The name suggested a transformation of cities. The programme was more specific: selected neighbourhoods would receive concentrated investment, while technology projects could operate across a wider urban area. That difference is essential to reading the record of the Smart Cities Mission.
Launched on 25 June 2015, the mission eventually covered 100 selected cities. Its area-based approach allowed each to choose a defined zone for intervention; its pan-city component supported broader technology-driven services. It was therefore possible for a city to complete its approved projects while many neighbourhoods remained outside the concentrated programme area. [1]
A substantial construction record
By 28 April 2025, the 100 cities had reported 7,553 completed projects out of 8,067, according to figures placed before the Rajya Sabha’s Committee on Government Assurances. Completed projects were valued at ₹1,51,351 crore. The remaining 514 projects were still under way in that snapshot. [3]
The scale is real, but the unit is a project. The total combines interventions of different sizes and purposes. It cannot be translated into a percentage of residents receiving better services or a percentage of each city rebuilt. Those questions need local measures of coverage and performance.
India also had a history of centrally supported urban renewal before 2015. Parliament’s evaluation traced the earlier Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, launched in 2005. Smart Cities introduced its own programme design and implementation arrangements within that longer effort to finance and reform urban infrastructure. [2]
The institutions beneath the label
Implementation used special-purpose companies jointly owned by the state and urban local body. This made state and city institutions central to delivery, even where Union funding and programme rules provided the impetus. Capacity varied between places. [2]
In its February 2024 evaluation, the parliamentary committee identified slower progress in several smaller cities and called for the reasons to be addressed. It also pressed for a comprehensive approach to maintaining both physical and digital assets. These were practical questions about institutions, skills and recurring expenditure. [2]
A newly installed system produces a completion certificate once. It needs maintenance repeatedly. Roads, drainage works, public spaces and digital infrastructure all require budgets and responsible operators after the construction phase ends. A city that cannot fund those obligations risks losing part of the value of the original investment.
The completed-project register is therefore an important starting point for local reporting. From there, the useful questions become specific: which streets were improved, whose journeys became easier, which services respond faster and who pays to keep them working. The mission can be credited with recorded delivery while those larger questions about urban life remain open.