Discuss the persistent phenomenon of cost and time overruns in India's central-sector infrastructure projects. Examine the institutional mechanisms for monitoring such overruns and suggest reforms.

MoSPI's Flash Report for July 2026 tracks 1,775 central-sector projects costing ₹150 crore and above, whose cost has been revised to ₹37.11 lakh crore against an original ₹33.70 lakh crore — an overrun of roughly ₹3.4 lakh crore [1]. Such slippage is chronic rather than episodic, and reflects weaknesses in project preparation as much as in execution.

The persistence of overruns

• Recurring across reports: successive monthly Flash Reports have shown overruns of a similar order, with average time overruns running into years [2]; the figure fluctuates with the project cohort, not with any structural cure.
• Slow maturation: barely a third of monitored projects report over 80% physical progress, and cumulative expenditure is only about half the revised cost [1].
• Standard causes: land acquisition, delayed environment and forest clearances, rehabilitation and resettlement, utility shifting, funding constraints and contractual disputes.
• Costs: escalation consumes scarce capital at a time of record central capex (₹11.21 lakh crore, FY26 BE), while delayed assets keep logistics costs high and postpone growth multipliers [4].

Institutional mechanisms

• MoSPI's Infrastructure and Project Monitoring Division publishes monthly Flash Reports on all projects above ₹150 crore [1].
• PAIMANA (operational September 2025) replaced the OCMS-2006 platform, adding analytics and dashboards and integrating via API with DPIIT's Integrated Project Monitoring Portal, so most project data updates automatically [3].
• PM GatiShakti National Master Plan brings 44 ministries and 36 States/UTs onto a shared geospatial platform to pre-empt coordination delays [5].
• Limitations: monitoring is administrative, not statutory; data is largely self-reported by implementing ministries; and aggregate reporting obscures project-wise accountability.

Reforms suggested

• Independent third-party validation of DPR cost estimates before sanction.
• Make substantial land availability and clearances a pre-condition for financial approval.
• Publish project-wise overrun and accountability data on PAIMANA.
• Institutionalise time-bound dispute resolution and milestone-linked funding.

Monitoring platforms have improved visibility; the deficit now lies in enforceable accountability. Aligning appraisal rigour and clearance readiness with GatiShakti's coordination architecture can convert reporting into results, ensuring that capital budgeted for national development actually builds assets rather than financing delay.