Image source: Getty Images
A team from the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru, has conducted an analysis of the air quality of cities that have received awards for the steps taken for clean air.
It says that just getting an award does not ensure that the people of those cities are breathing clean air.
A total of 10 cities were given awards in the Clean Air Survey 2026 for good AQI.
These included cities with a population of less than three lakh to cities with a population of more than 10 lakh. These awards are being given for the last five years.
The purpose of this award was to encourage 131 cities that failed to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) from 2011 to 2015 to improve their air.
However, in the study of the Indian Institute of Science, questions have been raised on the system adopted under the National Clean Air Program (NCAP) and the criteria for giving awards.
Professor Ashish Verma, coordinator of IISc's Sustainable Transportation Lab, told BBC News Hindi, "The current methodology does not assess actual pollution levels. It focuses more on whether the administration followed the prescribed rules and procedures or not."
End
In fact, the Air Quality Index (AQI) issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is also not included in this evaluation method.
BBC News Hindi has sent an email to CPCB regarding this. This report will be updated after receiving their reply.
At the same time, Prakash Duraiswami, head of the air quality team at Bengaluru's Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy or CSTEP, has a slightly different opinion.
He told BBC News Hindi, "There are some aspects in the report which should be considered. But I have a completely different opinion on some of its points."
'Lucknow is ahead in numbers but the air is bad'
Professor Ashish Verma gave the example of Lucknow and Indore, which stood first and second in the Clean Air Survey 2026. Both these cities are in the category of cities with population of more than 10 lakh.
He said, "These cities got almost full marks. Lucknow got 198 marks out of 200. This means that it has fulfilled almost all the set criteria and there is nothing left to do for it."
"But when we looked at the AQI data of Lucknow for the last one year, we found that its AQI in the month of December was 374. According to CPCB standards, an AQI of 374 falls in the 'very poor' category."
What are the standards of CPCB?
Professor Ashish Verma said, "According to CPCB's AQI standards, an AQI between 0 to 50 is considered good. 51 to 100 is satisfactory, 101 to 200 is moderate, 201 to 300 is poor, 301 to 400 is very poor and above 400 is in the severe category."
He said, "When Lucknow's AQI has been recorded in the very poor category, it is surprising to consider it a city that completely follows the standards. Giving the award means that everything is fine there."
The condition of other cities is also similar
Ashish Verma says that the figures of other top ranked cities are also similar.
He said, "Indore's AQI has been 192, Jabalpur's 196, Bhopal's around 202, Agra's 324, Surat's 229 and Raipur's 238."
"This is because AQI data, which is collected by the CPCB itself, was not included in the ranking criteria."
Special stories selected for you by Nitin Srivastava
Learn more
The report points to another important thing. Korba city of Chhattisgarh, which falls in the second category. Its population is around 3.5 lakh. This is a big center of coal based industries.
Whereas Talcher, Angul and Kalinga Nagar cities fall in the third category. The population here is less than three lakhs. These cities are known for big factories, aluminum and thermal power plants.
"These cities are characterized primarily as industrial cities and may be ahead of many major metropolitan cities in terms of per capita industrial pollution," the report said.
Professor Ashish Verma says, "What has actually happened is that a checklist has been made. How many EV charging stations were installed, how much sewage was collected, how the dust and debris from construction work was disposed of."
“Points are given based on the progress of these works. However, the process does not measure the actual improvement in air quality as a result of these measures.”
Professor Ashish Verma said, "The scoring and ranking process does not take into account the actual level of pollution. Moreover, the administrative checklist mainly focuses on PM 10 instead of PM 2.5."
PM10 are extremely fine particles present in the air, whose size is about one-fifth the thickness of a human hair. Whereas PM 2.5 particles are smaller than PM 10.
Why is PM 2.5 so dangerous?
Image source, Hindustan Times via Getty Images
According to Professor Ashish, "PM 2.5 poses a serious threat to health and is linked to pollution-related diseases and premature deaths."
"PM 2.5 is more dangerous because its particles are so small that they can pass the body's natural filter system and reach deep inside. Any health expert can tell you how dangerous they are."
According to him, "Another shocking thing came to light during the study. It was found that it did not even include the pollution caused by burning agricultural residues, whereas this is a major reason for the smog seen in Delhi and many other cities."
Overall, the report suggests that there is a 'conflict of interest' in the system of awarding cities.
If we look at the example, it is the urban local bodies that become the ones implementing it, collecting the data, evaluating themselves and getting the awards.
There is no independent ground level verification in this entire process. It also has shortcomings like not including AQI i.e. air quality index.
'Complete abolition is not the solution'
Prakash Duraiswamy does not agree with the suggestion of scrapping the entire program, "In my opinion it would not be right to do so, I think this program has made some changes in the way it works."
He further said, "Our focus should be on how to make it stronger. What kind of changes are needed in its parameters and what markers we actually use to measure these parameters."
However, he agrees with one thing in the report. According to him, NCAP should go beyond cities and look at it from a regional perspective.
He said, "Many sources of pollution lie outside the city limits. Right now all the focus is on cities and mainly on primary pollutants."
Duraiswami also agrees that air quality is a very important aspect, which should be given attention.
He says, "Poor air affects every person. Bad air affects health. Apart from this, it also has economic and climate-related impacts."
Review of the program continues
Durai Swamy believes that the NCAP program is still under review. They are taking input from various organizations on what can be included in it and how it can be improved.
He said, "One thing is clear that in the initial phase the focus has been on PM 10 and dust related pollution sources. Now the broader feedback is that we should also start focusing on finer particles, i.e. PM 2.5 sized particles."
He also said, "I think the government is already considering such feedback as part of the changes in NCAP."
He said that it has been more than four years since the 'Clean Air Survey' was implemented. Now is the right time to see what has happened in it, what shortcomings remain and what further improvements we really need to make in it.
Published by Collective Newsroom for the BBC.
Download the new BBC World Service app
Choose BBC News Hindi and get news alerts, live TV, podcasts... all in one place
Please note: The new app is not available in the UK and US.
short video
end of short video
