Group 2

Project report on Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana

By
UR23003: Abhishek Pattanaik
UR23034: Pavas Jain
UR23109: Sarbeswar Sahoo

For
Digital Innovations for Governance & Development

Mentored by
Prof. T Kumar
Associate Professor – School of Rural Management

School of Rural Management (SRM)

XIM University

A project report Submitted to the School of Rural Management at Xavier Institute of

Management, Bhubaneshwar.

March, 2025
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 2: Stages of Digital Government/Governance/Democracy ....................................................... 4
Chapter 3: Decentralization Framework & Analysis ............................................................................ 10
Chapter 4: Digital Governance Innovations.......................................................................................... 12
Chapter 5: Data Justice Framework ...................................................................................................... 15
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 19
References ............................................................................................................................................. 21

Page 2 of 21
Chapter 1: Introduction
Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) is a flagship housing scheme of the Government of
India aimed at providing “Housing for All” by the year 2022, with separate verticals for urban
and rural areas. PMAY-Urban (PMAY-U), launched in 2015 under the Ministry of Housing
and Urban Affairs, focuses on housing for the urban poor (including slum rehabilitation and
affordable housing for Economically Weaker Sections and Low Income Groups) (PMAY
Urban 2.0 fund boost set to accelerate affordable housing - The Economic Times).

PMAY-Gramin (PMAY-G), launched in 2016 under the Ministry of Rural Development,

targets housing for the rural poor, replacing the previous Indira Awaas Yojana. The combined
mission has an enormous scale: as of 2024, PMAY-U had sanctioned over 11.8 million urban
homes (with ~9 million completed), while PMAY-G had sanctioned 32.1 million rural homes
(with 26.7 million completed) improving living conditions for tens of millions of low-income
households.

Digital governance plays a pivotal role in PMAY due to the scale and distributed nature of the
program. Effective use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is essential to
identify beneficiaries across the country, disburse funds efficiently, monitor construction
progress, and ensure transparency and accountability in both urban and rural projects. The
significance of digital governance in PMAY lies in enhancing the speed and quality of
implementation: for instance, PMAY-G adopted an end-to-end e-Governance model with a
Management Information System (MIS) and mobile app that dramatically reduced the average
time to build a house (from 314 days under the earlier approach to 114 days after digital
reforms). Digital platforms enable real-time tracking of physical and financial progress, help
prevent fraud (through Aadhaar-based verification and geo-tagged inspections), and facilitate
direct benefit transfers to beneficiaries’ bank accounts, thereby minimizing leakages. In
essence, integrating digital tools into PMAY governance ensures that the scheme’s benefits
reach the intended recipients in a timely, transparent manner, which is critical given the
program’s social development objectives.

The objectives of digital integration in PMAY span both urban and rural contexts, tailoring
to the needs of each. In urban areas, digital systems are designed to manage complex projects
(e.g. multi-story affordable housing, subsidy disbursements) and to coordinate multiple
stakeholders like urban local bodies, banks, and private developers. For example, the
PMAY(U) online platforms conduct demand surveys, allow online applications for credit-
linked subsidies, and integrate with portals like CLSS Awas Portal (CLAP) that connect
government agencies, banks, and citizens on a common real-time platform (PMAY (U)). In
rural settings, digital integration focuses on decentralization and inclusion: it leverages mobile
apps for household surveys and photo geo-tagging of house construction, and uses the
AwaasSoft MIS to incorporate Gram Sabha approvals of beneficiaries, thus blending
community-based selection with a centralized database. Across both urban and rural
components, the overarching goals of digital integration are to improve service delivery
(through easier access and simpler processes for citizens), enhance transparency (by opening
data and progress reports to public view), enable better monitoring and feedback (through
data analytics and citizen input), and foster inclusive participation (by reaching remote areas
and marginalized groups via technology). The following sections examine PMAY’s digital
governance maturity, its decentralization approach, innovations for future enhancement, and
an evaluation of the scheme through a data justice lens.

Page 3 of 21
Chapter 2: Stages of Digital Government/Governance/Democracy
PMAY’s implementation can be analysed through the framework of e-government maturity
stages, ranging from basic information services to advanced citizen participation and
democratic transformation. The scheme’s digital features place it at various points across these
stages, as outlined below:

