Investigation | BharatNet Phase-3 in Gujarat: Administrative Failure or Institutional Inertia?

Digital India’s rural connectivity promise faces questions over implementation in Gujarat

By Abhishek Pandey | Gandhinagar

The central promise of Digital India is to bridge the digital divide between rural and urban India, make public services more accessible and transparent through technology, and extend the benefits of education, healthcare and financial services to people in remote areas. To translate this vision into reality, the Union government launched BharatNet, an ambitious telecommunications infrastructure programme aimed at providing broadband connectivity across rural India. It is widely regarded as one of the world’s largest rural broadband initiatives.

Yet the success of a national infrastructure programme cannot be measured by policy announcements, budgetary allocations or ambitious targets alone. It must ultimately be judged by the pace, quality and effectiveness of its implementation. The progress of BharatNet Phase-3 in Gujarat raises serious questions on precisely these fronts.

Under a quadripartite agreement signed in January 2025, Gujarat was allocated approximately ₹5,631 crore in central assistance under the Amended BharatNet Programme (ABP), Phase-3. The project envisages connecting all 14,737 gram panchayats in the state, along with additional rural locations on a demand basis, through a modern IP-MPLS ring network capable of supporting speeds of up to 10 Gbps.

The ambition extends well beyond providing internet access to villages. The proposed infrastructure is intended to serve as a digital backbone for rural economic activity, education, healthcare and the delivery of government services.

Despite the substantial financial commitment and a formal institutional arrangement, however, the implementation process has been marked by delays, cancellation of the original tender and repeated revisions to the subsequent procurement process.

Why did the tendering process take so long despite the approval of thousands of crores in central assistance? Why was the original tender issued in 2025 subsequently cancelled? What necessitated repeated revisions to the redesigned tender? More importantly, does Gujarat still have a realistic opportunity to complete the project within its stipulated timeline?

In this investigative series, Gujarat Exclusive examines these questions through government documents, tender records, official correspondence and other available evidence. The objective is not to level allegations against any individual or institution on the basis of conjecture, but to establish where the implementation process encountered obstacles, why they emerged and who is accountable for addressing them.

1. The 2025 Agreement and the ₹5,631 Crore Allocation

In January 2025, a quadripartite agreement was signed at the Secretariat in Gandhinagar following a high-level meeting involving Digital Bharat Nidhi (DBN), the Gujarat government, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and Gujarat Fibre Grid Network Limited (GFGNL).

The meeting was attended by Union Telecom Secretary Dr Neeraj Mittal, Gujarat’s then Chief Secretary Pankaj Joshi, Digital Bharat Nidhi Administrator Neeraj Verma and Mona Khandhar, who was then Principal Secretary of the state’s Science and Technology Department, among other senior officials.

The agreement was presented as a significant step towards strengthening Gujarat’s digital infrastructure. Its key provisions included:

Financial assistance: Central funding of approximately ₹5,631 crore towards the project’s capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operations and maintenance (O&M) over the subsequent 10 years.

State-led implementation: Execution under the amended BharatNet framework, with the state government playing an active role in the implementation process.

Modern network architecture: Connectivity for all 14,737 gram panchayats and additional rural locations on a demand basis through a 10 Gbps-capable IP-MPLS ring network.

Service reliability: A targeted network uptime of 98 per cent to ensure reliable broadband services in rural areas.

The funding structure is particularly significant. The primary financial responsibility for this phase of BharatNet rests with Digital Bharat Nidhi. The state’s principal challenge, therefore, was not to independently mobilise thousands of crores, but to ensure effective execution within the approved financial, technical and administrative framework.

Against this backdrop, the prolonged tendering process raises questions about administrative preparedness, inter-agency coordination and accountability. When financial support and institutional arrangements are already in place, delays in moving towards implementation demand closer scrutiny.

2. The Deadline Is Approaching, but the Tender Process Continues to Face Delays

For a large infrastructure programme, execution capacity and timelines are as important as financial commitments. It is also important to distinguish between the national completion target and the implementation schedule applicable to Gujarat.

At the national level, 2028 has been set as the broader target for the programme’s expansion and completion. Gujarat, however, faces a 2027 implementation deadline. Delays in the state’s tendering process therefore raise concerns about its ability to meet the stipulated schedule.

Available tender records, official correspondence and other project-related documents indicate that GFGNL, the state agency responsible for implementation, initiated the Phase-3 tendering process in 2025. That process was subsequently cancelled.

