Air pollution continues to be one of the most visible and damaging environmental challenges across Indian cities, particularly in northern and urban regions where poor air quality has become a recurring health emergency.
Yet, the Union Budget 2025–26 does not offer a strong or focused financial roadmap to tackle the problem, even as it signals intent through broader climate and clean energy spending.
The primary allocation for air pollution control remains under the Control of Pollution head of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. This year’s allocation shows only a modest increase over the previous year and it is largely directed toward regulatory institutions such as pollution control boards and air quality monitoring systems. While these functions are essential, they are largely compliance-oriented and do little to address pollution at its source.
The National Clean Air Programme (NCAP), which covers 82 non-attainment cities, continues to be the central policy instrument for urban air quality management. However, funding for NCAP in 2025–26 is lower than the revised estimates of last year. This reduction would constrain city-level action plans, which depend on sustained funding for local monitoring, emissions assessment, and sector-specific interventions. At a time when several cities are struggling to meet air quality targets, declining real-term support raises concerns about implementation capacity.
A significant omission in the budget is the lack of dedicated allocations for regions such as Delhi-NCR and northern India, where air pollution has become a seasonal crisis. Despite repeated episodes of severe smog affecting public health, schools, and economic activity, the budget does not provide region-specific financial support or targeted programmes for these high-risk areas. Addressing such complex pollution challenges requires sustained investment backed by strong policy coordination, both of which appear limited.
The budget does reflect a broader commitment to environmental action through increased spending on renewable energy, green hydrogen, and power sector reforms. These investments are critical for reducing dependence on fossil fuels and will contribute to lower emissions, both of GHGs and polluting emissions in the long run. However, their impact on near-term air quality, especially in urban hotspots, is likely to be gradual rather than immediate.
Transport emissions remain a major contributor to urban air pollution, yet support for electric mobility remains weak. While investments in railways and public transport are welcome, the budget does not provide sufficient emphasis on electric vehicle adoption or the expansion of fast-charging infrastructure. The absence of focused financial support for EV ecosystems limits the pace at which vehicular emissions can be reduced, particularly in cities with high traffic density.
Industrial pollution control finds indirect mention through schemes promoting energy efficiency and cleaner technologies for manufacturing units. While these measures are important, their effectiveness depends on scale, enforcement, and long-term financial commitment, areas where greater clarity is needed.
One positive development is the increased allocation for environment education, awareness, research, and skill development, which stands at ₹104 crore, an increase of ₹29 crore over the previous year. Building institutional capacity and public awareness is essential for sustained air pollution reduction, and this increase signals recognition of that role, even though the allocation remains limited in absolute terms.
Another area that warrants attention is budget utilization. The absence of clear information on how much of the 2024–25 allocation was actually spent makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of past measures or justify future increases. Transparency in expenditure is critical for evidence-based policy planning.
A Need for Stronger Alignment
Overall, Budget 2025–26 reinforces India’s clean energy transition but stops short of presenting a coherent and robust air pollution mitigation strategy. While there is a marginal increase in pollution control spending, it does not match the severity or regional concentration of the problem. Reduced support for NCAP, limited investment in EV infrastructure, and the absence of region-specific interventions highlight key gaps.
The intent to move toward cleaner energy is clear. However, given the scale of health and economic losses linked to air pollution, stronger and more targeted measures were needed. Accelerating emission reductions at source, particularly in transport and industry, will require sharper policy focus and significantly greater financial backing than what this budget provides.