As the curtain falls on the ambitious Smart Cities Mission, launched nearly a decade ago in June 2015, the government’s grand urban transformation scheme leaves behind a patchwork of success stories, missed opportunities, and unresolved questions about India’s approach to urban governance. The March 2025 deadline for the mission passed with only 18 out of the 100 designated smart cities completing all mandated projects.
Cities such as Agra, Varanasi, Madurai, Coimbatore, Udaipur, Pune, Surat, and Vadodara are among those that crossed the finish line. On paper, the numbers appear encouraging: of the 8,062 projects sanctioned under SCM, 93% have been completed, with Rs 1.50 lakh crore worth of work executed from the total outlay of Rs 1.64 lakh crore. But the numbers alone do not tell the full story.
READ | Rupee braces for another year of global disruption
Lofty goals, grounded in reality
The Smart Cities Mission was introduced to address chronic urban woes — traffic congestion, waterlogging, pollution, and inefficient civic services — by integrating technology and design. Inspired by the internet of things (IoT) and data-driven governance models prevalent in developed countries, the Smart Cities Mission envisioned Indian cities as digitally connected, efficiently run ecosystems.
However, this techno-utopian vision ignored the ground realities of urban India, where even basic services remain elusive for millions. The initiative had two major components. The first was pan-city solutions, which aimed to implement IT-enabled systems like waste management and improved mobility services across entire cities. The second was area-based development, which concentrated efforts on specific zones within a city to implement retrofitting, redevelopment, and greenfield projects intended to serve as models for broader urban transformation.
A defining feature of the Smart Cities Mission was its governance structure. Special Purpose Vehicles were established — entities registered under the Companies Act and structured to operate like private firms. These SPVs were intended to fast-track implementation by bypassing traditional municipal systems. While this model aimed to inject efficiency and innovation, it often sidelined local institutions and diluted public accountability, ultimately hindering long-term success and ownership.
Smart Cities Mission: The pockets of impact
Despite structural limitations, the Smart Cities Mission did produce tangible benefits in certain sectors. A pair of studies conducted by the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore highlighted significant gains in education and public safety. One study found that the introduction of 9,433 smart classrooms across 2,398 government schools in 71 cities contributed to a 22% increase in school enrolment between 2015-16 and 2023-24 in 19 cities. This improvement was linked to better infrastructure and access to digital learning tools made possible through Smart Cities Mission funding.
Another critical area of impact was urban surveillance and safety. Across 93 smart cities, 59,802 CCTV cameras and emergency call boxes were installed, significantly strengthening real-time monitoring. This infrastructure, integrated through Integrated Command and Control Centres (ICCCs), enhanced public safety and emergency responsiveness. In cities like Nagpur, this led to a measurable decline in crime, with a 14% drop in incidents following the deployment of surveillance systems.
Beyond education and policing, the mission also spurred the development of digital libraries in 41 cities, including notable examples in Raipur and Tumakuru. These libraries, with a combined seating capacity of 7,809, played a vital role in supporting students from economically weaker sections and those preparing for competitive examinations. The broader impact, as noted in the studies, was that smart educational tools and infrastructure helped democratise access to quality learning resources.
Shimla: A cautionary tale
Not every city reaped such rewards. Shimla, added later to the smart cities list, received an investment proposal worth Rs 2,906 crore, largely via public-private partnerships. The city’s plan aimed to improve pedestrian crossings, vehicular mobility, and public infrastructure across 244 acres through a combination of pan-city and ABD strategies. Redevelopment was targeted at Lower Bazar, Ganj Bazar, and Krishnanagar, with the goal of replacing dilapidated, unsafe structures with earthquake-resilient, tourist-friendly infrastructure. Additional ambitions included storm water and spring water management, improved transport corridors, and the promotion of eco-adventure tourism.
Despite the comprehensive plan, ground implementation fell far short. None of the funds earmarked for the redevelopment of Lower Bazar, Middle Bazar, or Krishnanagar were utilised. Residents report worsening traffic conditions and a continued neglect of pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. A particularly glaring misstep was the installation of large escalator structures, intended to ease movement in hilly terrain but which remain non-functional and obstruct iconic valley views. Shimla’s experience underscores recurring pitfalls within theSmart Cities Mission—namely, misallocation of resources and a failure to prioritise sustainable, citizen-focused urban development.
High-tech command centre
Agra, on the other hand, offers a tale of contrasts. While the city has completed its Smart Cities projects on paper and has been consistently lauded in national awards—trailing only Indore and Surat—it continues to grapple with fundamental civic issues. In Tajganj, the neighbourhood adjacent to the Taj Mahal and a focal point of the SCM effort, the ground reality includes gaping potholes, tangled overhead electrical wires, and locked “smart” toilets. Schools that were upgraded under the mission now struggle with non-functional digital classrooms, faulty RO water systems, and dilapidated sports infrastructure.
That said, Agra’s Integrated Command and Control Centre is operational and arguably its most successful component. The city now boasts over 1,530 CCTV cameras, AI-enabled traffic monitoring, and live GPS updates from garbage trucks and dumpsites. Citizen complaints are routed through the Mera Agra app, phone lines, and social media channels, all feeding into a central monitoring hub. Advanced cameras flag violations such as helmetless riders, stray cattle on roads, and unsanitary conditions, enabling quicker municipal response. Yet the question remains: how will cities like Agra maintain these sophisticated systems without a reliable revenue stream or fresh central funding?
What comes next
With the official end of the Smart Cities Mission, many cities are staring at an uncertain future. The ministry of housing and urban affairs has not clarified whether existing SPVs will continue receiving funds or support post-March 2025. Some urban development experts suggest that the Rs 1 lakh crore Urban Challenge Fund, announced in the Union Budget 2025, could provide a financial bridge to sustain the work done under the scheme, particularly for high-performing cities seeking viability gap funding.
India must now build upon the learnings from SCM. While the scheme may have fallen short of its transformative promise, it has yielded a valuable prototype—an urban innovation testbed showing both the possibilities and the limitations of top-down, tech-driven development.
As India’s cities continue to grow and strain under demographic and environmental pressures, future urban policy must go beyond smart solutions and focus on inclusive, bottom-up planning. The success of city-making will ultimately depend not on the number of sensors installed, but on how well public systems serve their most vulnerable users. In the final analysis, technology alone cannot fix broken cities. People, politics, and planning must work in sync to make urban India truly liveable.