• Information Dissemination (Stage 1) – One-way information provision. PMAY

excels in this foundational stage. Comprehensive information about scheme guidelines,
beneficiary selection criteria, and progress is disseminated via official websites and
public dashboards. Both PMAY-U and PMAY-G have dedicated portals that publish
data (e.g. state-wise progress, lists of beneficiaries) and knowledge resources for
citizens. For instance, the PMAY(U) website and mobile app provide updates on
housing sanctions, success stories, and FAQs, ensuring transparency of information for
the public. Similarly, in rural areas, lists of eligible beneficiaries (Permanent Wait Lists)
are digitally published and accessible down to the village level, promoting awareness
and reducing information asymmetry.
• Two-way Communication (Stage 2) – Interactive communication between
government and citizens. PMAY has made strides in enabling two-way digital
communication. Citizens can inquire and engage with the scheme through online
portals and social media. Notably, a centralized public grievance system is linked to
PMAY – for example, the PMAY(U) website directs users to lodge grievances through
the government’s PG Portal. This allows beneficiaries to submit complaints or queries
online and receive responses, creating a feedback loop. Additionally, the urban ministry
leverages platforms like MyGov for discussions and uses social media (Facebook,
Twitter) for outreach (PMAY (U)). While not every interaction is digital (many rural
beneficiaries rely on local officials), these channels mark an important move beyond
one-way communication, giving citizens a voice and recourse in the process.
• Online Transactions (Stage 3) – Transactional services and exchanges online. PMAY
implements online transactions in several forms. A significant example is the online
application and fund disbursement process. In urban areas, eligible beneficiaries
(especially for the credit-linked subsidy component) can apply through online portals
or the UMANG app, and track their application status digitally. In rural PMAY-G, the
registration of beneficiaries and approvals are recorded in the MIS, and crucially, all
payments to beneficiaries are made via electronic Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) into
their bank accounts. This replacement of cash or manual payments with digital fund
transfer not only speeds up transactions but also adds accountability (each transaction
is logged and can be audited). Moreover, stages of house construction are linked to fund
release and are verified through geo-tagged evidence on a mobile app (the AwaasApp),
automating the transaction workflow of installment releases. Thus, PMAY’s use of ICT
has enabled end-to-end online transactions – from application to monetary payout –
enhancing efficiency and reducing human touchpoints that could cause delays or
corruption.
• Vertical Integration (Stage 4) – Integration of systems across levels of government
(central, state, local). PMAY’s digital architecture is designed for vertical integration.
The scheme operates as a partnership between the central government and States/UTs
(and further down to urban local bodies or Gram Panchayats), so seamless data flow is
critical. The centralized MIS platforms (for both urban and rural) integrate these
levels by allowing data entry and access by authorized users at each level and
aggregating information for central monitoring. For instance, in PMAY-G, as soon as
a village Gram Sabha finalizes the beneficiary list, the data is uploaded to the national
Page 4 of 21
 AwaasSoft system, which the state and center can view. Similarly, project approvals in
PMAY-U involve proposals from city or state level being entered into the MIS for
appraisal by central authorities. The vertical integration is also evident in fund flow:
funds move from the center to states to beneficiary accounts through a chain that is
tracked digitally via a Single Nodal Account mechanism. This integrated structure
ensures that there is alignment and consistency in implementation across all
government tiers – a beneficiary sanctioned at village or city level is immediately
registered in the central database, and progress updates (like house completion status)
percolate upwards in real time.
• Horizontal Integration (Stage 5) – Integration across different departments or
functions. PMAY’s digital governance also achieves horizontal integration by linking
with other programs and databases to provide more holistic services. A prime example
is the integration between PMAY-G’s MIS and the Mahatma Gandhi NREGA
MIS (NREGASoft): work orders for providing employment to PMAY-G beneficiaries
(for constructing their house) are automatically generated in the NREGA system once
a housing sanction is issued in AwaasSoft. This server-to-server integration connects
the rural housing program with the rural employment program, synchronizing benefits
across departments. In urban areas, the PMAY(U) MIS is integrated with platforms like
the geo-portal BHUVAN (for satellite imagery and geo-tagging support) and the
UMANG unified mobile app. Additionally, the CLAP portal integrates housing
finance institutions (e.g. banks, housing finance companies) with the government
system for the credit-linked subsidy component. By sharing data across departments –
such as linking to Swachh Bharat Mission for toilets or Ujjwala for LPG connections
in rural houses, or coordinating with municipal authorities for building permits in urban
projects – PMAY’s digital ecosystem breaks silos and achieves cross-sector synergy.
• Customization (Stage 6) – Tailoring services or information to individual or local
needs. There is evidence of customization in PMAY’s approach through digital means.
The scheme recognizes that housing needs vary by region (e.g. house design suitable
for a flood-prone village vs. an urban apartment) and by beneficiary group. PMAY-G’s
platform offers a library of region-specific house designs, allowing beneficiaries to
choose from locally appropriate, culturally acceptable designs rather than a one-size-
fits-all model (Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana- Rural | Ministry of Rural Development
| Government of India). This selection is facilitated by the program’s mobile app and
field outreach, and the chosen design is recorded in the MIS for technical approval. In
urban PMAY, the MIS handles multiple components (slum rehab, credit-linked
subsidy, affordable housing projects), effectively customizing the workflow and
benefits according to the beneficiary’s context (e.g. whether they are receiving a loan
subsidy or an allotment in a housing project). Additionally, communication is
customized via multilingual support in portals and apps, and by providing personalized
information – for instance, an applicant can log in to see the status of their own
application or subsidy release. While full personalization is limited by the standardized
nature of government processes, PMAY’s digital systems do incorporate flexibility to
adapt to local conditions and user-specific data, which is a step toward service
customization.
• Citizen Participation (Administrative) (Stage 7) – Citizen involvement in
administrative processes or decision-making. PMAY integrates citizen participation
mainly through its implementation mechanisms at the grassroots, which are then
supported by digital tools. In rural areas, the Gram Sabha meetings (village
assemblies) are a form of citizen participation where community members validate and
prioritize the list of housing beneficiaries. This participatory decision is then digitized

Page 5 of 21
 – the resolutions from Gram Sabhas are uploaded onto the AwaasSoft system, making
community choices part of the official digital record. Moreover, the scheme encourages
beneficiaries to take an active role in constructing their homes (especially in PMAY-G,
houses are built by beneficiaries themselves with financial aid, not by contractors),
effectively making them active participants in implementation. On the urban side, while
direct citizen decision-making in allocation is limited, there have been attempts at
engagement such as inviting feedback on design preferences or implementation via
municipal-level consultations. The digital dimension of citizen participation in PMAY
is still emerging – for example, the PMAY(U) mobile app allows beneficiaries to share
selfies and stories with their new homes (PMAY Urban: Unlocking The Benefits Of
The Mobile Application), which, although largely symbolic, gives a sense of ownership
and voice to citizens. Overall, PMAY is at an intermediate stage in this aspect: it
institutionalizes local participation offline and then leverages digital platforms to record
or showcase that input, but it does not yet have widespread real-time citizen co-
governance via online platforms.
• Feedback Implementation (Stage 8) – Gathering citizen feedback and incorporating
it into policy or service improvements. PMAY has mechanisms to collect feedback,
though systematic integration of that feedback into program redesign is an area for
growth. On an ongoing basis, feedback comes through grievance portals, social audits,
and beneficiary interactions. Social audit processes (especially in PMAY-G) are a key
feedback avenue: community members and beneficiaries audit the implementation of
the housing scheme in their area and report issues or suggestions. The government has
mandated social audits at the Gram Panchayat level, and the findings (such as
discrepancies or best practices) are reviewed for corrective action. Digital systems
assist in this by providing data for audits and by capturing the outcomes (e.g., the social
audit report can be entered into the system for higher authorities to review). In urban
areas, the Ministry runs a PMAY(U) MIS module called “PMAY(U) Grievance
Redressal System” and also uses the central Public Grievance portal, ensuring every
complaint is logged and tracked until resolution. There have been instances of policy
adjustments based on feedback – for example, when it was found that some poor
households were left out of the beneficiary list due to data gaps, the government
launched additional surveys (such as Awaas+ in 2018-19) to collect data on left-out
families, thereby responding to citizen feedback about inclusion. While not a fully real-
time feedback loop, these measures indicate that PMAY’s administration listens to and
acts on feedback through both analog and digital channels. The challenge remains to
make feedback collection more proactive (e.g. soliciting user experience through the
apps) and closing the loop by communicating back the actions taken on citizen
suggestions.
• Private Sector & NGO Involvement (Stage 9) – Engagement of non-government
actors in service delivery via digital means. PMAY actively involves private and civil
society partners, with digital platforms enabling their participation. In the urban
scheme, private sector involvement is integral: private developers partner with
governments to build affordable housing projects, and banks and housing finance
companies participate by providing housing loans under the Credit-Linked Subsidy
Scheme. The CLSS Awas Portal (CLAP) is a digital interface that links these private
lenders (as well as two Central Nodal Agencies – HUDCO and NHB) with the
government and beneficiaries, streamlining the subsidy workflow. Through CLAP,
loan applications, subsidy approvals, and disbursements are tracked across institutions
in real time, illustrating how a digital system coordinates public and private roles.
Additionally, the scheme invites NGOs and community-based organizations to assist

