This report presents an analysis of the parliamentary questions (starred and unstarred) addressed to the
Ministry of Urban Develepment (MoUD), Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA)
and Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA). The questions were raised in the 11th, 12th and 13th
session of the 16th Lok Sabha and the 242nd, 243rd and 244th session of the Rajya Sabha, from 31 January
2017 to 5 January 2018. During these sessions, a total of 26,081 questions were raised in both the houses of
parliament. Maximum number of questions were addressed to the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Railways
and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
Out of the total questions, 750 questions (2.9%) were addressed to MoHUA (earlier MoHUPA and MoUD).
Of these 750 questions, 356 were raised in Lok Sabha and 394 were raised in Rajya Sabha. A majority of these
questions were related to centrally sponsored urban schemes. The report has analysed the questions and
answers scheme-wise. Each chapter thus represents a particular scheme—the Smart Cities Mission (SCM),
Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) [PMAY(U)], Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM), Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT), National Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana (HRIDAY), and Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana-National Urban Livelihood Mission (DAY-NULM). An
analysis of questions raised to the Ministry of Labour and Employment (MoLE) (during the same parliamentary sessions) regarding informal and migrant workers is presented as a chapter. It is crucial to understand
the issues of informal workers and migrant workers while engaging on urban schemes aimed at benefiting
the urban poor.
Through this report we aim to throw light on the implementation of urban schemes, as most near their date
of completion. All schemes were launched in 2015 except the SBM, which was launched in 2014. A few general trends that all schemes displayed include—slow rate of implementation, under-utilisation of funds and
only a small percentage of committed central assistance released under each scheme.
The PMAY(U) was the scheme that saw the highest number of questions. The Shelter for Urban Homeless
(SUH) under the DAY-NULM was also extensively questioned. Overall, among the six schemes, PMAY (U)
received the highest central assistance. However in terms of implementation, PMAY(U) has the lowest level
of implementation.
Only a small percentage of central grant was released compared to the central grant allocated to each scheme.
SBM received the highest percentage (33%) and AMRUT received the lowest percentage (19.2%) of the grant
allotted to these schemes.
This report also briefly highlights the bills introduced in the Parliament related to urban issues in the year
2017. It includes all three kinds of Bills—Ordinary, Constitution Amendments, and Money Bills introduced
by Private Members as well as the Government. These are—The Constitution Amendment Bill, 2017 (Amendment of Article 51A); The Constitution Amendment Bill, 2017 (Insertion of New Article 21B); The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties (Amendment) Act, 2017; The Regulation of Private Hostels
and Paying Guests Accomodation Centres Bill, 2017; The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Bill, 2017; The National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second
(Amendment) Bill, 2017; The Right to Adequate Housing Bill, 2017; and The Removal of Homelessness Bill,
2017. These Bills are discussed briefly in the following chapter.
A challenge faced during analysis stemmed from the answers provided by the Ministry. Often, it did not provide the information sought by Parliamentarians. In a few questions where quantitative data was asked, the
Ministry simply reiterated scheme guidelines. These examples have been highlighted in each chapter.

English