Standing Committee Report Summary
- The Standing Committee on Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (Chair: Mr. Saptagiri Sankar Ulaka) presented its report on ‘Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY)’ on August 7, 2025. The PMGSY was launched in December 2000 to provide all weather connectivity through roads to eligible rural habitations. Key observations and recommendations of the Committee include:
- Curbing low bids under tenders: Under PMGSY, tenders for road projects are obtained through bidding. The Committee noted that contractors often quote amounts 25-30% lower than the minimum bidding amount to win the bids for projects. The Committee recommended the Department of Rural Development to establish a mechanism to ensure that an amount equal to the difference between the bid and the actual quote is kept as security. This amount may be released if the constructed road satisfies the quality norms. The Committee also recommended the central government to set up a committee to assess the effect of such low quotes on the quality of roads.
- Quality of road construction: The Committee noted of non-compliance with standards of road construction under the scheme and poor quality of material used in construction in many places. The Committee recommended the Department to take measures to ensure that the quality norms prescribed under the scheme are being followed.
- Maintenance of roads: The Committee noted that under the scheme, the responsibility to maintain the road lies with the contractors for five years following construction. It observed that roads constructed under PMGSY are poorly maintained and get degraded within this five-year period. It recommended the Department to ensure that the guidelines are being followed regarding the maintenance of roads post construction. It further recommended that erring contractors should be shortlisted and blacklisted.
- The Committee also recommended specific teams to be designated for periodic and mandatory physical inspections of roads under PMGSY. For roads that are already degraded, the Committee recommended their rehabilitation under a dedicated initiative or their inclusion in new PMGSY allotments. The Committee also recommended that to strengthen monitoring and increase accountability, the Department can take initiatives such as verification of real-time videos of roads every six months, and increase surprise inspections during the initial five years.
- Linkage of unconnected habitations: The Committee observed that many roads under the rural connectivity projects only reach the periphery of the villages and do not reach places where the majority population lives. The Committee recommended the Department to ensure that the roads constructed under PMGSY reach the unconnected habitations.
- Increasing load bearing capacity of roads: The Committee noted that many heavy load bearing vehicles utilise the roads built under PMGSY. It observed that this causes irreversible damage to low volume rural roads, which are not built to handle heavy vehicle loads. The Committee highlighted the need to repair the damaged roads. It recommended increasing the thickness of roads to bear heavier load.
- Delay in projects: The Committee observed that a large number of projects under PMGSY are not completed within their designated timeframe, leading to cost overruns. The Committee also noted that under the Road Connectivity Project for Left Wing Extremism Area vertical of PMGSY, only 78% of the sanctioned road length has been completed as of May 2025. It recommended timely release of funds, streamlining approval processes, and better convergence with other ministries to address this.
- Revised road survey: The Committee noted that PMGSY-IV road survey is based on 2011 census, which does not reflect the present population, settlement expansions, and infrastructure needs. The Committee recommended that PMGSY-IV should be revised based on the latest available population data or an interim assessment.
DISCLAIMER: This document is being furnished to you for your information. You may choose to reproduce or redistribute this report for non-commercial purposes in part or in full to any other person with due acknowledgement of PRS Legislative Research (“PRS”). The opinions expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s). PRS makes every effort to use reliable and comprehensive information, but PRS does not represent that the contents of the report are accurate or complete. PRS is an independent, not-for-profit group. This document has been prepared without regard to the objectives or opinions of those who may receive it.