Smart Cities’ command rooms face uncertainty as Mission ends | Latest News Delhi

The success of the mission, spread across 100 cities, has been mixed. But ICCCs — high-tech control rooms equipped with a network of cameras, sensors, and IoT devices — have emerged as a common and visible infrastructure backbone over the past five years. These nerve centres have played a key role in urban governance, enabling traffic monitoring, crime tracking, flood and disaster management, and public health response during the pandemic.

But now, with 7,545 projects completed at a cost of ₹1.51 lakh crore, a key challenge lies ahead: how will these control rooms continue to operate once central and state funding dries up — especially given the financial fragility of most municipal bodies?

Speaking to HT, senior officials across several states said that while the costs for running the ICCCs for the next three to five years have been budgeted under the Smart Cities Mission, there is no clarity about what happens after. In a meeting on April 7, Union housing and urban affairs minister Manohar Lal Khattar urged states and smart city officials to explore ways to self-finance these centres in the long run.

Annual operational costs vary depending on the scale of integration and the digital infrastructure involved, but typically range from ₹2–3 crore per city. Across states, the level of preparation varies considerably.

In Pune, Maharashtra, officials have decided to retain the ICCC, integrating it with their urban flood management program. MJ Pradip Chandren, additional municipal commissioner and Smart City in-charge, said that the ICCC has now been absorbed into the municipal corporation and is being enhanced with a digital twin system to monitor flooding hotspots.

“The digital twin will also help track land development and property taxes. A portion of this revenue is expected to fund ICCC,” he said.

Cities like Nagpur and Solapur have approached the Maharashtra home and transport departments seeking a share — between 30% and 40% — of the fines collected via ICCC infrastructure. However, the state is yet to take a final decision on this revenue-sharing arrangement.

In Madhya Pradesh, the state government has agreed to return 75% of ICCC-generated challans to the respective smart cities. But that’s not enough. A Jabalpur Smart City official estimated that the funds would cover only a quarter of the ₹15–17 lakh monthly running costs. “Like other public goods, these operations will require grants. There’s also a data security risk in involving private players just to raise revenue,” the official warned. Some ICCC operations will be sustained using funds from the CITIIS 2.0 programme.

In Gujarat, while the state has approved traffic challan revenue sharing with Smart Cities, implementation will differ from city to city. Rajkot and Surat are among those monetising their optical fibre networks laid under the Smart Cities Mission. A senior Rajkot official claimed they expect to break even by the seventh or eighth year and generate annual profits of over ₹1 crore. In Surat, officials project ₹15 crore in revenue over 20 years from the fibre infrastructure. “We’re also exploring other central and state schemes such as the National Urban Digital Mission,” an official said.

As operating funds for ICCCs are a concern, thousands of consultants who were hired for these smart cities will also be let go. Karnataka has extended the tenure of smart city consultants by one month to ensure a smooth handover of projects to line departments. But questions remain. “Our Smart City digital signboards could be monetised through advertisements, but elected municipal officials want only the civic body to get ad revenue,” said one CEO of a Smart City on condition of anonymity. The state is yet to issue guidelines on whether fines collected through ICCC tech can be used for operations.

In Assam’s Guwahati, the state government has promised to bridge any funding gaps for the ICCC. Revenue is currently being generated from paid drinking water kiosks, parking lots, and a share of revenues from buses procured under the Smart Cities program. The city is also exploring monetising museums and other public amenities, pending high-level approval.

Shimla in Himachal Pradesh, too, is relying on a mix of sources. A local official said rental income from a city conference centre and community halls, along with ad revenue from digital boards and the city app, could help sustain operations. “An official decision on revenue strategy is expected shortly,” he added.

In Delhi, officials declined to comment on plans to sustain the Smart City’s ICCC, which has underperformed compared to other cities. Sources said a New Delhi Municipal Council delegation recently visited Surat to study best practices for implementation.

At the national level, while MoHUA did not respond officially, an official said an advisory — not a directive — will soon be issued. “Since there’s no more central funding, the advisory will only outline best practices,” he said. Another official added that states increasingly recognise the importance of using digital infrastructure for governance and disaster response. “Many cities already have good models, and others are being encouraged to adopt them,” he said.

A senior central government official confirmed that states, regardless of political differences, have agreed to keep ICCCs operational. “Broadly, most are leaning toward a revenue-sharing model using fines detected via ICCC systems,” he said. “Some cities in Madhya Pradesh may also take up consulting roles to help other cities execute similar projects, turning their Smart City experience into a revenue stream.”

While the Smart Cities Mission may be winding down, its legacy — particularly through ICCCs — continues to shape how Indian cities think about data, governance, and urban management. The question now is whether these digital infrastructures can stand on their own feet, or whether they will become expensive white elephants in the absence of sustained public funding.