Bengaluru: The methodology underpinning the Centre’s flagship Swachh Vayu Sarvekshan has come under scrutiny, with a team from Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru, arguing that its rankings do not adequately reflect the air quality experienced by citizens. Instead, it is said to place greater emphasis on procedural compliance and self-reported data from urban local bodies.The findings have been submitted to Union environment minister Bhupender Yadav along with a recommendation to scrap and redesign the existing framework.In a detailed review of the national clean-air ranking exercise led by Prof Ashish Verma of IISc, researchers argue that several highly ranked cities continue to record poor air quality, exposing what they describe as a disconnect between ranking scores and real-world environmental outcomes. The report says the framework predominantly measures whether city administrations have completed prescribed activities and submitted documentation, rather than whether those actions have led to measurable reductions in pollution levels.The IISc team cites the example of Lucknow, which secured one of the highest scores under the ranking framework despite recording a ‘very poor’ Air Quality Index (AQI) of 374 in Dec 2025. According to the report, such cases demonstrate that cities can score exceptionally well even when residents continue to breathe in unhealthy air.At the heart of the criticism is the way the rankings are structured. Researchers contend that urban local bodies act as implementers, data providers, self-assessors and beneficiaries of the awards, creating what they describe as an inherent conflict of interest. The report notes that a significant portion of the scoring relies on self-declared information submitted by cities, with limited independent verification of claims.Little improvement in AQIThe study argues that the framework places inadequate emphasis on ambient air quality indicators. While cities earn marks for actions such as awareness campaigns, planning exercises and institutional measures, actual air-quality outcomes receive comparatively lower weightage. As a result, cities can achieve high scores even without demonstrating substantial improvements in AQI or pollutant concentrations, the report states.The researchers have also questioned the scientific basis of several indicators used in the assessment. According to the report, the framework remains focused on PM10 concentrations while under-representing critical pollutants such as PM2.5, nitrogen oxides and secondary particulate matter, which are known to pose significant public health risks. The report says several major pollution sources, including regional transport of pollutants and agricultural residue burning, are not adequately captured within the scoring system.Another concern highlighted by the team is the absence of a direct correlation between ranking position and pollution levels. Comparing Sarvekshan scores with AQI data from multiple cities, the researchers found that highly ranked cities did not necessarily have cleaner air than lower-ranked counterparts. The report argues that this weak relationship undermines the credibility of the rankings as a measure of environmental performance.In the letter sent to the environment minister, Prof Verma said the current methodology could create a misleading impression of air-quality progress and requested that the ministry consider rolling back the present framework and replacing it with a scientifically robust system that prioritises measurable pollution reduction and health outcomes.What needs to be done* Complete redesign of the ranking mechanism* Greater reliance on independently verified air-quality data* Increased weightage for AQI and pollutant reductions* Development of an evaluation framework linking city performance directly to improvements in ambient air quality* Focus on measuring actual improvements in air quality rather than compliance with administrative checklists