A fresh and more comprehensive Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued in 2026 under tender reference number GFGNL/GFG/e-file/263/2026/0070.

However, the revised procurement process also encountered delays. According to available records, the initial deadline for bid submission was July 2, 2026. This deadline was subsequently extended through a series of revisions. By the end of October 2026, further extensions to the tender timeline had also come into question.

The issue is not simply that the dates were revised. The more fundamental concern is why repeated changes became necessary.

Was the original RFP prepared without adequate technical and administrative groundwork? Did subsequent changes to the tender conditions affect prospective bidders’ participation or delay the procurement process? Were the revisions driven by genuine technical requirements, or did they expose shortcomings in the initial planning? Has responsibility for these delays been examined at any level?

When a substantial part of a project’s implementation window is consumed by drafting, cancelling and reissuing tenders, the feasibility of meeting the original completion deadline inevitably comes under scrutiny.

3. Rural Empowerment: The Promise and the Reality of Administrative Delays

The significance of BharatNet Phase-3 extends far beyond telecommunications infrastructure. At its core, the programme is intended to improve access to public services, knowledge and economic opportunities in rural India.

The proposed network has the potential to transform several aspects of rural life.

E-governance and public services: The programme envisages delivering more than 320 government services to rural citizens through gram panchayats and digital kiosks. Effective implementation could reduce dependence on physical government offices and make essential services more accessible.

Education and healthcare: High-speed broadband connectivity for rural schools, primary healthcare centres and anganwadis could facilitate digital learning, online consultations and the expansion of telemedicine services.

Digital economy and employment: Reliable connectivity could create opportunities for rural youth, small businesses and local entrepreneurs through e-commerce, digital payments, online services and other forms of digital enterprise.

However, these benefits depend on more than the completion of a network on paper. They require timely deployment, quality infrastructure, reliable connectivity and sustained maintenance.

Administrative delays at the implementation stage risk postponing the benefits for the very communities the programme is designed to serve.

BharatNet Phase-3, therefore, cannot be treated merely as a departmental or technical undertaking. Its implementation has direct implications for rural citizens, access to public services and Gujarat’s broader development objectives.

A delay in building digital infrastructure is not simply a delay in laying cables or installing network equipment. It can also mean delayed access to education, healthcare, government services and economic opportunities for thousands of rural communities.

4. The Question Is Not Funding, but Accountability

The present status of BharatNet Phase-3 in Gujarat raises fundamental questions. Central financial assistance has been approved, the project’s objectives have been defined and an institutional framework for implementation has been established. Yet the tendering process has undergone repeated changes and delays.

The central question is why.

Was the original tender issued in 2025 subjected to an adequate technical and administrative assessment before it was cancelled? Were all relevant agencies consulted and their concerns addressed before the revised RFP was prepared? Were subsequent changes driven by genuine technical requirements, or did they expose deficiencies in planning and decision-making?

These are not merely procedural questions. They concern the management of a major public infrastructure programme involving thousands of crores in central funding.

The documentary trail examined in this first episode points towards a critical challenge: translating an approved national programme into timely and effective execution at the state level.

The responsibility now lies with the departments and agencies concerned to explain the delays, disclose the reasons behind key decisions and demonstrate how the remaining implementation targets will be achieved.

Three Questions That Demand Answers

1. Inter-agency coordination: Why did coordination among the implementing agencies fail to translate into timely execution, despite the approval of ₹5,631 crore in central assistance and the signing of a quadripartite agreement in January 2025?

2. Cancellation of the original tender: What were the actual reasons for cancelling the tender initiated in 2025 and issuing a revised RFP in 2026? Did the decision result in additional costs in terms of time, administrative resources and public expenditure?

3. The 2027 deadline: Do the Gujarat government and GFGNL have a clear, practical and publicly verifiable roadmap to complete the project within the stipulated timeline?

In the Next Episode

The next instalment of this investigation will examine the original tender issued in 2025, in which nine major national companies participated.

Under what circumstances was the tender cancelled? Was the decision preceded by a comprehensive review of its technical and administrative aspects? Were the concerns of participating companies adequately considered? What were the factors behind the cancellation, and how has it affected the overall implementation of BharatNet Phase-3 in Gujarat?

The answers could provide crucial insight into the administrative and institutional decisions that shaped the project’s subsequent course.

The investigation continues…

ગુજરાતીમાં વાંચો: એપિસોડ-1: ભવ્ય વિઝન સામે જમીની હકીકત