Discuss the role of PRAGATI as a governance innovation. To what extent can process-level interventions substitute for substantive legal reform in accelerating infrastructure delivery in India?

Launched in 2015, PRAGATI (Pro-Active Governance and Timely Implementation) is a PM-chaired platform fusing digital data management, video-conferencing and geo-spatial technology to review stalled projects in real time [1]. Its 50th meeting (January 2026) showcased both its success and its limits: land acquisition still accounts for the largest share of project bottlenecks [2].

PRAGATI as a governance innovation

• Apex-level convening power: direct PM–Chief Secretary interface collapses inter-ministerial and Centre–State silos, an instance of cooperative federalism in execution [1].
• Outcome orientation: 3,300+ projects worth ₹85 lakh crore reviewed; of 7,735 issues raised, 7,156 resolved [2].
• Unlocking legacy projects: the Bogibeel bridge (conceived 1997), the Udhampur–Srinagar–Baramulla rail link and Navi Mumbai airport moved decisively after PRAGATI review [1].
• Technology-enabled accountability: geo-spatial monitoring makes physical progress verifiable rather than self-reported [1].

Limits — where process cannot substitute for law

• The residual problem is structural: land acquisition formed 35% of issues resolved, forest/wildlife/environment 20% and right-of-way 18% [2] — categories rooted in statute (RFCTLARR Act, 2013; Forest Rights Act, 2006), not merely in coordination failure.
• Consent thresholds (70% for PPP, 80% for private projects), mandatory Social Impact Assessment and the compensation formula create timelines PRAGATI can expedite but not compress away [3].
• Review platforms address case-by-case pendency, leaving the generic pipeline untouched; the Cabinet Secretary confirmed there is no plan to amend land acquisition policy [2].

Process interventions therefore substitute for legal reform substantially but not fully: they can raise throughput within an existing statutory design, yet cannot alter the design itself. Given that the 2015 amendment attempt lapsed, the pragmatic path lies in strengthening implementation — digitised land records, pre-acquisition land banks, capacity-building of District Collectors and single-window clearances — so that the 2013 Act's rights-protective architecture, consistent with Article 300A, is realised without sacrificing development velocity.