India's energy transition faces a governance deficit as much as a technology deficit. Critically examine the case for a unified national energy policy architecture, with reference to recent institutional proposals.

India crossed 50% non-fossil installed capacity in June 2025, five years ahead of its NDC target [1] — proof that the technology and capital constraints are easing. The residual bottleneck is institutional: energy decisions are split across ministries and two tiers of a federal polity, making a unified policy architecture a genuine, though not sufficient, reform need.

The governance deficit is real

• Ministerial silos: MNRE, Power, Petroleum & Natural Gas and MoEFCC plan separately, while decarbonisation pathways are inherently cross-sectoral — NITI Aayog's Scenarios Towards Viksit Bharat and Net Zero (2026) had to be built through Inter-Ministerial Working Groups (IMWGs) covering power, transport, industry and critical minerals [2].
• Coordination without statutory backing: IMWGs and the GECE Division are advisory; so is the INSA policy brief (May 2026) proposing a four-pillar unified framework. Neither binds ministries [2].
• Federal friction: electricity is in the Concurrent List (List III), so RE siting, discom health and open access depend on State action.
• Integration gaps: grid curtailment, transmission lag and storage shortfalls are coordination failures, not capacity failures — the same reason IESS 2047 V3.0 models storage, green hydrogen and EVs together rather than sector-wise [3].

But the technology deficit persists

• Storage, green hydrogen electrolysers and offshore wind remain costly and largely import-linked; critical minerals dependence is a hard supply constraint no committee can legislate away [2].
• 50% installed capacity ≠ 50% generation, given the lower capacity factors of solar and wind [1].
• Unification risks over-centralisation in a Concurrent-List sector; a single architecture could dilute the competitive federalism that drove state RE auctions.

The deficits are complementary, not competing: technology sets the frontier, governance determines how much of it is used. A unified framework — statutorily anchored, Centre–State consultative, and built on existing IESS/IMWG modelling [3] — would convert scattered targets into one accountable pathway, aligning Viksit Bharat 2047 with Net-Zero 2070 as a single national mission.