Bridging Policy and Practice: Evaluating Urban Governance and Implementation Gaps in India’s Smart City Mission - A Case Study of Delhi
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29070/hxyweq05Keywords:
Governance, CAG Audits, SCM, Policy, Bhubaneswar, ICCCAbstract
One of the most comprehensive urban transformation programs in the world, India's Smart City Mission (SCM) began in 2015 with the goal of enhancing citizens' quality of life via the implementation of technology-driven governance, sustainable infrastructure, and development that is centered on them. Although it is gaining traction on a national level, the results of its implementation range greatly across cities because of variations in administrative capabilities, governance approaches, and institutional structures. The Smart City Mission in Delhi is examined in this paper, which sheds light on its complicated scenario characterized by overlapping authorities, fragmented institutional duties, and operational issues. The study analyzes the effects of Delhi's multi-layered governance structure on policy implementation, scalability, and public participation using a qualitative research approach that is based on secondary data from government reports, CAG audits, policy papers, and academic literature. The results reveal that although the Integrated Command and Control Centre (ICCC), smart mobility solutions, digital classrooms, and smart surveillance were all part of the high-visibility projects brought about by the Smart City interventions administered by the NDMC, these accomplishments are still limited to the NDMC zone, which covers only 3% of the city. The city-wide implementation was impeded by things like uncertain property ownership, limited public input, persistent administrative fragmentation, and a top-down planning strategy. Policy results are improved by unified governance, consistent community involvement, and clear institutional frameworks, as shown by comparative findings from Bhubaneswar. Delhi shows technical progress in certain areas, but the report says that overall, the city's model shows how far policy goals are from being achieved in practice. To ensure that smart city development becomes more inclusive, egalitarian, and scalable throughout India’s urban environment, it is vital to strengthen inter-agency coordination, institutional capacity, participatory planning, and outcome-driven monitoring frameworks.
References
Das, D. (2025). A Decade of Smart Urbanism in India through the Smart Cities Mission (SCM). Space and Culture, India, 12(4), 6–9.
Praharaj, S. (2021). Area Based Urban Renewal Approach for Smart Cities Development in India: Challenges of Inclusion and Sustainability. Urban Planning, 6(4).
Parida, D., (2021). An evolutionary perspective on smart city governance in India. Sustainable Cities and Society.
Jha, R. (2021). Smart City Mission: Issues and Challenges, India. National Institute of Urban Affairs.
Yadav, A., Anwer, N., Mahapatra, K., Shrivastava, M. K., & Khatiwada, D. (2024). Analyzing the Role of Polycentric Governance in Institutional Innovations: Insights from Urban Climate Governance in India. Sustainability, 16(23), 10736.
Patterson, J. J. (2019). Institutional innovation in urban governance: The case of climate change governance. Local Environment, 24(9), 773–789.
Zhang, F. (2025). Governing the smart city and smart governance. City, Territory and Architecture.
Jiang, H. (2019). Smart Urban Governance: Governing Cities in the “Smart” Era (Doctoral thesis). Utrecht University.
Mugambwa, J., et al. (2021). Policy Implementation: A Review of Selected Literature. In Governance and Sustainable Development.
Yadav, A., Shrivastava, M. K., & Anwer, N. (2023). The Emergence of Polycentricity in Urban Climate Governance: Lessons from Cities in India. Sustainable Built Environment and Urban Transition Conference Proceedings.
Reddy, T. V. (2022). Urban Governance and Smart Cities in India: Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Prospects. International Journal of Modern Engineering Research, 11(9), 258–263.
Kumar, P., & Kumar, D. (2014). ICT in Local Self Governance: A Study of Rural India. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Engin, Z., Crowcroft, J., Hand, D., & Treleaven, P. (2025). The Algorithmic State Architecture (ASA): An Integrated Framework for AI-Enabled Government. arXiv.
Geier, F., Barfuss, W., Wiedermann, M., Kurths, J., & Donges, J. F. (2019). The physics of governance networks: Critical transitions in contagion dynamics on multilayer adaptive networks. arXiv.
Ashutosh, & Chaudhary, A. (2025). Smart Cities and Urban Sustainability in India: A Contemporary Perspective. Research Review International Journal of Multidisciplinary, 10(5), 310–316.
Parkar, K., & Lama, S. T. (2023). Introduction: The Digitalization of Urban Governance in India. South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal, 30.
Javed, B., Khan, Z., & McClatchey, R. (2018). An Adaptable System to Support Provenance Management for the Public Policy-Making Process in Smart Cities. arXiv.
Praharaj, S. (2018). Towards the Right Model of Smart City Governance in India. Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions. WIT Press.
Kumar, A., & Randhawa, A. (2017). Exploring Livability as a Dimension of Smart City Mission (India). International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology.
Luque-Ayala, A., & Marvin, S. (2015). Developing a Critical Understanding of Smart Urbanism? Urban Studies, 52(12), 2118–2136.
Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles & Policy Subsystems (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland (3rd ed.). University of California Press.
Goggin, M. L., Bowman, A. O’M., Lester, J. P., & O’Toole, L. J. Jr. (1990). Implementation Theory and Practice: Toward a Third Generation. Scott, Foresman and Company.
Yadav, S. (2010). Public Policy and Governance in India. International Journal of Public Administration, 33(13–14), 712–731.
Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the Smart City: A Framework for Smart Urban Governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408.






