
| Rank | State / UT | Expenditure (₹K) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chandigarh | 79.0 |
| 2 | Arunachal Pradesh | 63.2 |
| 3 | Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu (DNHDD) | 56.3 |
| 4 | Delhi | 46.7 |
| 5 | Puducherry | 45.4 |
| 6 | Tamil Nadu | 44.2 |
| 7 | Punjab | 43.9 |
| 8 | Sikkim | 41.5 |
| 9 | Karnataka | 39.4 |
| 10 | Himachal Pradesh | 39.1 |
| 11 | Haryana | 39.0 |
| 12 | Gujarat | 38.6 |
| 13 | Telangana | 38.5 |
| 14 | West Bengal | 36.8 |
| 15 | Kerala | 33.8 |
| 16 | Andhra Pradesh | 32.6 |
| 17 | Maharashtra | 31.9 |
| 18 | Andaman & Nicobar Islands | 31.6 |
| 19 | Manipur | 31.3 |
| 20 | Odisha | 29.9 |
| 21 | Tripura | 29.1 |
| 22 | Assam | 26.6 |
| 23 | Ladakh | 25.1 |
| 24 | Chhattisgarh | 24.7 |
| 25 | Jharkhand | 24.6 |
| 26 | Nagaland | 24.6 |
| 27 | Jammu & Kashmir | 24.3 |
| 28 | Uttarakhand | 23.3 |
| 29 | Rajasthan | 23.1 |
| 30 | Meghalaya | 22.6 |
| 31 | Madhya Pradesh | 21.8 |
| 32 | Bihar | 20.7 |
| 33 | Uttar Pradesh | 19.0 |
| 34 | Mizoram | 18.3 |
| 35 | Goa | 16.5 |
| 36 | Lakshadweep | 4.6 |
- Chandigarh – ₹79.0K
- Arunachal Pradesh – ₹63.2K
- Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu (DNHDD) – ₹56.3K
- Delhi – ₹46.7K
- Tamil Nadu – ₹44.2K
- Punjab – ₹43.9K
- Telangana – ₹38.5K – ₹39.0K
These regions clearly dominate the premium segment of the private education market.
- High urbanisation levels
- Dense presence of private educational institutions
- Advanced infrastructure and modern facilities
- Higher household income and purchasing power
- Strong focus on quality education and competitive academic environments
As a result, these states and Union Territories command higher education costs, positioning them as elite education hubs within the Indian education ecosystem.
Lowest Spending States and Regions.
- Lakshadweep – ₹4.6K
- Goa – ₹16.5K
- Mizoram – ₹18.3K
- Uttar Pradesh – ₹19.0K
- Bihar – ₹20.7K
- Tripura – ₹29.1K (Mid-Low Category)
| Region / State / UT | Zone | Financial Value (₹K) | UNESCO / Heritage Status | Smart City Status / Urban Development | Key Challenges / Strengths |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maharashtra | West | 31.9 | 13 UNESCO Sites (Highest) – Ajanta, Ellora, Maratha Military Landscapes (11 forts) | Multiple Smart Cities | National leader in heritage & tourism, strong digital mapping, but uneven urban inclusion |
| Madhya Pradesh | Central | 21.8 | 4 Sites – Khajuraho, Bhimbetka, Sanchi, Sagar Shelters | 2 Smart Cities | Strong ancient heritage, moderate finances, stable geology aids conservation |
| Uttar Pradesh | North | 19.0 (Low) | 3 Sites – Taj Mahal, Agra Fort, Fatehpur Sikri | Multiple Smart Cities | Highest tourism revenue but weak financial index |
| Rajasthan | West | 23.1 | Hill Forts of Rajasthan + Jaipur (2019) | 2 Smart Cities | Desert military heritage, water-harvesting brilliance, moderate economic performance |
| Delhi | North | 46.7 | Qutb Minar, Humayun’s Tomb (Corrected geography) | Focused on Yamuna Rejuvenation | High finances but narrow sectoral Smart City approach |
| Odisha | East | 29.9 | Konark Sun Temple, Bhitarkanika Mangroves | 2 Smart Cities | Cultural + ecological heritage strength, moderate urban growth |
| Chandigarh | North | 79.0 (Highest Nationally) | Urban Heritage | Smart Power Grid Model City | Best financial + power-sector modernization |
| Goa | West | 16.5 | Tourism-based Heritage | Panaji Smart City (100% complete) | Coastal sensors, tourism-driven success |
| Assam | North-East | 26.6 | No UNESCO Sites | 1 Smart City (Guwahati) | Limited urban reach, weak institutional strength |
| Tripura | North-East | 29.1 | No UNESCO Sites | Agartala Smart City (95% complete) | One of the best NE performers |
| Manipur | North-East | 31.3 | No UNESCO Sites | Imphal Smart City (Poor performance) | Governance failure, 5 years no board meetings |
| Arunachal Pradesh | North-East | 63.2 (Very High) | No UNESCO Sites | No Smart City | Very high finances but no global heritage recognition |
| Sikkim | North-East | 41.5 | No UNESCO Sites | No Smart City | Strong finances but excluded from missions |
| Mizoram | North-East | 18.3 (Low) | No UNESCO Sites | No Smart City | Low urbanization, weak revenue |
| Himachal Pradesh (Shimla) | North | 39.1 | No UNESCO Sites | 1 Smart City | 70% completion, beautification over core infra |
| Jharkhand (Ranchi) | East | 24.6 | No UNESCO Sites | 1 Smart City | Terrain barriers, planning delays |