Page 6 of 21
 with mobilization and capacity building. For instance, under PMAY-G, Self-Help
Groups (SHGs) affiliated with NGOs are engaged to raise awareness about the housing
scheme and even help monitor construction quality at the local level. Training programs
for rural masons and beneficiary workshops often involve NGO facilitation, and digital
portals list these training modules and track the number of people trained. While
PMAY’s core operations remain government-led, these examples show a collaborative
governance model where digital tools incorporate inputs and actions from private
companies (for finance and construction) and non-profits (for outreach and oversight).
The involvement of such partners is crucial for innovation and reach, and the digital
integration ensures their contributions are logged, visible, and accountable within the
overall program structure.
• Openness (Stage 10) – Transparency and open data, government data/services
accessible publicly. Openness is a notable strength of PMAY’s digital approach. The
scheme’s progress and data are largely open to public scrutiny. Both ministries
(Housing for PMAY-U and Rural Development for PMAY-G) maintain public
dashboards that display up-to-date statistics: for example, the number of houses
sanctioned, number completed, funds disbursed, etc., can be viewed by anyone on the
official websites. In PMAY-G, there is an emphasis on transparency by putting
“progress data in the public domain” – details down to each beneficiary’s house
construction status are available, which promotes public oversight. The use of geo-
tagging and GIS mapping of houses adds to transparency; locations of houses and their
stages of completion can be verified via the BHUVAN PMAY GIS portal, effectively
making data open not just in tabular form but spatially. The government also shares
PMAY datasets on the Open Data portal (data.gov.in), allowing researchers and
citizens to download scheme data for analysis. Importantly, this openness helps deter
corruption: when lists of beneficiaries and fund releases are openly published, it
becomes difficult to divert benefits without being noticed. It also empowers citizens
and media to ask questions based on the data, reinforcing accountability. Thus, PMAY
aligns well with the open government paradigm by using digital platforms to shine light
on its operations and outcomes.
• Demand-Driven Approach (Stage 11) – Services driven by citizen demand rather
than supply-centric; proactive identification based on need. PMAY is structured to be
demand-driven in both urban and rural components, aided by digital tools. In
urban areas, the scheme conducted an Online Demand Survey in its initial years where
potential beneficiaries could register their need for housing through the PMAY(U)
website or mobile app. This survey, enabled by the digital platform, helped the
government estimate demand city-wise and design interventions accordingly. In
ongoing implementation, urban beneficiaries typically apply (demand) to receive
benefits like the subsidy or to get a house under a project – the role of the digital system
is to capture and respond to these applications efficiently. In the rural context, “demand-
driven” translates to basing the program on actual housing deprivation data: the list of
eligible PMAY-G beneficiaries was drawn from the Socio-Economic Caste Census data
(which identified households lacking proper housing), and then verified by Gram
Sabhas. Furthermore, if new demand emerges (e.g. families who were not originally
surveyed but are genuinely homeless), the system allows for additions through
mechanisms like the Awaas+ mobile app (used to register left-out households). Funds
allocation is also need-based: states with more eligible poor households get a larger
share of the houses, as determined by the data. All these processes are facilitated by
ICT – for example, real-time tracking of how many beneficiaries in a district have
received houses versus how many are still waiting helps officials redistribute targets if

Page 7 of 21
 needed. In summary, PMAY’s use of data and online interfaces helps shift the approach
from a top-down allocation to one that responds to the genuine demand on the ground,
ensuring resources are directed where they are most needed.
• Decentralization (Stage 12) – Devolving decision-making power to lower levels of
government, supported by digital systems. Decentralization is a core principle of
PMAY-G and is also present in PMAY-U’s implementation structure, with digital
governance reinforcing it. In the rural scheme, decentralization is evident in the way
beneficiary selection and project monitoring are handled: Gram Panchayats (local
governments) play the lead role in identifying and approving beneficiaries, and this
decision is then recorded in the central MIS. The construction process is managed at
the community level (beneficiaries build their own house with local masons), and social
audits through community participation provide local oversight. The digital system
(AwaasSoft/AwaasApp) does not replace local authority but rather augments it – it
gives local officials and villagers a platform to input their decisions and monitor
progress, while higher authorities provide support and supervision based on the data.
In urban PMAY, city-level agencies (urban local bodies or development authorities)
have significant autonomy to plan housing projects or decide how to implement
components like the In-Situ Slum Redevelopment. The central MIS again enables
decentralization by allowing city and state entries and custom configurations while
maintaining overall standards. Benefits of this digitally enabled decentralization
include greater community buy-in (since local people select who gets a house, reducing
conflicts), better targeting (locals know the ground reality best), and enhanced
accountability (local functionaries are accountable to upload correct data, and
community can verify it). At the same time, the challenges include varying capacity at
the local level – not all Gram Panchayats or urban local bodies have the needed
technical infrastructure or training to fully utilize the digital tools. Some rural areas face
internet connectivity issues, which can delay data entry or geo-tagging. Moreover,
decentralization means decision-making is distributed; ensuring uniform policy
enforcement (for example, eligibility criteria) across thousands of local units via a
central system can be difficult some inconsistencies or errors might slip through.
Despite these challenges, PMAY’s model demonstrates how a central digital backbone
can support decentralized governance: critical decisions are made closest to the people,
recorded and tracked digitally, and guided by central funding and oversight. This
interplay has largely been successful, as seen in the massive scale of housing delivered
through a federated implementation structure.
• Political Participation (Low level) (Stage 13) – Limited or indirect citizen role in
political decision processes via digital means. In the context of PMAY, direct political
participation by ordinary citizens (in terms of shaping policies or making collective
decisions online) is not a prominent feature, as the scheme’s nature is more
administrative (service delivery) than political deliberation. However, there are
indirect forms of political participation facilitated by the program’s design. One such
form is the DISHA committees (District Development Coordination and Monitoring
Committee) which include Members of Parliament and local elected representatives to
oversee implementation of schemes like PMAY. Through these committees, elected
officials gather feedback from citizens and ensure local priorities are considered – this
is a political oversight mechanism, though not exactly driven by citizens online. On the
digital side, tools like the MyGov platform have occasionally been used for citizens to
discuss or suggest improvements to government schemes; PMAY has featured in such
discussions, giving a small avenue for civic voice to reach policymakers. Thus, at this
stage, PMAY leverages traditional political representation (elected bodies, committees)

