Author – Munish Kumar Gaur
Advocate & Former Bureaucrat

The political transition in Delhi marked more than a change in leadership; it reflected a conscious recalibration of public expectations. By choosing the Bharatiya Janata Party over the Aam Aadmi Party and the Indian National Congress, the electorate expressed fatigue with announcement-driven governance and signalled a preference for institutional stability, fiscal responsibility, and infrastructure-led development. One year into office, the BJP-led Delhi government’s performance must therefore be assessed not merely by political rhetoric but through the prism of scheme-wise budgetary commitment, prioritisation, and actual delivery on the ground.

The 2025-26 Delhi Budget, pegged at approximately ₹1 lakh crore, set the tone for this new governance approach. A defining feature of the budget was the sharp increase in capital expenditure, rising to nearly ₹28,000 crore, indicating a strategic shift from recurrent subsidies toward long-term urban asset creation. This reorientation is significant in a city grappling with ageing infrastructure, environmental stress, and mounting population pressure.

Among welfare commitments, the most closely watched initiative has been the Mahila Samriddhi Yojana, under which economically eligible women are to receive monthly financial assistance. An allocation of over ₹5,000 crore was earmarked for the scheme, placing women’s economic security high on the priority list. However, unlike earlier regimes that often announced schemes without robust beneficiary verification, the present government has proceeded cautiously, focusing first on eligibility criteria, database preparation, and administrative rules. While this has delayed cash disbursement, it reflects an attempt to balance welfare intent with fiscal prudence and targeted delivery, an approach that will ultimately determine the scheme’s credibility.

Healthcare has emerged as one of the more substantive areas of reform. The integration of Delhi with the national Ayushman Bharat, backed by a dedicated allocation exceeding ₹2,100 crore, corrected a long-standing policy anomaly. For years, Delhi had remained outside a comprehensive health insurance framework despite its vast migrant and informal workforce. Within a year, lakhs of beneficiaries have been registered, empanelled hospitals activated, and tertiary care costs absorbed under insurance coverage. Complementing this, investment in hospital infrastructure, dialysis units, and primary health centres has strengthened the delivery chain rather than relying solely on front-end clinics.

Food security and nutrition received focused yet modest funding through the expansion of Atal Canteens, with an allocation of around ₹100 crore. Though fiscally small in comparison to large infrastructure heads, the scheme has delivered immediate, visible relief to daily wage workers and the urban poor by providing subsidised meals. Its implementation model , centralised procurement with decentralised operation , has ensured both cost control and scale, serving tens of thousands daily.

Labour welfare and social dignity have been addressed through statutory interventions rather than discretionary doles. The revision of minimum wages to one of the highest levels in the country did not require a separate scheme head but reflected a policy decision with wide economic impact. Simultaneously, funds were allocated for childcare and crèche facilities, particularly to support working women in the informal sector. The opening of hundreds of such centres indicates an understanding that women’s workforce participation depends as much on social infrastructure as on financial support.

Education spending continued to command a large share of the budget, though with a notable shift in emphasis. Alongside allocations for early childhood education and Anganwadi strengthening, funds were earmarked for digital access, including free laptops for selected students. More importantly, the enactment of a private school fee regulation framework signalled a policy shift from symbolic infrastructure upgrades to systemic consumer protection for middle-class families. Here, the government’s role has been regulatory rather than purely fiscal, but its impact on household economics is substantial.

Housing and slum redevelopment constituted another major budgetary priority, with nearly ₹700 crore allocated for rehabilitation and a similar amount for infrastructure improvement in jhuggi clusters. The stated objective has been in-situ rehabilitation rather than displacement, with thousands of flats planned or under construction. Implementation in this sector has been complex, involving land clearances, coordination with central agencies, and legal scrutiny, resulting in slower visible outcomes. Nevertheless, the financial commitment underscores a long-term intent to replace informal settlements with formal housing stock.

The most pronounced fiscal thrust has been in urban infrastructure. Road redevelopment alone received over ₹800 crore for arterial roads, supplemented by additional funding routed through municipal bodies for internal lanes and neighbourhood infrastructure. Unlike patchwork repairs of the past, the current focus has been on long-life engineering standards, dust mitigation, and integrated drainage. These works, though disruptive in the short term, represent capital investments whose benefits will accrue over decades.

Environmental governance, particularly water and sewage management, absorbed several thousand crores in combined allocations. Significant funds were directed toward sewage treatment plant upgrades, interceptor sewers, and Yamuna rejuvenation efforts. While the ecological revival of the river remains a long-term challenge, the budgetary emphasis indicates a shift from symbolic riverfront promises to backend infrastructure capable of preventing untreated discharge.

Equally noteworthy is the investment in governance systems themselves. Allocations for digital platforms, surveillance infrastructure, and integrated command centres aim to institutionalise accountability and real-time monitoring. These tools are designed to track project progress, grievance redressal, and service delivery outcomes, reducing dependence on discretionary intervention and political mediation.

Taken together, the scheme-wise budgetary pattern reveals a clear hierarchy of priorities. First, infrastructure and utilities have been placed at the apex, reflecting the belief that welfare without functional urban systems is unsustainable. Second, health and labour dignity have been addressed through integration with national frameworks and statutory mechanisms. Third, direct benefit schemes have been planned with caution, prioritising targeting and fiscal sustainability over immediate political gains.

After one year, the achievements are necessarily uneven. Infrastructure projects are visible but incomplete; health coverage expansion is measurable; welfare cash transfers await full rollout. Yet, the distinguishing feature of this phase is the attempt to rebuild governance architecture rather than rely on episodic relief measures. Whether this approach ultimately satisfies public expectations will depend on the government’s ability to translate sanctioned budgets into completed projects and announced schemes into lived benefits within clearly defined timelines.

In essence, the first year of BJP governance in Delhi represents a foundational phase , marked less by dramatic outcomes and more by the laying of fiscal, administrative, and institutional groundwork. For a city as complex as Delhi, the success of this model will be judged not by the scale of announcements but by the durability of systems now being put in place.