Delhi was the largest city in terms of number of inhabitants in India in 2023.The capital city was estimated to house nearly 33 million people, with Mumbai ranking second that year. India's population estimate was 1.4 billion, ahead of China that same year.

Byrnihat was the most polluted city in India in 2024, with an average PM2.5 concentration of nearly 130 micrograms per cubic meter of air (μg/m³). This high level of pollution made the small industrial town on the Assam Meghalaya border the most polluted cities worldwide in 2024. Poor air quality across India India was the fifth-most polluted country in the world in 2024, with an average PM2.5 concentration of 50.6 μg/m³. That same year, the country's capital New Delhi was also the most polluted capital city in the world. Vehicle exhaust and wood burning are some of the main sources of particulate air pollution in India, together with soil, road and construction dust . Impacts of air pollution in India The severe air pollution in India can have detrimental health impacts on the country's population. Fine particle pollutants penetrate deeply in the lungs, causing respiratory problems and can even result in premature death. More than two million deaths are attibuted to air pollution in India every year.

This horizontal bar chart displays urban population living in areas where elevation is below 5 meters (% of total population) by capital city using the aggregation average, weighted by population in India. The data is about countries per year.

As per the Global Liveability Index of 2024, five Indian cities figured on the list comprising 173 across the world. Indian megacities Delhi and Mumbai tied for 141st place with a score of **** out of 100. They were followed by Chennai (****), Ahmedabad (****), and Bengaluru (****). What are indicators for livability The list was topped by Vienna for yet another year. The index measures cities on five broad indicators such as stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure. As per the Economic Intelligence Unit’s suggestions, if a city’s livability score is between ** to ** then “livability is substantially constrained”. Less than ** means most aspects of living are severely restricted. Least Liveable cities on the index The least liveable cities were in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East and North Africa regions. Damascus and Tripoli ranked the lowest. Tel Aviv also witnessed significant drop due to war with Hamas.

As of 2024, Mumbai had a gross domestic product of *** billion U.S. dollars, the highest among other major cities in India. It was followed by Delhi with a GDP of around *** billion U.S. dollars. India’s megacities also boast the highest GDP among other cities in the country. What drives the GDP of India’s megacities? Mumbai is the financial capital of the country, and its GDP growth is primarily fueled by the financial services sector, port-based trade, and the Hindi film industry or Bollywood. Delhi in addition to being the political hub hosts a significant services sector. The satellite cities of Noida and Gurugram amplify the city's economic status. The southern cities of Bengaluru and Chennai have emerged as IT and manufacturing hubs respectively. Hyderabad is a significant player in the pharma and IT industries. Lastly, the western city of Ahmedabad, in addition to its strategic location and ports, is powered by the textile, chemicals, and machinery sectors. Does GDP equal to quality of life? Cities propelling economic growth and generating a major share of GDP is a global phenomenon, as in the case of Tokyo, Shanghai, New York, and others. However, the GDP, which measures the market value of all final goods and services produced in a region, does not always translate to a rise in quality of life. Five of India’s megacities featured in the Global Livability Index, with low ranks among global peers. The Index was based on indicators such as healthcare, political stability, environment and culture, infrastructure, and others.

The datasets contains date- and state-wise historically compiled data on air quality (by pollution level) in rural and urban areas of India from the year 2015 , as measured by Central Pollution Board (CPCB) through its daily (24 hourly measurements, taken at 4 PM everyday) Air Quality Index (AQI) reports.

The CPCB measures air quality by continuous online monitoring of various pollutants such as Particulate Matter10 (PM10), Particulate Matter2.5 (PM2.5), Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Oxide or Oxides of Nitrogen (NO2), Ozone (O3), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Ammonic (NH3) and Lead (Pb) and calculating their level of pollution in the ambient air. Based on the each pollutant load in the air and their associated health impacts, the CPCB calculates the overall Air Pollution in Air Quality Index (AQI) value and publishes the data. This AQI data is then used by CPCB to report the air quality status i.e good, satisfactory, moderate, poor, very poor and severe, etc. of a particular location and their related health impacts because of air pollution.