Page 8 of 21
 and light-touch digital engagement to incorporate citizen voice. It remains a low level
of digital political participation since most citizen inputs are mediated through
representatives or limited to feedback forums, rather than direct decision-making power
or voting on aspects of the scheme.
• Political Participation (High level) (Stage 14) – Extensive citizen empowerment in
political decisions via digital democracy tools. This stage represents a level of digital
democracy that goes beyond what PMAY currently embodies. In a high-level
participation scenario, citizens might directly influence budget allocations or policy
choices through online referendums, e-consultations, or participatory platforms. PMAY
has not reached this transformative stage – beneficiaries do not vote on how the housing
budget is distributed, nor do they have a direct say in policy design through digital
means. That said, one could envision future enhancements where, for example, citizens
map unmet housing needs in their communities through a mobile app which then
directly informs government resource allocation (a form of participatory planning), or
platforms where beneficiaries rate the scheme and those ratings shape program
priorities. So far, such deep digital participation is not realized. In practice, PMAY’s
major decisions (funding, design, guidelines) are taken by government bodies at central
and state levels, with citizens having an indirect influence at best. Therefore, on the
spectrum of digital democracy, PMAY provides important services to citizens and
avenues for feedback, but it stops short of enabling citizens to collectively govern or
make binding decisions about the scheme via digital democracy instruments.
• Transformation of Democracy (Stage 15) – The highest stage: democratic processes
fundamentally transformed by digital integration. This stage implies that digital
governance has altered how democracy functions – making it more participatory,
responsive, and accountable in a systemic way. PMAY, being a sectoral program,
cannot by itself transform democracy, but it contributes lessons and elements that
support democratic governance. The scheme’s emphasis on transparency, inclusion,
and accountability through technology has boosted citizen trust in government services
– a crucial aspect of democratic legitimacy. For example, when millions of poor
families receive a house entitlement in a rule-based, transparent manner, their faith in
the democratic system’s ability to deliver equity is strengthened. PMAY’s digital
success (in terms of scale and reduced corruption) sets a precedent for other programs,
nudging the polity toward more evidence-based and citizen-centric policymaking. In
that sense, it is a building block in the transformation toward a more digitally-
empowered democracy. However, it is important to note that democratic transformation
entails citizens having greater agency in decision-making, which, as discussed, is
limited in PMAY’s current model. Thus, while PMAY has transformed public service
delivery and improved governance outcomes, the transformation of democracy as a
whole would require broader adoption of digital participation tools across governance.
PMAY indicates the possibilities – such as open data leading to informed citizens or
digital platforms enabling local participation – which, if scaled to other domains and
decision levels, contribute to the democratic transformation journey.

Page 9 of 21
Chapter 3: Decentralization Framework & Analysis

Decentralization in governance refers to the devolution of authority and responsibility from

central authorities to lower levels of government or communities, enhancing local decision-
making and accountability. Analysing PMAY through a decentralization framework reveals a
hybrid approach: the program combines decentralized beneficiary selection and
implementation with centralized funding and oversight, all underpinned by digital systems that
link these layers. This approach can be broken down into key dimensions of decentralization
and how they manifest in PMAY:

• Political Decentralization (Local Empowerment): PMAY, especially the rural

component, empowers local institutions in meaningful ways. The Gram Panchayats and
Gram Sabhas have the power to finalize who in their community is eligible for a new
house. This is significant because housing assistance directly affects local social
dynamics, and giving communities control helps ensure the truly needy are prioritized
in a transparent forum. The Gram Sabha verification process is a cornerstone – it
legitimizes the beneficiary list through community consensus, embodying political
decentralization at the grassroots. In urban areas, elected urban local bodies
(municipalities) are involved in identifying slum redevelopment projects or selecting
beneficiaries for affordable housing projects, reflecting a degree of city-level discretion.
Digital governance supports this by capturing local decisions (e.g., uploading Gram
Sabha meeting resolutions to the national database) and by providing data to local
bodies to make informed choices (for example, a city can view the number of
applications in each ward on the MIS, aiding equitable selection).
• Administrative Decentralization (Implementation Responsibility): The day-to-day
implementation of PMAY is largely decentralized. State governments and their
agencies administer the scheme in their territory for instance, a State Rural Housing
Mission oversees PMAY-G with district-level officers, and urban projects are executed
by state housing boards or city authorities. The central government issues guidelines
and provides funds, but does not directly build houses – that is done by beneficiaries
and local contractors under state supervision. Digital tools like the MIS facilitate this
by acting as a common platform: local administrators input progress reports (e.g. a
block development officer updates that a house has reached roof level, along with a
geo-tagged photo), and this feeds into higher-level monitoring. This division of labor
means decisions like how to schedule inspections, how to organize beneficiary training,
or how to resolve local bottlenecks are taken at the district or block level, allowing
flexibility. Benefit: Administrative decentralization in PMAY, supported by ICT, has
improved efficiency – local officials can directly address issues without always waiting
for central approval, while the center can still observe through data.

Challenge: A common challenge is variability – some districts perform exceedingly

well, constructing houses quickly, while others lag, often due to differences in local
administrative capacity. The central dashboard makes these disparities visible, which
has the positive effect of fostering competition and targeted support (e.g., extra training
or teams sent to lagging areas), but it also means the program’s success can be uneven
until lower-capacity areas catch up.

• Fiscal Decentralization (Financial Autonomy): While PMAY’s funds are largely

provided by the Union government (with a share from state governments in most
components), there is an element of decentralization in fund flow. Funds are released

Page 10 of 21
 in tranches to state treasuries or implementing agencies and then to beneficiaries. The
use of a digital Public Financial Management System (PFMS) ensures that once the
center sanctions an amount, states and districts have autonomy to disburse to
beneficiaries as construction milestones are met, without case-by-case central
interference. The Single Nodal Account system under PMAY-G, for example, gives
states a degree of financial control to manage the rotating fund for housing, albeit with
strict digital tracking. Beneficiaries themselves have financial responsibility – they
receive money directly into their bank and must use it to build the house, which
decentralizes the actual spending decision to the individual family (with guidance from
masons and officers). Benefit: This direct-to-beneficiary funding minimizes local
corruption (reducing opportunities for officials to siphon funds) and gives families
agency. Challenge: It assumes a certain capacity and honesty at the beneficiary level –
while generally effective, there have been cases of misuse of funds or beneficiaries
struggling to manage construction with the funds, requiring additional support and
monitoring.
• Accountability and Oversight: Decentralization does not mean absence of oversight
– rather, oversight mechanisms are also adapted. In PMAY, accountability is enforced
through both community monitoring (social audits, local council supervision) and
hierarchical oversight (state monitors, central reviews via the data). DISHA
committees at the district level, chaired by Members of Parliament and including local
officials, exemplify multi-tier oversight where local political leaders hold the
implementers accountable, and they in turn answer to central guidelines. The digital
footprint of every house (from sanction to completion with timestamps and photos)
means that higher authorities can audit any stage. The NIC-built MIS generates
exception reports (e.g., houses delayed beyond a threshold, or funds released but house
not completed) which triggers inquiries from top to bottom. This fusion of
decentralization with digital oversight has generally worked well – it preserves local
initiative while ensuring that local entities cannot deviate significantly without it being
known. The challenges in accountability include ensuring data integrity (if a local
official inputs incorrect data, it could mislead oversight until verified) and encouraging
proactive problem-solving (a strict central monitoring can sometimes make local
officials risk-averse, sticking rigidly to rules rather than innovating – a balance must be
struck).

