India’s Smart Cities Mission in 2026
National status, measurable achievements, post-mission roadmap and the way forward. Reporting date: 20 October 2026. Scope: India’s 100 Smart Cities Mission cities.
Executive summary
India’s Smart Cities Mission (SCM), launched in 2015, formally closed on 31 March 2025. Its implementation legacy is substantial: 8,064 projects worth ₹1,64,811 crore were taken up across 100 cities. By 31 March 2026, 7,790 projects worth ₹1,56,257 crore had been completed—approximately 96.6% of projects by count and 94.8% of total project value. [1]
All 100 cities have operationalised Integrated Command and Control Centres (ICCCs). Reported infrastructure includes more than 83,000 CCTV cameras, over 1,700 km of smart roads, more than 17,000 km of water-supply networks monitored through SCADA, and 1,300-plus public-space projects. [2]
The next phase is about sustaining, integrating and securing these assets and proving that they improve city services. MoHUA’s Advisory No. 27 (10 June 2025) outlines a continued role for ICCCs and the repurposing of Smart City Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs). The Urban Challenge Fund, approved in February 2026, adds a market-linked financing route for bankable urban projects. [3][4]
Central finding: project completion is an important delivery measure, but it is not equivalent to service quality. The next phase should be judged by asset uptime, maintenance, interoperability, cybersecurity, financial sustainability and citizen outcomes.
1. National status and financial position
| Indicator | Reported figure |
|---|---|
| Cities covered | 100 |
| Projects taken up | 8,064 |
| Total value of projects taken up | ₹1,64,811 crore |
| Projects completed by 31 March 2026 | 7,790 |
| Value of completed projects | ₹1,56,257 crore |
| Projects remaining incomplete | 274 |
| Value of projects not yet completed | ₹8,554 crore |
| Central mission allocation | ₹48,000 crore |
| Central funds claimed by states/UTs | ₹47,458 crore |
| Central funds reported utilised by states/UTs | ₹46,377 crore |
2. Infrastructure delivered
Integrated Command and Control Centres
ICCCs have been operationalised in all 100 mission cities. They were designed to support data aggregation and coordination across public safety, transport, water, sanitation, waste management and disaster response. Their effectiveness now depends on system integration, data quality, staffing, cybersecurity and the speed with which information leads to action. [2]
Public safety
More than 83,000 CCTV cameras were reported installed. A useful next-stage scorecard should distinguish installed cameras from operationally available cameras and report uptime, network availability, retrieval time, analytics accuracy, incident escalation and privacy safeguards. [2]
Water and utilities
More than 17,000 km of water-supply networks were reported as monitored through SCADA. Future assessment should track service continuity, water losses, fault-detection time and maintenance response. Network length alone does not prove a quantified reduction in water losses across all cities. [2]
Roads, mobility and public spaces
The Government reported over 1,700 km of smart, accessible roads and 1,300-plus public-space projects. It also reported conservation of 484 heritage sites and market redevelopment in 58 cities. Future reporting should cover accessibility, road safety, traffic performance, public-space use and upkeep. [2]
Public-private partnerships
The Government reported completion of 194 PPP projects worth ₹9,190 crore. This confirms use of PPP delivery models, but does not by itself establish financial performance or long-term service quality. [2]
3. Evaluation and accountability
NITI Aayog’s report, Evaluation of Centrally Sponsored Schemes in Package 4 – Urban Transformation and Skill Development, published in September 2025, assessed the mission’s alignment with urban priorities and reported contributions to liveability, mobility, safety and environmental outcomes. A government summary in August 2026 cited a 93% completion rate across 8,063 projects in the evaluation’s reference dataset and 100% completion of ICCCs. [5]
These figures differ from the later administrative count of 8,064 projects, of which 7,790 were completed by March 2026. The datasets have different reference points and should not be combined without qualification. CAG reports on Karnataka (Report No. 11 of 2025, tabled 29 January 2026) and Dehradun (Report No. 5 of 2025, tabled 10 March 2026) provide city-specific audit perspectives. Findings from individual audits should not be generalised to all 100 cities without evidence. [6][7]
A key evidence gap remains: the reviewed national statistics do not provide one comprehensive, comparable 2026 scorecard for all cities covering asset uptime, operating costs, service-level performance and citizen outcomes.
