₹127.63 CRORE LATER — NAVI MUMBAI, WHERE ARE YOUR CAMERAS?
A ₹50 AUTO FARE, A DEAD MAN, 1,524 CAMERAS — AND A CITY THAT STILL HAS QUESTIONS TO ANSWER
Two days ago, an 18-year-old auto-rickshaw driver was allegedly killed in Navi Mumbai following a dispute over an auto fare involving just ₹50. When the police needed CCTV footage to trace the killers, investigators reportedly had to scan more than 150 cameras across the crime scene and the route taken by the accused. The case was eventually cracked with the help of CCTV footage, an eyewitness account and technical analysis. But that very investigation raises a much bigger question: when Navi Mumbai has a reported ₹127.63-crore citywide surveillance project involving 1,524 cameras, how many of those cameras are actually working when the police need them? A city that has invested heavily in a sophisticated surveillance network across roughly 460 locations should not leave citizens guessing about whether a camera is operational when a crime takes place underneath it. And this is precisely why I want NMMC to get uncomfortable. Very uncomfortable. Because this is no longer about some fancy “Smart City” presentation, a shiny Command & Control Centre or politicians standing in front of giant screens and declaring that Navi Mumbai is technologically ahead of everyone else. This is about whether the system actually works when an ordinary citizen needs it. It is about whether a camera installed through public expenditure is functioning when the police need evidence. It is about whether the ₹127.63-crore project has delivered what citizens were promised. And yes, I deliberately say public expenditure, because recent reporting says the CCTV project was funded entirely through NMMC’s own resources. So before anyone starts throwing around the word “Smart City”, perhaps somebody should explain to the citizens of Navi Mumbai what exactly was purchased, what was delivered, what was paid, what remains under maintenance and — most importantly — how many cameras are actually working today.
So we dug. And the numbers make this story even more interesting. The reported contract with Tata Advanced Systems Ltd. was worth ₹127.63 crore, including five years of maintenance and data. The system comprised 1,524 cameras: 954 fixed cameras, 165 PTZ/panoramic cameras, 9 thermal cameras, 96 evidence cameras and 288 ANPR cameras. There was also an Integrated Command & Control Centre at NMMC headquarters, linked to the Navi Mumbai Police. The system was intended to assist with traffic management, law enforcement and investigations, with ANPR and red-light violation detection among its stated capabilities. Yet the project has had a remarkably long journey. The original completion target was November 2022; deadlines were subsequently extended, and by October 2023 NMMC was still warning about further delay. Then came the numbers that demand an explanation. A 2025 report citing civic information said that around 1,300 cameras had been installed but only 410 were functioning. A subsequent 2026 report put the numbers at 1,411 installed and 1,043 operational, leaving 368 non-operational, with fibre-optic damage caused by road excavation and power-related issues cited among the reasons. Fine. Roads get dug up. Fibre gets damaged. Electricity fails. Technology breaks. Nobody is arguing that infrastructure is immortal. But when a city invests ₹127.63 crore in a citywide surveillance system, maintenance, redundancy, repair and uptime cannot be treated as optional luxuries — they are central to the purpose of such a system. And now comes my favourite part. Where is the complete public-domain accounting? What was the original tender amount? What exactly was the final BOQ? How much went towards cameras? How much towards fibre? How much towards servers and storage? How much towards software and analytics? How much towards the Command & Control Centre? How much towards ANPR? How much towards five years of maintenance and data? How much has actually been paid? Were penalties imposed for delays? If yes, how much? If no, why not? And who certifies that a camera is “functional”? Because if one reported set of figures says 410 cameras were working and another later report says 1,043, then citizens deserve the camera-wise data, not another Power-Point presentation. We also need absolute clarity about the “Smart City” label. Tata has publicly described the project as an NMMC smart-city project, but that does not automatically mean the ₹127.63 crore came from the Union Government’s national Smart Cities Mission. If NMMC’s own money paid for it, then this is even simpler: Navi Mumbai’s citizens paid for it. Navi Mumbai’s citizens have the right to know what they got.
And this is where I have a message for the entire political class of Navi Mumbai. People keep telling us that Minister Ganesh Naik is the King of Navi Mumbai. MLA Manda Mhatre gets preference. DCM Eknath Shinde has the control, earlier Awhad. Somebody else is the Kingmaker. Somebody else is the next big thing. Enough of this royal nonsense. Navi Mumbai does not need kings, queens, emperors, photographs, garlands and credit-taking politicians. It needs people who get work done. Navi Mumbai Municipal Commissioner Kailas Shinde and Navi Mumbai Police Commissioner Milind Bharambe — you are the people currently heading the civic administration and police force. So the question is simple: are you satisfied with the present functioning of this surveillance network, and will you publish the actual camera-wise operational status? If a politician or party takes credit for making Navi Mumbai “smart”, then that politician and the administration should also have the courage to answer questions about the performance of the system. If an elected representative celebrates the city’s infrastructure, he or she should also demand the performance report. If the administration says the system is operational, publish the numbers. If Tata Advanced Systems has fulfilled every contractual obligation, let the company say so. If there have been delays, downtime or unresolved technical problems, tell the public. And if NMMC officers failed to monitor, enforce or maintain the contract properly, hold them accountable. I am not interested in scapegoating a contractor simply because its name is Tata. A contract is a contract. If the company has delivered exactly what it was supposed to deliver, pay it and say so. If it has not, enforce the contract. And if NMMC has failed to enforce its own contract, then the responsibility travels upwards. That is what accountability means. The real test comes when a man is killed on a Navi Mumbai road, when a family needs answers, when the police need footage and when every second matters. And if the cameras that citizens paid ₹127.63 crore for are staring blankly into darkness, then somebody needs to answer a very uncomfortable question: WHAT EXACTLY DID NAVI MUMBAI PAY ₹127.63 CRORE FOR?
OFF THE RECORD
Vikrant Meena Hemant Joshi.