In summary, PMAY showcases a decentralized governance framework strengthened by digital

infrastructure. Local units are empowered to make decisions and implement, which has led to
context-sensitive solutions (e.g., different house designs, scheduling based on local climate for
construction, etc.) and community ownership of the program. The central role has shifted to
one of standard-setting, funding, and monitoring via data, which improves accountability. The
analysis indicates substantial benefits: speed and scale (millions of houses built by
decentralizing tasks), inclusivity (better reach to remote areas through local involvement), and
innovation at the local level (states have introduced their own portals and tweaks, some
leveraging the central data to create state dashboards). On the other hand, challenges remain in
capacity building – not all local bodies are equally equipped to use the digital systems or
manage construction, requiring continuous training and support under the Digital India
initiative. There are also initial resistance issues – for example, at the start, some local officials
were wary of the transparency brought by geo-tagging (since it exposed delays), but over time
this has become normalized as part of the work culture. Overall, PMAY’s experience affirms
that with robust ICT support, decentralization can lead to effective governance and
development outcomes in large-scale programs.

Page 11 of 21
Chapter 4: Digital Governance Innovations

To further enhance PMAY’s governance and development impact, several digital innovations
can be introduced or expanded. These innovations target different aspects of the program –
from planning and monitoring to transparency and user engagement and would help PMAY
move up the digital governance maturity curve (as outlined earlier). Key proposed innovations
include:

• Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Predictive Analysis: Leveraging AI can significantly

improve planning and decision-making in PMAY. By applying machine learning to the
vast amounts of data generated (beneficiary demographics, construction progress rates,
socio-economic data, satellite imagery, etc.), authorities could predict housing
demand and identify implementation gaps more accurately. For example, AI models
could forecast which districts are likely to fall short of targets due to current pace,
allowing pre-emptive resource allocation or intervention. Predictive analytics might
also be used to identify eligible beneficiaries who were missed using patterns in data
(such as families with low incomes but not on the current list) to suggest that local
officials verify certain cases. Another application is in risk analysis: AI could analyze
construction quality indicators (from inspection reports or even photos) to predict
which houses might be structurally at risk or which contractors tend to have delays,
enabling early corrective action. Natural language processing could be employed to
analyze citizen feedback or grievance texts in bulk to detect common issues.
Additionally, AI chatbots on the PMAY portals or apps could assist users by answering
queries in multiple languages, guiding them through application processes, and thus
improving accessibility. It is important that any AI deployment be transparent and used
as a support tool for human decision-makers to avoid bias – for instance, algorithms
should be audited to ensure they do not inadvertently disadvantage certain groups or
areas. When implemented ethically, AI can amplify the scale and precision of PMAY’s
governance, making the program more responsive and data-driven in its strategy.
• Blockchain for Fund Transparency: Blockchain technology can be introduced to
strengthen the financial transparency and trust in the fund flow of PMAY. Currently,
while PMAY’s DBT system is quite robust, a blockchain-based system could create
an immutable ledger of all transactions from the center to the end beneficiary. Each
instalment released for each house could be recorded as a block, visible to all
stakeholders (with appropriate privacy safeguards). This would make it virtually
impossible to manipulate records of fund disbursement; any attempted alteration would
be evident across the distributed ledger. The benefit is enhanced confidence that every
rupee is tracked and reaches the intended purpose. Blockchain smart contracts could
also be used to automate fund release upon certain verifiable conditions: for instance, a
smart contract could be programmed to release the second tranche of payment to a
beneficiary when a geo-tagged photo upload confirms that the foundation level is
complete. This would remove manual steps and enforce the rules automatically.
Furthermore, a blockchain could integrate land and property records for urban
PMAY beneficiaries ensuring that once a house unit is allotted and a subsidy given, the
property rights are securely recorded, preventing any fraud in allocation or double-
claiming of benefits. Several governments globally are piloting blockchain for land and
subsidy management; for PMAY, a pilot could be done in a controlled environment
(e.g., one state’s PMAY-G payments) to evaluate feasibility. Challenges in adopting
blockchain would include the need for significant technical infrastructure and the
complexity of integration with existing systems, but the payoff in terms of transparency

Page 12 of 21
 and perhaps even speed (automated workflows) could be high. It aligns with the
scheme’s ethos of clean governance and could set a new standard for public
accountability in welfare programs.
• IoT Solutions for Smart Housing Infrastructure: As India moves towards smart
cities and IoT (Internet of Things) adoption, PMAY can incorporate IoT in both
construction and post-occupancy phases to improve outcomes. During construction,
IoT-enabled sensors (like concrete maturity sensors) could be used in pilot projects to
monitor the quality of construction in real-time for example, sensors embedded in the
structure could send data about curing of concrete, helping ensure houses are built to
standard and alerting engineers to any anomalies. Drones (as IoT devices) are another
technology that could be used for surveying project sites, especially in large urban
slums slated for redevelopment, to create digital 3D models and monitor construction
progress from the air. After houses are built and occupied, IoT can contribute to
sustainability and maintenance: smart meters and devices in PMAY homes could track
usage of utilities (electricity, water) and detect issues (like water leaks or electrical
faults) early, which is important in dense affordable housing complexes. Environmental
sensors might also monitor indoor air quality or temperature, providing data to improve
housing designs for comfort and health. In rural areas, a simple IoT setup like GPS
trackers on material supply trucks could help beneficiaries know when materials
(cement, steel) dispatched by the government or suppliers will arrive, reducing
uncertainty and delay. Though these applications are forward-looking, pilot programs
could demonstrate their value. For example, a “smart colony” of PMAY-U houses
could be equipped with a basic smart home package (solar panel with IoT monitoring,
smart LED lighting, etc.) to both reduce bills for beneficiaries and to collect data on
living conditions that can inform future designs. The introduction of IoT in PMAY
aligns with building not just houses but durable, efficient homes that integrate into
India’s evolving smart infrastructure ecosystem.
• Mobile Applications for Streamlined Service Delivery: While PMAY already has
mobile apps (such as PMAY(U) app and AwaasApp for PMAY-G), there is scope to
expand and improve mobile-based services for greater impact. A unified PMAY Mobile
Super-App could be developed, consolidating urban and rural components, and offering
a one-stop solution for beneficiaries and stakeholders. Through a mobile app,
beneficiaries should be able to apply or register with minimal friction, possibly using
vernacular language support and audio-guided instructions for semi-literate users. The
app could incorporate document upload and eKYC features to reduce paperwork. Once
applied, beneficiaries can track the status of their application or housing unit on their
phone, receiving push notifications at each milestone (approval, fund release, etc.),
which keeps them informed and engaged. Another innovation would be to integrate a
grievance submission and resolution tracker in the app, so users can not only file
complaints but also see updates on actions taken. For field officials and engineers,
specialized modules in the app can assist in their tasks: for instance, an engineer’s
interface to input inspection results, upload geo-tagged photos (with automatic
timestamp and location), and even use the phone’s GPS to verify if a site visit took
place. Moreover, the app could have a community forum or feedback section where
beneficiaries can answer short surveys about their satisfaction or suggest improvements
this user-generated data can help authorities tweak the program. To cater to areas with
poor connectivity, the app should have offline functionality (caching data when offline
and syncing when back online). Security and privacy must be built-in, given sensitive
personal data involved. By making the smartphone a powerful tool for housing service
delivery, PMAY can dramatically increase its reach and responsiveness considering the

