2025 Smart City Projects in India: State-Wise Overview

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

In-depth Analysis

India’s Smart Cities Mission, initiated in 2015, sought to enhance 100 cities through sustainable infrastructure, technological integration, and services focused on citizens.

The mission is set to conclude by November 2025, following several extensions, with a remarkable 93% completion rate across more than 8,000 initiatives valued at ₹1.5 lakh crore.

The accompanying table categorizes Indian states and union territories based on the number of designated smart cities, highlighting significant regional inequalities.

Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra are at the forefront with 10 cities each, whereas northeastern regions such as Arunachal Pradesh and Lakshadweep report none. This uneven distribution arises from a formula that weighs urban population against statutory towns, thereby benefiting more populous areas.

The mission’s achievements underscore the readiness of economic centers for investment, yet it also reveals obstacles faced by smaller states, where low urban density and financial limitations impede advancement.

In summary, the initiative has increased GDP contributions from urban sectors, which now account for 63% despite representing only 31% of the total population. This analysis explores the reasons behind the progress of some leaders and the stagnation of others, utilizing data to forecast future urban equity.

Regional Disparities in Project Allocation

The table highlights a distinct north-south bias in the selection of smart cities. Uttar Pradesh leads with 10 cities, including Agra and Varanasi, due to its vast urban population—over 44 million—making it eligible for the maximum number of slots under the mission’s fair distribution formula.

This strategy was crafted by officials to give precedence to states with a high number of statutory towns, guaranteeing at least one city per region while limiting allocations.

Maharashtra reflects this trend with 10 cities as well, propelled by the economic influence of Mumbai and the technological environment of Pune.

These states quickly utilized their funds; Uttar Pradesh secured 100% of its ₹4,900 crore central allocation by July 2025, deploying 99.5% for initiatives such as integrated command centers in Lucknow.

In contrast, Tamil Nadu’s 12 cities illustrate its dense urban network in the south, with Madurai and Coimbatore completing all projects by early 2025, aided by substantial state matching funds exceeding ₹3,000 crore.

Western states like Gujarat (6) and Rajasthan (6) gained from industrial corridors. Gujarat’s Surat achieved national leadership in project completion, reaching 100% by 2024 through public-private partnerships (PPPs) that contributed an additional ₹5,000 crore.

Business leaders in Ahmedabad capitalized on the mission to enhance smart mobility, achieving a 25% reduction in traffic congestion through AI sensors.

Rajasthan’s Udaipur and Kota followed a similar path, concentrating on tourism technology that increased visitor numbers by 15% after implementation.

Karnataka’s 6 allocations were focused on the outskirts of Bengaluru, where Tumakuru implemented e-governance, reducing service delivery times from days to hours.

These areas thrived because governors aligned the missions with local economies—Gujarat connected projects to its textile industries, ensuring rapid returns.

The southern states of Andhra Pradesh (3), Kerala (3), and Telangana (2) demonstrated steady growth. Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh led the way with floating solar plants, producing 3,613 MWh each year and reducing emissions by 3,000 tonnes.

In Kerala, Kochi focused on greenfield expansions, achieving 95% completion by 2025, despite delays caused by monsoon rains. Hyderabad in Telangana utilized public-private partnerships for waste management, successfully recycling 80% of urban waste.

Both Haryana and Punjab secured 2 projects each, with Gurugram’s retrofitting improving safety through the installation of 1,000 new CCTV cameras.

In Bihar, 3 cities, including Bhagalpur, experienced a significant turnaround from low urbanization levels, with Patna’s flood-resilient infrastructure averting ₹500 crore in annual damages.

Challenges in Underrepresented Regions

The northeastern and island regions are significantly behind, with either no projects or just one in each area. States like Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Lakshadweep received no projects due to their low urban populations, which are below 10%, and a lack of statutory towns.

The funding formula disadvantaged these regions, resulting in minimal allocations for Assam (1 project in Guwahati) and Tripura (1 project in Agartala, which is 95% complete by April 2025). Imphal in Manipur faced difficulties due to irregular advisory meetings—having held none in five years—resulting in delays for water projects.

Jammu and Kashmir (1 project in Srinagar) and Ladakh (0 projects) encountered security issues, completing only 60% of their initiatives amid ongoing conflicts. In Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (1 project) misallocated funds towards non-essential items like decorative planters, achieving only 70% project saturation.

Central states such as Chhattisgarh (2) and Odisha (2) remained in the mid-tier, hindered by economies reliant on mining that were slow to embrace technology. Ranchi in Jharkhand (1) and Dehradun in Uttarakhand (1) faced challenges due to their terrain; the retrofitting in Dehradun’s hillside exceeded budget estimates by 40%.

Union territories displayed varied performance: Chandigarh (1) successfully implemented smart grids, while Delhi (1) concentrated on cleaning the Yamuna. Puducherry (1), Goa (1), and DNHDD (1) exceeded expectations with projects driven by tourism—Goa’s Panaji reached 100% completion through coastal sensors that monitor erosion.

These discrepancies stem from underlying structural problems. Northeastern states contributed a mere ₹200 million compared to the central government’s ₹1,000 crore, according to audits from 2022, primarily due to fiscal shortfalls.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused delays in 30% of projects across the country, with remote regions experiencing even greater disruptions from supply chain issues. The frequent turnover of CEOs—averaging a tenure of 2.5 years—has undermined continuity, as highlighted in parliamentary reports.

The absence of master plans in 65% of urban bodies led to faltering execution; for instance, Imphal abandoned 20% of its initiatives due to insufficient land data.

Economic and Sustainability Impacts

The initiative injected ₹1.64 lakh crore, with 94% expected to be utilized by May 2025, resulting in the creation of 1.7 million jobs in the construction and IT sectors.

Regions like Uttar Pradesh experienced an 8% spike in GDP growth within smart cities, drawing in ₹10,000 crore in foreign direct investment. Surat in Gujarat emerged as a logistics benchmark, managing 20% more cargo through smart ports.

Impressive sustainability metrics include the establishment of 1,740 km of new cycle tracks, which have led to a 15% reduction in emissions in the cities involved, and all 100 integrated command centers are now equipped to monitor disasters, helping to prevent losses during events such as the floods in Kerala.

However, disparities continue to exist. Only 18 cities—such as Agra, Varanasi, and Surat—achieved 100% completion, according to an analysis by Down to Earth.

Areas lagging behind, particularly in the northeast, risk exacerbating inequalities as urban migrants move to metropolitan areas, putting pressure on resources.

Projections for 2030 indicate that tier-2 city expansions, aimed at 50 additional cities near state capitals, could help equalize this situation if states increase their matching funds to 100%.

Insights for Future Urban Development

It is essential for policymakers to focus on building capacity; training 5,000 urban executives each year could significantly reduce delays. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) have proven effective in Gujarat, generating an additional ₹20,000 crore—this model should be implemented across the country.

Engaging citizens, which was lacking in 40% of projects, requires the development of applications for feedback, as demonstrated by Pune’s model, which achieved a 30% increase in satisfaction.

This initiative illustrates that technology can enhance impact when aligned with local requirements: for instance, Bihar’s flood management technology saved lives, while Kerala’s renewable energy initiatives reduced bills by 20%.