Aditya Chavan
Background
India’s transport sector sits at the centre of its climate commitments and energy security goals. Road transport accounts for roughly 12 per cent of the country’s energy-related carbon dioxide emissions and an estimated 18 per cent of its nitrogen oxide emissions, even as the automotive sector contributes close to 7.1 per cent of national GDP and employs about 19 million people (NITI Aayog, 2026a). Because vehicle registration, road transport and electricity distribution are largely State subjects, the pace of the shift to electric vehicles (EVs) varies considerably across States and Union Territories, shaped by differences in industrial base, fiscal capacity and policy priorities.
To track this variation, NITI Aayog, working with the World Resources Institute (WRI) India, introduced the India Electric Mobility Index (IEMI) as a state-level benchmarking framework. Piloted in five States in 2023, the first full edition was released on 4 August 2025 alongside the report Unlocking a $200 Billion Opportunity: Electric Vehicles in India, and assessed 28 States and 8 Union Territories (Press Information Bureau, 2025; NITI Aayog, 2026a).
NITI Aayog released the second edition, the IEMI 2025, in New Delhi on 16 September 2026, widening coverage to all 36 States and Union Territories using data covering January to December 2025 (NITI Aayog, 2026a). As with the first edition, each jurisdiction is scored out of 100 and sorted into four performance bands — Top Performers (65 and above), Frontrunners (50–64), Emerging Performers (35–49) and Aspirants (below 35) — letting States compare themselves against peers facing similar structural conditions rather than the country as a whole.
Functioning & Methodology
The IEMI evaluates States and Union Territories across three thematic pillars, each weighted differently in the composite score: Transport Electrification Progress (50 per cent), which captures demand-side EV adoption; Charging Infrastructure Readiness (30 per cent), which tracks the availability of charging networks; and EV Research and Innovation Status (20 per cent), which assesses the supply-side ecosystem, including start-up activity and patent generation. These are broken down into 16 indicators, split between outcome indicators, which measure observed results, and enabler indicators, which capture the policies and conditions that support those results (NITI Aayog, 2026a).
The methodology draws on data from multiple central agencies and open government platforms, including the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, the Bureau of Energy Efficiency, the Central Electricity Authority, the Ministry of Heavy Industries and the Office of the Controller General of Patents. Ahead of the second edition, NITI Aayog sought feedback on the 2024 framework from eleven States and Union Territories; their responses led to several refinements for 2025, including updated data sources, pro-rata scoring of policies based on how long they were active during the year, and the introduction of peer categories to make comparisons fairer (NITI Aayog, 2026a).
Because States differ so widely in size, industrial structure and geography, the IEMI groups all 36 jurisdictions into three peer categories: 17 Large States, 12 Hilly and North-Eastern States, and 7 Union Territories and City States. This lets a smaller hill state be judged against comparable peers rather than a large industrial state with a fundamentally different starting point, while an overall all-India ranking still places every jurisdiction on a single 100-point scale (NITI Aayog, 2026a).
Key Findings
Delhi retained the top position in the IEMI 2025 with a score of 84, up from 77 in the previous edition, and was the only jurisdiction in the country to clear 80 points. It was followed by Maharashtra (78, up from 68), Karnataka (73), Chandigarh (71) and Goa (65); together, these five were the only Top Performers nationally. The median score across all States and Union Territories rose from 36 in 2024 to 40 in 2025, reflecting a broad-based improvement even as competition among the leading performers grew closer (NITI Aayog, 2026a).
Within the Large States category, only Maharashtra and Karnataka reached Top Performer status; eight States, including Tamil Nadu (61) and Madhya Pradesh (59), were Frontrunners, and the remaining seven, from Chhattisgarh (49) to Gujarat (38), were Emerging Performers. The Hilly and North-Eastern States category told a starker story: not one of its twelve members reached even Frontrunner status. Manipur led at 46, followed by Tripura (36) and Assam (35), all Emerging Performers, while the remaining nine were Aspirants. Among Union Territories and City States, Delhi, Chandigarh and Goa were Top Performers, Puducherry (41) was an Emerging Performer, and the three smallest, most remote territories — Lakshadweep, the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu — were Aspirants, with the gap between Delhi and the lowest-ranked territory exceeding 70 points (NITI Aayog, 2026a).