Page 13 of 21
 widespread use of mobiles in India, even among the economically weaker sections, a
well-designed app can empower users to interact with the scheme conveniently without
needing to travel to government offices frequently.

Each of these digital innovations AI, blockchain, IoT, and advanced mobile applications could
be piloted in coordination with India’s broader Digital India initiative and Smart Cities
Mission. By experimenting in controlled settings (for example, using AI in one state’s
beneficiary selection analytics, or blockchain for one city’s subsidy payments), the government
can evaluate results and scale up successful solutions. Importantly, these technologies should
be seen as enablers that complement the human and institutional framework of PMAY. Proper
training would be needed for staff to utilize AI insights or maintain IoT devices; legal
frameworks may need updates for blockchain records. But with careful implementation, such
innovations promise to elevate PMAY’s impact, ensuring not only that houses are delivered
but that they are delivered efficiently, fairly, and in a way that leverages the best of modern
technology for governance and development.

Page 14 of 21
Chapter 5: Data Justice Framework

“Data justice” refers to the fair and ethical use of data in a way that upholds rights and promotes
equity in society (Data Justice for Development - Global Development Institute Blog). In the
context of digital governance, applying a data justice framework means examining how the
collection, management, and use of data in a program like PMAY affect different stakeholders
and whether these practices reinforce or alleviate social injustices. We consider five key
dimensions of data justice distributive, structural, procedural, instrumental, and rights-based
and evaluate PMAY’s performance on each, noting successes and areas for improvement.

• Distributive Data Justice: This dimension concerns who benefits from data and who
might be burdened by it, essentially the equitable distribution of data’s value. In PMAY,
distributive justice can be seen in how data is used to distribute the scheme’s benefits
(houses, subsidies) to those who need them most. The program uses socio-economic
data (from the Census/SECC for rural, and from demand surveys in urban) to identify
beneficiaries objectively, which helps ensure that aid is distributed to marginalized
populations that were historically left out (e.g., many beneficiaries are from Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes and religious minorities in rural areas, as indicated by the
deprivation data). From a digital standpoint, the open data approach of PMAY also
serves distributive justice by making data on housing allocations and progress public,
the government distributes information power to citizens, civil society, and researchers
(they can analyze and raise concerns if any group is under-served). The outcomes show
progress: for instance, 74% of rural PMAY houses are owned by women (solely or
jointly), demonstrating that data-driven targeting (mandating female ownership in
records) addressed gender equity. However, challenges remain. One issue is the digital
divide the benefits of PMAY’s digital systems (like easy access to information or ability
to apply online) may not equally reach those with limited internet or smartphone access,
who are often the poorest. This could create a new kind of exclusion if not mitigated
(e.g., if an online demand survey misses those who are not digitally literate). PMAY
has partly managed this by supplementing digital processes with on-ground support
(mobilizers who help people apply), but continued attention is needed to ensure that the
distribution of technology access does not skew who gets on beneficiary lists. To
strengthen distributive data justice, PMAY could increase outreach in digitally dark
areas and invest in user-friendly interfaces in local languages. Overall, PMAY’s data
use has been oriented towards inclusion, but maintaining equity as technologies evolve
is an ongoing task.
• Structural Data Justice: This dimension looks at the broader structures of society and
power relations involved in data systems essentially whether the data practices in
PMAY challenge or reinforce existing structural inequalities. PMAY’s design
inherently tries to dismantle structural inequities in housing it intervenes in a market
that left the poor unhoused and data plays a role in that. By using transparent criteria
and digital verification (like ensuring a person has no pucca house already via
databases), PMAY reduces the discretionary power of local elites who might have
otherwise influenced beneficiary selection for patronage. In that sense, the data system
has altered local power dynamics: beneficiaries are chosen by objective criteria and
community approval rather than solely by political connections, which is a step toward
justice. Another structural aspect is inter-governmental: PMAY’s data platform brings
multiple levels of government onto one system, which reduces information asymmetry
between center and local bodies. This can shift power balances local officials know
they are visible to higher-ups, potentially curbing rent-seeking, and central authorities

