Beyond the Glitzy Facade: Unraveling the Reality of India's Smart Cities Mission
- BerryBeat Team
- 11 minutes ago
- 4 min read
India’s Smart Cities Mission promised a decade of transformation, with ₹1.64 lakh crore invested in 8,067 projects across 100 cities. The government’s reports boasted a 94% completion rate, suggesting a near-perfect execution of urban renewal. Yet, beneath the surface, the mission’s achievements tell a different story. The Centre for Policy Research (CPR) revealed that the Area-Based Development approach covered only 7% of an average city’s area while consuming 80% of the mission’s funds. This limited reach affected just 9% of urban residents, leaving the majority of city dwellers, especially those in informal settlements, without meaningful improvements.
This post explores the gaps between the mission’s promises and realities, highlighting the challenges in India’s urban governance, the flaws in project selection, and the consequences of sidelining democratic accountability.
Neglected drainage systems remain a challenge in many smart cities despite infrastructure investments.
The Narrow Reach of Area-Based Development
The Smart Cities Mission India focused heavily on Area-Based Development (ABD), which aimed to upgrade specific zones within cities rather than the entire urban area. According to CPR India’s analysis, this approach resulted in a paradox: while 80% of the mission’s funding was absorbed by ABD projects, these projects covered only 7% of the average city’s area. This meant that the vast majority of urban spaces, including informal settlements, slums, and peripheral neighborhoods, remained untouched.
This selective development created enclaves of modern infrastructure surrounded by neglected areas. For example, sensor-lit walkways and CCTV networks appeared in newly developed zones, but basic needs like drainage, sanitation, and affordable housing were often ignored in other parts of the city. The mission’s design failed to address the holistic needs of urban residents, especially the most vulnerable.
Financial Mismanagement and Questionable Project Choices
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India flagged serious issues in the mission’s financial administration. Reports highlighted:
Diverted funds away from intended projects
Falsified utilization certificates to show inflated progress
Selection of projects that were unfeasible or poorly planned
In Thiruvananthapuram, a newly inaugurated road had to be dug up within months to fix a sewage leak buried beneath the pavement. This example illustrates poor coordination between infrastructure projects and basic urban services. In Indore, redevelopment efforts razed historic neighborhoods, displacing families who were then labeled as encroachers. These families lost protections under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act, exposing them to further vulnerability.
Such cases reveal that the mission’s focus on aesthetics and technology often came at the cost of social justice and sustainability.
Waterfront beautification projects became symbols of the mission’s priorities, often sidelining essential urban needs.
Environmental Concerns and Urban Displacement
The 2025 assessment of the mission’s environmental impact showed that many smart city projects encroached on wetlands and destroyed tree cover. These actions worsened urban flooding and reduced green spaces that are vital for climate resilience. The mission’s emphasis on sensor-lit walkways and aesthetic upgrades often ignored the ecological footprint of development.
Displacement of residents was another critical issue. In cities like Indore, redevelopment led to the demolition of historic neighborhoods without adequate rehabilitation plans. The classification of displaced families as encroachers stripped them of legal protections, exposing them to eviction and loss of livelihoods. This approach reflects a failure in India urban governance failure, where development projects prioritize infrastructure over people.
The Governance Model: A Barrier to Accountability
One of the mission’s most significant flaws was its governance structure. Cities implemented the Smart Cities Mission through Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), corporate entities registered under the Companies Act. These SPVs operated parallel to elected municipal councils, effectively bypassing democratic oversight.
A telling example comes from Kochi, where a senior city councillor was unaware of the city’s own Integrated Command and Control Centre (ICCC). This lack of awareness was not due to ignorance but a consequence of the mission’s design, which sidelined elected representatives in favor of efficiency-driven corporate models.
This governance model created a disconnect between the mission’s projects and the citizens they were meant to serve. The ICCC India cities initiative, intended to centralize urban management, often became a tool for technocratic control rather than participatory governance.
ICCCs in Indian cities operate with limited involvement from elected representatives, raising questions about democratic accountability.
Lessons from the Smart Cities Mission India
The mission’s shortcomings offer important lessons for future urban policy in India. The India urban policy 2025 must address these gaps by:
Expanding development beyond limited zones to cover entire urban areas, including informal settlements
Ensuring financial transparency and accountability in project implementation
Prioritizing basic urban infrastructure like drainage, sanitation, and affordable housing alongside technological upgrades
Protecting the rights of displaced residents and avoiding forced evictions
Reforming governance models to integrate elected municipal bodies and enhance citizen participation
The mission’s experience shows that technology and aesthetics alone cannot solve deep-rooted urban challenges. Sustainable urban development requires inclusive planning, social justice, and accountable governance.
Moving Forward with Inclusive Urban Governance
India’s urban future depends on learning from the Smart Cities Mission’s failures. The mission’s focus on dashboards, CCTV networks, and beautified waterfronts did not translate into cities that function well for all residents. Urban governance must shift from corporate-driven models to democratic frameworks that respond to the needs of diverse populations.
Policy makers, urban planners, and civic activists must push for reforms that prioritize people over projects. The mission’s legacy should be a call to build cities that drain when it rains, house their residents with dignity, and answer to the voters who fund them.
The story of the Smart Cities Mission India is a reminder that urban transformation requires more than investment and technology. It demands a commitment to equity, transparency, and democratic accountability.
