Examine the role of Centrally Sponsored Schemes like PMAY-U in achieving 'Housing for All' amid the constitutional division of housing as a State subject.

Land, colonisation and local government fall in the State List, making housing primarily a State responsibility. The Union therefore pursues 'Housing for All' indirectly — through Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) that combine central finance with State and urban local body (ULB) execution, of which PMAY-Urban is the flagship.

How CSS advance the housing goal

• Fiscal leverage: PMAY-U 2.0, approved by the Cabinet in 2024, extends assistance to 1 crore more urban poor and middle-class families with ₹2.30 lakh crore central assistance [1] — an outlay most States could not raise alone.
• Scale achieved: about 1.25 crore houses sanctioned and roughly 98 lakh completed under PMAY-U by 2026 [2], converting a scattered welfare effort into a measurable national mission.
• Flexible design: four verticals — BLC, AHP, ARH and ISS [1] — let States choose self-construction, partnership projects, rental housing for migrants, or interest subsidy, respecting local demand patterns.
• Equity mandate: near-universal registration of houses in women's names, with earmarking for SC/ST, slum dwellers, safai karamcharis and street vendors [1][2], embedding social justice goals States might otherwise dilute.
• Cooperative sanctioning: the Central Sanctioning and Monitoring Committee (CSMC), chaired by the MoHUA Secretary, clears State proposals in periodic rounds [3], keeping approval demand-driven rather than imposed — over 2 lakh houses were cleared in a single 2026 sitting [4].

Federal frictions and limits

• Conditional, tied grants narrow State fiscal autonomy and skew State priorities toward centrally chosen sectors.
• Land acquisition, building approvals and beneficiary verification remain State/ULB functions; weak devolution under the 74th Amendment slows delivery.
• Uniform national cost norms fit poorly with divergent land prices, causing the visible sanction–completion gap.

CSS thus supply money, standards and accountability, while States supply land, legitimacy and last-mile capacity — neither succeeds alone. Strengthening municipal finance and technical capacity, allowing greater State-level design flexibility within outcome-linked funding, and using CSMC as a genuine consultative forum would let 'Housing for All' advance as an exercise in cooperative federalism and in fulfilment of the Article 21 right to shelter and SDG-11.