The theme-wise results point to a more differentiated picture than the overall scores suggest. On Transport Electrification Progress, only Delhi (77), Chandigarh (75) and Maharashtra (68) reached Top Performer status, while 14 of the 36 jurisdictions were Aspirants on this theme, making it the single largest opportunity for improving overall performance nationally. Charging Infrastructure Readiness showed comparatively stronger results, with Karnataka recording the highest score at 97, followed by Goa (92) and Maharashtra and Haryana (91 each); six jurisdictions in total reached Top Performer status on this theme, twice as many as on Transport Electrification Progress. On EV Research and Innovation Status, Delhi’s score of 94 was the highest recorded on any theme by any jurisdiction, followed by Chandigarh (90); nine States and Union Territories were Top Performers here, the most of any theme, but 17 were Aspirants, including four — Sikkim, Nagaland, Lakshadweep, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu — that scored zero (NITI Aayog, 2026a).
A particularly telling finding concerns how unevenly the three themes can move within a single jurisdiction. Haryana scored 91 on Charging Infrastructure Readiness, among the highest in the country, but only 19 on Transport Electrification Progress, the lowest recorded among Large States, indicating that its charging network has not yet translated into EV adoption. Chandigarh showed close to the reverse pattern: a Top Performer on Transport Electrification Progress (75) but only a Frontrunner on Charging Infrastructure Readiness (52). Findings like these show why the composite score, on its own, can obscure meaningfully different performance profiles (NITI Aayog, 2026a).
Comparing the 2025 rankings with 2024 also shows how much movement occurred beneath the stable top tier. Madhya Pradesh recorded the sharpest improvement, climbing sixteen places from twenty-third to seventh, alongside gains for Goa, Puducherry, Bihar, Jammu & Kashmir and Assam. Ladakh recorded the steepest fall, dropping twelve places from thirteenth to twenty-fifth; NITI Aayog attributes this primarily to a revised charging infrastructure assessment methodology introduced in this edition, rather than to a decline in Ladakh’s on-the-ground performance. Punjab, Mizoram, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh also slipped in the rankings despite the overall national improvement (NITI Aayog, 2026a).
These state-level patterns sit within a wider national trend. EV penetration, the share of electric vehicles in total vehicle registrations, rose from about 0.5 per cent in 2018 to 8.25 per cent in 2025–26, with more than 8.7 million EVs now on Indian roads and close to 2.5 million registered in 2025–26 alone, a rise of roughly 25 per cent over the previous year. By December 2025, 29 of the 36 States and Union Territories had notified an EV policy at some point, though only 26 had one currently active, six had policies that were in draft or had lapsed, and four had never notified one at all (NITI Aayog, 2026a).
The IEMI’s significance lies less in the ranking itself than in the four purposes NITI Aayog says it serves: recognising strong performers, identifying the factors that most influence the e-mobility transition, encouraging more ambitious action, and reinforcing evidence-based policymaking (NITI Aayog, 2026a). With most jurisdictions now having some form of EV policy, the more useful comparison going forward is not which States have adopted one, but which are converting it into measurable outcomes.
Speaking at the launch, NITI Aayog Member Rajiv Gauba described the transition to electric mobility as an economic, environmental and strategic imperative for India’s journey towards a developed economy by 2047, pointing to India’s dependence on imported crude oil for close to 89 per cent of its requirement and to projections that EVs could account for around 40 per cent of new car sales worldwide by 2040. He added that the wide variation in State approaches was not a complication but a strength, provided States learned from one another’s experience (Goel, 2026).
Emerging Issues
Despite its usefulness, the IEMI has limitations that shape how its results should be read. A composite score built from unevenly weighted themes can mask sub-theme weaknesses in either direction, as the contrasting cases of Haryana and Chandigarh show: a jurisdiction can score well on infrastructure while lagging on adoption, or the reverse, yet still post a similar overall number.
The 50 per cent weight on Transport Electrification Progress also means the ranking is driven mainly by current adoption rather than the innovation base. Yet EV Research and Innovation Status, weighted at only 20 per cent, is where performance is weakest: 17 of 36 jurisdictions were Aspirants here, four with a score of zero. A heavily adoption-weighted score may therefore understate how far most of the country remains from a functioning EV innovation ecosystem.