| Uttarakhand (Dehradun) | North | 23.3 | No UNESCO Sites | 1 Smart City | 40% cost escalation due to hilly terrain |
| Puducherry | South | 45.4 | Heritage Town | Tourism-based Smart City | Best UT tourism-smart integration |
| Tamil Nadu | South | 44.2 | Mahabalipuram, Nilgiri Rail, etc. | Multiple Smart Cities | Strong heritage + strong finances |
| Karnataka | South | 39.4 | Hampi | Multiple Smart Cities | Balanced urban & heritage growth |
| Kerala | South | 33.8 | Western Ghats | Smart City Kochi | Eco-heritage + urban sustainability |
| Andaman & Nicobar Islands | Islands | 31.6 | Natural Heritage | No Smart City | Moderate economy, isolated geography |
| Lakshadweep | West (Island) | 4.6 (Lowest Nationally) | No UNESCO Sites | No Smart City | Extreme isolation, fiscal weakness |
| Jammu & Kashmir | North | 24.3 | No UNESCO Sites | Srinagar Smart City (60%) | Security disruptions |
| Ladakh | North | 25.1 | No UNESCO Sites | No Smart City | Border conflicts, zero urban mission coverage |
A strong positive correlation exists between household income levels and expenditure on private schooling. Regions including Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu (DNHDD), Tamil Nadu, and Punjab clearly demonstrate that higher per capita income directly leads to higher educational spending. This pattern indicates that private education is increasingly becoming income-driven, reinforcing socio-economic disparities.
Geographical factors also play a significant role in shaping education costs. Mountainous and remote states such as Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh face higher private schooling expenses due to logistical difficulties, limited availability of institutions, and infrastructure challenges. These structural constraints push up operational costs, which are ultimately passed on to households.
A clear regional contrast is visible between Northern and Southern India. Southern states generally exhibit a more structured yet expensive private education ecosystem. In contrast, Northern India shows extreme disparities, where states like Uttar Pradesh record comparatively low costs, while regions such as Delhi report exceptionally high private education expenses. This uneven pattern highlights the imbalance in education accessibility and quality within the country.
Most concerning is the rapidly widening affordability gap in private schooling. The lowest average expenditure is recorded in Lakshadweep at ₹4.6 thousand, while the highest is observed in Chandigarh at ₹79 thousand. This nearly 17-fold difference sharply underscores the deepening inequality in access to private education across India. Without targeted policy intervention, this gap threatens to further entrench social and economic divides.
The 2025 Comprehensive Modular Survey once again highlights that India’s private education sector is witnessing rapid expansion alongside a sharp rise in costs. While the national average annual expenditure stands at approximately ₹28,600, the wide variation across states has emerged as a serious concern for education policymakers. Chandigarh, with an average private education expenditure of ₹79,000, has effectively positioned private schooling within the luxury segment. In contrast, regions such as Lakshadweep, where the figure is about ₹4,600, present an extreme model of affordability.
The North-Eastern states, particularly Arunachal Pradesh with an average expenditure of ₹63,200, have entered the high-cost education zone due to challenging infrastructure and accessibility conditions. In South India, the expansion of premium school chains across Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Kerala is driving overall costs upward. Meanwhile, the Hindi-belt states Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar continue to function as low-cost education clusters. Although affordability remains relatively high in these regions, concerns persist regarding the quality standards of private institutions.
Based on these findings, education researchers suggest that between 2025 and 2030, India will require a balanced strategy to address both affordability and quality in private schooling. This will involve the introduction of targeted subsidies, increased infrastructure investment, and the implementation of robust fee-regulation frameworks to ensure equitable access to quality education across all regions.