GURGAON: More than half of 130 non-attainment cities covered under National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and 15th Finance Commission grants have spent less than 50% of the funds released to them, and over 50-60 cities have spent less than two-thirds, according to a Central Pollution Control Board reply to an RTI query. Data shows that between FY 2021-22 and FY 2025-26, Rs 15,659.6 crore was allocated nationally, yet 25-30 cities used less than half their funds despite worsening air pollution.
NCR, often described as India’s pollution epicentre, figures prominently in the list of underperformers. Faridabad, the only city from Haryana on the list, spent less than half of its NCAP funds, even though it received high allocations and continues to battle severe road dust and vehicular emissions. The city utilised only Rs 53.2 crore of the Rs 107 crore it was allocated. Ghaziabad and Noida, despite repeated winter pollution emergencies, have utilisation levels stuck around 55-60%, suggesting administrative delays and execution bottlenecks. In Bihar, Patna, Gaya and Muzaffarpur have all utilised less than half of the funds released to them, with dust control, monitoring and mitigation projects progressing slowly. Jharkhand shows a similar trend, with Ranchi and Dhanbad also reporting utilisation below 50%, despite long-standing concerns over industrial and mining-linked pollution. Launched in 2019, NCAP is India’s flagship air pollution control programme, covering 130 “non-attainment” cities-those failing to meet national ambient air quality standards. The programme aims to reduce PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations by 20-30% through interventions such as roadside dust suppression, mechanised sweeping, expansion of air quality monitoring networks, industrial compliance enforcement and public awareness campaigns. Million-plus cities receive grants under the 15th Finance Commission, while others are funded directly under NCAP. In northeast India, Dimapur recorded utilisation of just 40-45%, reflecting limited technical capacity and staffing constraints. Shillong spent around 50-55%, while Assam’s Guwahati, Nagaon and Silchar have together remained below the 60% mark, largely due to slow approvals and procedural delays. In contrast, a smaller set of cities has demonstrated relatively strong fund utilisation. Visakhapatnam, Vijayawada and Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh have crossed 80% utilisation, backed by timely dust suppression measures and expansion of monitoring infrastructure. Kochi has spent over 80% of its allocation, while Bengaluru has also reported high utilisation, particularly for strengthening air quality stations. Among larger metros, Mumbai and Nagpur have broadly matched high allocations with strong spending, although smaller cities in Maharashtra continue to lag. Delhi had exhausted nearly all of its NCAP allocations by FY 2024-25, though officials note the expenditure remained largely concentrated on dust suppression and public outreach rather than structural emission reductions. A CPCB official said utilisation depends on “project readiness, approvals and execution capacity at the city level”, adding that states have been asked to expedite spending. RTI applicant Varun Gulati warned that without accountability, NCAP risks becoming a “paper exercise”. He said the annexures highlight a deep accountability gap. “Data shows that dozens of cities are sitting on funds while their residents breathe toxic air. Faridabad, Patna and Ranchi all have allocations, but less than half is spent. This is not just inefficiency, it’s negligence,” Gulati said. Environmental experts said this skewed pattern risks undermining NCAP’s core objectives, particularly in regions where pollution levels spike annually. The findings underscore the central challenge facing India’s clean air mission: while funding levels have steadily increased, execution on the ground remains uneven and slow. With over Rs 15,600 crore already committed, experts warn that without stricter monitoring, faster approvals and stronger accountability mechanisms, NCAP risks becoming an exercise in allocations on paper rather than tangible improvements in air quality.