Having notified an EV policy also does not indicate effective implementation. Of the 36 States and Union Territories, 29 have notified a policy at some point, but only 26 currently have one active; the rest have let policies lapse or remain in draft. The report’s own emphasis on shifting from formulation to implementation suggests notification alone says little about execution on the ground.
Finally, comparing jurisdictions of very different size and structure on one scale, even with peer categories, has real limits. Not one of the twelve Hilly and North-Eastern States reached Frontrunner status in 2025, a gap NITI Aayog attributes to dispersed settlements, limited charging networks and a nascent innovation ecosystem — constraints a single score cannot fully capture. Year-on-year comparisons carry a further caveat: as Ladakh’s fall shows, rank changes can reflect methodology revisions as much as genuine shifts in performance.
Way Forward
The findings of the IEMI 2025 point towards a set of priorities that could make the Index more useful as a tool for sustained reform rather than an annual scorecard.
1. Close the infrastructure-to-adoption gap: States with strong charging infrastructure scores but weak adoption, such as Haryana, should examine demand-side barriers, including vehicle cost, awareness and availability of models, rather than continuing to expand charging capacity alone.
2. Strengthen the research and innovation base: With 17 of 36 jurisdictions rated Aspirants on EV Research and Innovation Status, including four scoring zero, States could prioritise support for EV start-ups and patent generation, especially where adoption and infrastructure already lead.
3. Shift focus from policy notification to implementation tracking: With 29 of 36 States and Union Territories having notified an EV policy but only 26 currently active, subsequent editions of the IEMI could place greater emphasis on execution indicators, such as disbursement of incentives and actual deployment timelines, rather than the existence of a policy document.
4. Encourage targeted peer learning within categories: The wide internal variation among Union Territories and City States, and the position of States such as Madhya Pradesh that improved sharply within a single year, suggest concrete lessons that peer jurisdictions could study and adapt rather than replicate wholesale.
4. Encourage targeted peer learning within categories: The wide variation among Union Territories and City States, and Madhya Pradesh’s sharp one-year improvement, offer concrete lessons peer jurisdictions could study and adapt.
5. Give the Hilly and North-Eastern States category targeted support: Since no jurisdiction in this category reached even Frontrunner status, support tailored to dispersed settlements and terrain constraints may work better than measures designed for large industrial States.
Taken together, these steps echo the Index’s own framing: the value of the IEMI lies not in which State tops the table, but in whether it pushes States to convert policy intent into measurable, on-the-ground progress.
References
Goel, V. (2026, September 17). Delhi tops NITI Aayog’s electric mobility index 2025, Maharashtra follows. Business Standard.https://www.business-standard.com/industry/auto/delhi-tops-niti-aayog-s-electric-mobility-index-2025-maharashtra-follows-126091700271_1.html
NITI Aayog. (2026a, September 16). India Electric Mobility Index (IEMI) 2025: Tracking electric mobility trends in Indian states [PDF report]. Government of India.https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2026-09/India-Electric-Mobility-Index-IEMI-2025.pdf
NITI Aayog. (2026b, September 16). India Electric Mobility Index (IEMI) 2025 [Web page]. Government of India.https://www.niti.gov.in/whats-new/india-electric-mobility-index-iemi-2025
Press Information Bureau. (2025, August 4). India launches a pioneering India Electric Mobility Index (IEMI) to track States/UTs progress in EV transition. Government of India.https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2152243
About the Contributor
Aditya Chavan is an Economics undergraduate student at Symbiosis School of Economics, Pune, with research interests spanning public policy, MSME development, financial inclusion, and economic governance. His work focuses on analysing government policies and institutional reforms aimed at fostering inclusive and sustainable economic development.
Acknowledgement
The author is grateful to IMPRI – Impact and Policy Research Institute for the opportunity to prepare this policy update, and acknowledges the guidance and feedback received during the review process, which helped strengthen the quality of this article.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of IMPRI or any affiliated institution.
Reviewers: Ayan Bordoloi, Pritha Chowdhury
