will enhance ownership, reduce implementation delays, and improve long-term accountability.
The Smart Cities Mission has successfully demonstrated that technology-led urban development can simultaneously drive economic growth and environmental sustainability. However, without correcting regional imbalances, strengthening state-level financial participation, and prioritizing delayed cities, the mission risks transforming only India’s strongest urban cores while leaving weaker regions permanently behind.
Balanced urbanization, climate-resilient infrastructure, and inclusive economic growth can only be achieved if future smart city phases explicitly target underperforming and migration-sending regions with special financial, technical, and governance support.
As India moves beyond the first phase of the Smart Cities Mission (2015–2025), the experience gained during this transformative period provides critical insights for shaping the next generation of urban development policy. The mission has clearly demonstrated that technology alone is not sufficient to ensure successful urban transformation. Instead, long-term success depends on institutional capacity, financial innovation, citizen participation, and strong alignment with local socio-economic and environmental conditions.
One of the most important lessons from the Smart Cities Mission is the urgent requirement for systematic capacity building at both municipal and state levels. Weak project management, delayed administrative approvals, frequent leadership turnover, and limited technical expertise emerged as major causes of cost overruns and project delays across many cities. Policy experts estimate that training at least 5,000 urban executives every year—including municipal commissioners, engineers, urban planners, finance officers, and IT managers—could significantly reduce project delays, improve procurement efficiency, strengthen data-driven decision-making, and enhance accountability and monitoring systems. Continuous professional development is therefore essential for building a stable and skilled urban leadership pipeline and ensuring long-term institutional resilience beyond the lifespan of any single mission.
The Smart Cities Mission has also firmly established the importance of Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) as an effective tool for accelerating urban development when properly regulated. Gujarat’s experience stands out as a national example, where PPP-led projects generated an additional ₹20,000 crore in private investment, particularly in urban transport, smart mobility systems, power distribution, and water and waste management. This approach reduced the financial burden on the public sector while ensuring faster project execution and improved service delivery. The Gujarat model demonstrates that well-structured and regulated private capital can serve as a powerful partner in urban infrastructure development. Scaling this model at the national level could significantly expand overall investment capacity, improve project quality, encourage technological innovation, and reduce overdependence on delayed government funding.
Another critical institutional weakness observed during the mission was the lack of meaningful citizen participation. Nearly 40% of projects showed minimal public engagement during their planning and implementation stages. This reduced transparency, weakened community ownership, and in several cases resulted in infrastructure that failed to match local needs and priorities. In contrast, the case of Pune’s digital citizen engagement platform illustrates the effectiveness of participatory governance. Through mobile applications and online dashboards that enabled real-time grievance reporting, project tracking, and public feedback, Pune recorded a 30% increase in citizen satisfaction, faster grievance redressal, and strengthened civic trust in municipal institutions. These outcomes clearly indicate that digital governance must evolve from surveillance-based systems toward participatory planning mechanisms. In future urban programs, citizen engagement platforms must be made mandatory rather than optional.
A major technological lesson from the Smart Cities Mission is that urban technology delivers its highest impact when it is localized and adapted to regional conditions. In Bihar, smart flood management technologies, including real-time river-level sensors and automated warning systems, significantly reduced disaster-related economic losses and saved lives. This confirms that climate-adaptive infrastructure can outperform conventional urban systems. Similarly, in Kerala, decentralized renewable energy initiatives such as rooftop solar systems and energy-efficient electricity grids reduced household power bills by nearly 20%, directly strengthening household economic security. These examples demonstrate that urban technologies must be context-specific rather than applied as uniform templates across India’s highly diverse geographic and socio-economic regions.
Looking ahead, future urban policy in India must transition from city selection-based development models to system-wide urban transformation approaches. The focus must shift from infrastructure-heavy strategies to governance- and sustainability-led urban growth, and from top-down implementation to participatory and localized planning. Future programs should prioritize climate resilience, affordable housing, digital inclusion, smart healthcare and education, water and energy security, and regional balance in urban investment.
In concluding insight, the Smart Cities Mission has clearly shown that urban transformation is fundamentally a governance and institutional challenge rather than merely an engineering task. Where skilled leadership, effective PPP financing, strong citizen engagement, and localized technology came together, project outcomes were fast, visible, and economically productive. Where these elements were absent, even well-funded projects underperformed.
If India now makes systematic investments in urban human capital, private-sector collaboration, participatory governance systems, and climate-adaptive technologies, the next phase of urban development can achieve truly inclusive, sustainable, and regionally balanced growth.