4. The way forward after mission closure
MoHUA Advisory No. 27, issued on 10 June 2025, followed the mission’s formal closure on 31 March 2025. It directs SPVs to complete residual projects, prepare operations and maintenance plans and consider continued roles in urban development. [3]
Potential roles for SPVs
Technology support for ICCCs and cybersecurity; implementation of other urban schemes; consulting to urban local bodies; research and assessment; and investment facilitation. The advisory also contemplates service-linked revenue and implementation charges where permitted by state policy and procurement rules. These are policy directions and potential roles—not evidence that every SPV has already adopted them. [3]
Urban Challenge Fund
The Union Cabinet approved the ₹1 lakh crore fund in February 2026, with operational guidelines launched on 15 April 2026. The scheme aims to catalyse around ₹4 lakh crore in urban investment over five years. Central assistance is limited to up to 25% of project cost, with at least 50% of financing expected from market sources such as municipal bonds, bank loans and PPPs. The ₹1 lakh crore allocation includes ₹90,000 crore for projects, ₹5,000 crore for project preparation and capacity building, and ₹5,000 crore for the Credit Repayment Guarantee Sub-Scheme. [4]
The approach places greater emphasis on bankable projects, financial discipline, private participation and outcome-oriented infrastructure. Its effectiveness will depend on cities’ ability to prepare robust projects and on whether smaller or financially weaker municipalities can access the required capacity and financing.
5. Comment: Sourish Dey, Director, Trisim Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
“The Smart Cities Mission has played a humongous role in bringing technology into India’s urban environments. The COVID-19 outbreak demonstrated the practical value of Integrated Command and Control Centres, which in many cities became nerve centres for monitoring, coordination and decision-making during an unprecedented public-health emergency. That experience reinforced the importance of having a common operational picture and the ability to bring information from multiple departments together. As municipal boundaries and urban service areas expand, cities will need to do more than maintain the systems already deployed. Many will need to extend their surveillance and sensor networks, modernise existing platforms and adopt new-age AI-based analytics. Depending on local needs, the next phase could also include tethered drones for selected monitoring applications, BIM-based 3D modelling of landmark buildings and critical assets, and crowd-management technologies for festivals, transport hubs and major public gatherings. These should be deployed against clear use cases, with suitable safeguards, interoperability and measurable operating benefits. There is, however, a significant financial constraint. Storage and compute costs can consume budgets that might otherwise fund additional cameras, sensors or advanced analytics. In procurement planning, the cost of hard disk drives, solid-state drives, memory and computing infrastructure can change materially between budget preparation and tendering. Where actual prices rise sharply against estimates made a year earlier, authorities may have to reduce scope, defer procurement or postpone subsequent phases. Any claim of a threefold increase should be validated against the specific component, configuration, date and supplier quotations; nevertheless, price volatility is a genuine risk that project owners need to manage. The way forward should therefore combine phased roll-outs with realistic cost escalation provisions, modular architectures, lifecycle costing, efficient data-retention policies and technology choices that avoid unnecessary storage and compute demand. Cities should prioritise investments according to public value and operational need, while preserving the ability to scale up as budgets permit. The next phase of smart-city development will be judged not simply by how many devices are installed, but by how effectively technology improves safety, resilience, service delivery and urban decision-making.”
Editorial note: This comment reflects the views of Sourish Dey. The observations about storage and compute price volatility are attributed professional commentary; no nationwide verified index establishing a universal threefold increase is cited in this report.