Page 15 of 21
 get ground truth data to adjust policies (e.g., noticing if particular regions like hilly
areas are slower, then altering norms or giving more funds). However, some structural
challenges persist. The requirement of documents and digital records might
disadvantage those without formal identities or land documents – for example, some
very poor or nomadic groups might not have had documents to prove eligibility
initially. The Aadhaar-based verification, while curbing fraud, might exclude
individuals whose Aadhaar details have errors or who aren’t enrolled, thus mirroring
structural exclusion (e.g., the homeless who didn’t have IDs). PMAY has tried to be
flexible (accepting alternate IDs, running campaigns for ID enrollment), but the issue
is real. Additionally, the structure of data ownership is top-down: the government
collects and holds the data; beneficiaries have little control or say in how their personal
information (like economic status, location coordinates of their house) is used beyond
the program’s needs. If not handled carefully, this could reinforce the power imbalance
between the state and citizens. To improve structural data justice, PMAY could
incorporate community representation in data governance – for instance, involve local
representatives in oversight of data collection to ensure it’s done respectfully and serve
local interests. It could also publish audits on whether there are biases in its data
checking if any vulnerable group is underrepresented in the beneficiary lists relative to
need, thereby addressing structural gaps openly.
• Procedural Data Justice: Procedural justice relates to the fairness in the way data is
handled and decisions are made – including transparency of process, consent, and the
ability to challenge or correct data. In PMAY’s context, procedural data justice can be
examined through how beneficiaries are identified and approved using data. The
process has several steps where fairness is considered: households were scored and
ranked by deprivation data, lists were published for objections, Gram Sabhas vetted
them, and digital systems were used to eliminate duplicates or ineligible names. This
introduced checks-and-balances in the data processing pipeline to reduce errors and
bias. Citizens had (and continue to have) the opportunity to appeal if they were wrongly
excluded for example, during Awaas+ survey, those who thought they were eligible but
not in the database could come forward to be data-entered and considered. This kind of
appeals process is critical for procedural justice as it allows correction of data-driven
decisions. In terms of consent and privacy, however, PMAY follows the typical
government program approach of mandated data collection without explicit
individualized consent for each use. Beneficiaries supply personal data (income, ID,
etc.) as a requirement to get the benefit, which is a form of implicit consent. There is
currently no mechanism where a beneficiary can opt out of, say, having their name on
a public list if they still want the benefit which raises privacy considerations. The
handling of data within PMAY is governed by government data protection guidelines,
but until recently India did not have a comprehensive personal data protection law.
Now, with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023) coming into effect, schemes
like PMAY will need to ensure compliance, such as securing personal data, using it
only for legitimate purposes, and not retaining it longer than necessary. Another
procedural aspect is transparency of algorithms/criteria: the criteria for selection are
publicly known (e.g., kutcha house, no prior pucca house, etc.), which is good, but some
automated decisions, like how the system prioritizes beneficiaries if there’s a tie in
scores, might not be clearly understood by citizens. Enhancing procedural justice would
involve clearly communicating all steps of the digital process to the public, simplifying
the language of guidelines, and perhaps providing each applicant a rationale if they are
not selected (for instance, “you were ranked 500th, and the cutoff was 300 due to
targets”). It also means strengthening grievance redressal for data errors if someone’s

Page 16 of 21
 name or details are wrong in the database, there should be a straightforward way to get
it corrected. PMAY has made a start in procedural data justice by being transparent and
offering recourse, but it can continue to improve by adopting emerging best practices
in consent and user rights as India’s data governance landscape evolves.
• Instrumental Data Justice: This dimension considers the fair use of data as a means
to achieve legitimate ends, emphasizing whether data is utilized to deliver positive
outcomes (and not misused for other purposes). In the case of PMAY, the data collected
and generated is intended to be used to provide housing to the underserved a clear social
good. Instrumentally, PMAY’s data can be deemed just when it effectively helps
deliver the right benefit to the right person. The program’s performance here has been
notable: by using data to drive decision-making, PMAY has largely eliminated the
nepotism or favouritism that often plagued welfare distribution in the past. The
evidence is tangible in outcomes like reduced delays and vast numbers of houses
reaching those in poverty. The integration of multiple data sources (satellite, census,
financial) has been put to the service of development objectives (housing, sanitation
through convergence, etc.), which reflects a just purpose. Importantly, PMAY’s data is
not supposed to be used punitively or for unrelated surveillance and there have been no
major reports of such misuse. The program keeps data focused on improving
implementation: e.g., dashboards highlight progress and shortfalls, prompting officials
to act for the benefit of beneficiaries (like accelerating construction where lagging).
Additionally, data is used to ensure accountability for use of public funds, which is a
legitimate aim: publishing how money is spent and how houses are completed deters
corruption, thus instrumentally using data to uphold integrity. One area to watch is
whether any biases in data might lead to unintended negative outcomes – for example,
if the data-driven process systematically missed a category of people (say, landless
laborers who weren’t in the census list properly), then reliance on data could
inadvertently perpetuate injustice for that subgroup. To address this, PMAY must
continually refine its data sources (as it did with supplementary surveys) so that the
instrument (data) remains sharp and inclusive. Another point is future use of PMAY
data: as the scheme creates a massive dataset of beneficiaries, there should be norms to
ensure this data is not exploited for, say, commercial purposes or excessive profiling.
If the data is repurposed (for example, to identify recipients for other welfare schemes),
it should always be in service of the people whose data it is, aligning with their needs
(this ties into rights-based justice as well). So far, PMAY’s data use has been primarily
instrumental to achieving housing goals and can be considered fair in intent and
outcome. Continuing this will require vigilance that new tech (AI, etc., as proposed
above) is applied with the sole aim of improving service to citizens, and not for any
extraneous agendas.
• Rights-Based Data Justice: This dimension emphasizes the rights of individuals in
relation to their data, such as privacy, consent, ownership, and the right to be included
or not discriminated against, Under PMAY, several rights-related aspects come into
play. First is the right to privacy of beneficiaries. The scheme does collect personal
details (ID numbers, bank details, photographs of houses and sometimes of
beneficiaries). These are necessary for implementation, but care must be taken that they
are not exposed inappropriately. PMAY does publish beneficiary names and basic
details on public portals in the interest of transparency, which could be seen as a privacy
trade-off. Most beneficiaries likely consent implicitly to this for the sake of
transparency and recognition, but as data protection norms strengthen, the program may
need to ensure it isn’t oversharing personal data. For example, perhaps only names and
village are public, but not full addresses or bank details (which it currently does not

Page 17 of 21
 share publicly, to be sure). The right to data access is another aspect: beneficiaries have
the right to access information on the status of their application or funds. PMAY
facilitates this through its portals where, by entering their ID or application number,
individuals can see what decisions have been made. This empowerment through
information is a positive on rights people are not left in the dark about their entitlements.
The right to correct data is also implicitly supported via grievance mechanisms (if
someone’s name or eligibility is recorded wrong, they can appeal for correction).
However, there isn’t a formal user-controlled data correction interface; it goes through
officials. Given many beneficiaries may not be fully aware of data rights, PMAY could
be proactive in protecting them for instance, ensuring that Aadhaar data usage in the
scheme is compliant with the law (using it only for authentication and deduplication,
not for tracking beyond permissible use). Non-discrimination is a core right: data justice
demands that no one is excluded due to attributes like religion, ethnicity, etc. The
scheme’s data design is largely attribute-neutral aside from poverty criteria, which is
good for rights. In implementation, there were concerns initially whether some groups
(e.g., people without documented land) would be left out, but policies were adjusted
(such as allowing house sites to be provided to landless beneficiaries) to uphold the
right to housing assistance. One more right is the right to be heard in case of grievances
which, as noted, is provided through both digital and offline channels. Looking forward,
PMAY can strengthen rights-based justice by explicitly adopting a privacy policy for
the scheme’s data, informing beneficiaries how their data will be used, and granting
them more agency (for example, perhaps an online consent form or at least an
informational notice when they enroll, aligning with the spirit of informed consent). As
India’s citizens become more aware of data rights, PMAY should be ahead of the curve
in respecting those rights, ensuring that the move to digital governance does not
compromise the dignity and autonomy of the people it serves.

In evaluating PMAY against these five dimensions, we find that the program fares reasonably
well on distributive and instrumental data justice, having used data to include and benefit
millions of poor households. It also has elements of structural change (reducing arbitrary power
in welfare delivery) and some procedural fairness through transparency and grievance
redressal. Rights-based aspects are an area for improvement, mainly around formalizing data
privacy and consent measures. To bolster data justice, the PMAY authorities could implement
digital innovations with an eye on justice: for example, using blockchain (as suggested) could
improve distributive and procedural justice by making transactions tamper-proof and
transparent to all; AI could be used to identify unseen biases and recommend course-
corrections (instrumental justice serving equity); and improved mobile apps could give
individuals more control (like checking and updating their information – a boost to procedural
and rights-based justice). Ultimately, the goal would be to ensure that the datafication of a
welfare scheme like PMAY does not reinforce digital exclusion or power imbalances, but
rather democratizes data in a way that empowers the poorest citizens aligning with the
scheme’s foundational aim of housing justice, now extended into the realm of data justice.

Page 18 of 21
Conclusion
The analysis of “Digital Innovations in PM Awas Yojana for Enhanced Governance and
Development” highlights that PMAY has made significant strides in adopting digital
governance, benefiting both its urban and rural segments. Key findings indicate that PMAY’s
digital infrastructure including comprehensive MIS platforms, mobile applications, geo-
tagging systems, and integration with national digital portals has been instrumental in achieving
unprecedented scale and transparency in housing delivery. Placing PMAY within the e-
governance maturity framework reveals that the scheme has progressed beyond basic e-
government (information and transaction services) into stages of integration and partial citizen
participation, though it has yet to enable high-level digital democratic engagement. The
decentralized yet digitally unified model of PMAY is a cornerstone of its success, marrying
grassroots decision-making with top-down accountability in a manner that many development
programs can emulate. Furthermore, evaluating PMAY through a data justice lens shows a
generally positive alignment with inclusive and fair data use, while also pointing out areas (like
data privacy and empowering citizen voice in data processes) where continuous improvement
is needed.

Recommendations for further digital integration in PMAY include the following:

• Implement Emerging Technologies Pilot: Run pilot projects for blockchain-based fund
tracking and IoT-based construction monitoring as discussed. For example, a pilot
where all transactions in a district are logged on a blockchain can be compared with the
current system to evaluate improvements in transparency and trust. Likewise, an IoT
pilot in an urban redevelopment project could demonstrate value in quality control.
Successful pilots can then be scaled up in phases across the country.
• Enhance User-Centric Digital Services: Redesign and unify the PMAY user digital
interfaces (web and mobile) with a user-centric approach intuitive design, support in
local languages, features for the differently-abled (like voice interaction). Include
modules for beneficiary feedback and community forums. Regularly gather user
experience data to iteratively improve these digital services. This will increase citizen
engagement and satisfaction with the program’s digital side.
• Capacity Building and Inclusion: Invest in training programs for local officials,
masons, and beneficiaries on the use of PMAY digital tools. Digital literacy camps for
beneficiaries (especially women homeowners) could help them use the PMAY app or
portal to monitor their house construction or report issues, empowering them in the
process. Also, ensure alternative assisted digital access such as helpdesks at Panchayat
offices or urban local bodies so that those who cannot use online systems independently
are not left behind.
• Strengthen Data Governance: Develop a clear data governance policy for PMAY. This
should cover data privacy (in line with national law), data sharing protocols, and
grievance mechanisms for data issues. Appoint data protection officers at the PMAY
nodal agencies who ensure compliance and build trust that citizens’ data is safe and
used only for their benefit. Additionally, open up more anonymized PMAY data for
academic and policy research this can spur external innovations and independent
evaluations, enriching the program’s knowledge base.

Citizens are informed, empowered partners in the governance process, and where technology
maximizes social welfare outcomes.

Page 19 of 21
Future Outlook: The future of digital governance in housing development, as epitomized by
PMAY, is poised to become increasingly sophisticated. As India urbanizes further and housing
demand evolves, the digital PMAY of tomorrow might include features like AI-driven smart
housing registries, dynamic mapping of housing quality across the nation via sensors, and even
platforms for participatory budgeting where citizens help decide housing investment priorities
online. The integration of PMAY with other initiatives (Smart Cities, Digital ID, GIS systems)
will deepen, leading to a more holistic ecosystem rather than siloed programs – for example, a
beneficiary of PMAY might automatically receive offers of other services (skill training, loans
for livelihood) through integrated data systems, thereby amplifying the developmental impact.
From a governance perspective, one can expect greater decentralization with accountability:
local governments might take on more of the program financing as their capacities grow, using
central platforms as a service. PMAY has already shown that digital transparency can build
trust future schemes will likely expand on this by involving citizens in monitoring via
crowdsourcing (imagine citizens verifying nearby PMAY houses via an app).

In conclusion, PM Awas Yojana demonstrates how digital innovations can turbocharge a public
policy initiative, ensuring that governance is not a bottleneck but a catalyst for development.
By embracing technology, PMAY has brought millions from the margins into the fold of
development (literally providing a roof over their heads) in a relatively short time, and has set
new benchmarks for accountability and efficiency in government programs (). As the scheme
continues to evolve with more digital integration guided by principles of justice, equity, and
inclusiveness it holds valuable lessons for other social programs. The journey of PMAY
underscores that the synergy of digital governance and human development is key to realizing
the promise of inclusive growth in the 21st century. Going forward, sustaining political will,
ensuring community participation, and adapting to emerging technologies will be crucial in
translating this successful model to an even broader transformative impact on India’s
governance and democratic ethos.

Page 20 of 21
References
• https://pmayg.nic.in/netiayHome/Uploaded/Guidelines-English_Book_Final.pdf
• https://pmay-urban.gov.in/#:~:text=
• https://disha.gov.in/disha/
• https://rural.gov.in/en/press-release/target-houses-under-pmay-
g#:~:text=The%20Union%20Cabinet%20has%20approved,cr%20houses%20by%20Mar
ch%2C%202025.
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/property-/-cstruction/pmay-
urban-2-0-fund-boost-set-to-accelerate-affordable-
housing/articleshow/112475211.cms?from=mda
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309959191_Data_justice_for_development_W
hat_would_it_mean
• https://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/1MIS-Geotagging.pdf
• https://blog.gdi.manchester.ac.uk/data-justice-
development/#:~:text=,control%2C%20and%20inclusion%20%2F%20representation

Page 21 of 21