6. Recommended priorities and implementation roadmap
| Priority | Proposed performance measures |
|---|---|
| Asset maintenance | Publish an asset register, annual O&M budgets, uptime and maintenance backlog. |
| ICCC effectiveness | Track system integration, data quality, incident-response time and service-level compliance. |
| Cybersecurity | Measure vulnerability remediation, access control, incident reporting and recovery readiness. |
| Water and sanitation | Track service continuity, water losses, fault-detection time and complaint resolution. |
| Urban mobility | Measure travel-time reliability, road safety, accessibility and public-transport integration. |
| Climate resilience | Monitor flood-warning coverage, drainage response, heat-risk planning and recovery time. |
| Financial sustainability | Publish lifecycle costs, cost recovery, audited PPP performance and borrowing capacity. |
| Citizen outcomes | Report grievance-resolution time, service reliability, accessibility and resident satisfaction. |
Suggested roadmap (recommendation, not an official deadline): In the first 12 months, each city should inventory mission-funded assets, identify residual projects, document ownership and fund O&M plans. In months 12–24, cities should consolidate fragmented systems where appropriate, publish service-level dashboards and prepare bankable projects. In months 24–36, independent evaluation should compare performance against baselines and publish results on service improvements, costs and citizen outcomes.
Conclusion
India’s Smart Cities Mission has delivered a large portfolio of infrastructure: 7,790 completed projects worth ₹1,56,257 crore by March 2026, with ICCCs operationalised in all 100 cities. The remaining 274 projects, worth ₹8,554 crore, and the long-term operation of completed assets require continued attention. The post-mission direction centres on sustaining assets, repurposing SPVs and mobilising new investment through mechanisms such as the Urban Challenge Fund. The next test is whether cities can demonstrate reliable services, effective maintenance, resilient infrastructure, stronger financial management and independently verifiable improvements in residents’ lives.
City leaders: Smart Cities at full completion
Added by smartcitiesmission.com from Lok Sabha annexures (status as on 31 March 2026).
| City | State | Projects completed / taken up | Value (₹ crore) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surat | Gujarat | 87 / 87 | 2,694 | [8] |
| Indore | Madhya Pradesh | 231 / 231 | 3,751 | [8] |
| Pune | Maharashtra | 55 / 55 | 3,333 | [8] |
| Agartala | Tripura | 77 / 77 | 808 | [9] |
| Varanasi | Uttar Pradesh | 117 / 117 | 3,342 | [9] |
| Agra | Uttar Pradesh | 62 / 62 | 2,369 | [9] |
| Kanpur | Uttar Pradesh | 91 / 91 | 3,060 | [9] |
Sources and references
- Government of India / MoHUA, Smart Cities Mission project status, figures as of 31 March 2026. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2293938&lang=1®=3
- MoHUA / Press Information Bureau, “Evaluations of Measurable Outcomes Delivered by SCM”, 3 August 2026. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2293938&lang=1®=48
- MoHUA, Advisory No. 27 on repurposing Smart City SPVs, 10 June 2025. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2135474&lang=2®=3
- Cabinet approval, 14 February 2026, and Urban Challenge Fund operational guidelines launch, 15 April 2026. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2252186&lang=1®=3
- NITI Aayog, Evaluation of Centrally Sponsored Schemes in Package 4 – Urban Transformation and Skill Development, September 2025; government summary, August 2026. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2293938&lang=1®=3
- CAG of India, Karnataka Smart Cities Mission Performance Audit, Report No. 11 of 2025. https://cag.gov.in/en/audit-report/details/123892
- CAG of India, Implementation of Smart Cities Mission in Dehradun, Report No. 5 of 2025. https://cag.gov.in/en/audit-report/details/124430
- Lok Sabha, Starred Question 279, annexure (city-wise SCM project status as on 31.03.2026). https://sansad.in/getFile/lsapps/loksabhaquestions/annex/188/AS279_WRKjRD.pdf
- Lok Sabha, Unstarred Question 3075, annexure (city-wise SCM project status as on 31.03.2026). https://sansad.in/getFile/lsapps/loksabhaquestions/annex/188/AU3075_b4SzXO.pdf
- Lok Sabha, Unstarred Question 1893, annexure (New Town Kolkata project status). https://sansad.in/getFile/lsapps/loksabhaquestions/annex/188/AU1893_tkw5fu.pdf
Methodology: This report prioritises official government and audit sources. Administrative project counts and evaluation-dataset figures are presented separately where their reference bases differ. Sourish Dey’s comment is clearly identified as attributed opinion; its hardware-price observations are not presented as independently verified national statistics.