Background: Particulate matter (PM) is one among the crucial air pollutants and has the potential to cause a wide range of health effects. Indian cities ranked top places in the World Health Organization list of most polluted cities by PM. Objectives: Present study aims to assess the trends, short- and long-term health effects of PM in major Indian cities. Methods: PM-induced hospital admissions and mortality are quantified using AirQ+ software. Results: Annual PM concentration in most of the cities is higher than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards of India. Trend analysis showed peak PM concentration during post-monsoon and winter seasons. The respiratory and cardiovascular hospital admissions in the male (female) population are estimated to be 31,307 (28,009) and 5460 (4882) cases, respectively. PM2.5 has accounted for a total of 1,27,014 deaths in 2017. Conclusion: Cities with high PM concentration and exposed population are more susceptible to mortality and hospital admissions.

Chart and table of population level and growth rate for the Mumbai, India metro area from 1950 to 2025.

The metropolitan city of Mumbai had the highest number of internet users across India in 2019 with over 11.7 million users. This was followed by the capital city of Delhi with 11.2 million internet users. However, the national capital territory of Delhi had the highest internet penetration rate that year at 69 percent.

Descriptive analysis of under-5 children in total slum population of eight Indian cities, NFHS-4, 2015–16.

As of September 2024, Mumbai had the highest cost of living among other cities in the country, with an index value of ****. Gurgaon, a satellite city of Delhi and part of the National Capital Region (NCR) followed it with an index value of ****.  What is cost of living? The cost of living varies depending on geographical regions and factors that affect the cost of living in an area include housing, food, utilities, clothing, childcare, and fuel among others. The cost of living is calculated based on different measures such as the consumer price index (CPI), living cost indexes, and wage price index. CPI refers to the change in the value of consumer goods and services. The wage price index, on the other hand, measures the change in labor services prices due to market pressures. Lastly, the living cost indexes calculate the impact of changing costs on different households. The relationship between wages and costs determines affordability and shifts in the cost of living. Mumbai tops the list Mumbai usually tops the list of most expensive cities in India. As the financial and entertainment hub of the country, Mumbai offers wide opportunities and attracts talent from all over the country. It is the second-largest city in India and has one of the most expensive real estates in the world.

Chart and table of population level and growth rate for the Bangalore, India metro area from 1950 to 2025.

The population in New Delhi was approximately **** million, the most among the leading Indian cities in 2019. Mumbai and Kolkata rounded up the three most populated cities across the country that year.

Abstract

Polluted air is a major health hazard in developing countries. Improvements in pollution monitoring and statistical techniques during the last several decades have steadily enhanced the ability to measure the health effects of air pollution. Current methods can detect significant increases in the incidence of cardiopulmonary and respiratory diseases, coughing, bronchitis, and lung cancer, as well as premature deaths from these diseases resulting from elevated concentrations of ambient Particulate Matter (Holgate 1999).

Scarce public resources have limited the monitoring of atmospheric particulate matter (PM) concentrations in developing countries, despite their large potential health effects. As a result, policymakers in many developing countries remain uncertain about the exposure of their residents to PM air pollution. The Global Model of Ambient Particulates (GMAPS) is an attempt to bridge this information gap through an econometrically estimated model for predicting PM levels in world cities (Pandey et al. forthcoming).

The estimation model is based on the latest available monitored PM pollution data from the World Health Organization, supplemented by data from other reliable sources. The current model can be used to estimate PM levels in urban residential areas and non-residential pollution hotspots. The results of the model are used to project annual average ambient PM concentrations for residential and non-residential areas in 3,226 world cities with populations larger than 100,000, as well as national capitals.

The study finds wide, systematic variations in ambient PM concentrations, both across world cities and over time. PM concentrations have risen at a slower rate than total emissions. Overall emission levels have been rising, especially for poorer countries, at nearly 6 percent per year. PM concentrations have not increased by as much, due to improvements in technology and structural shifts in the world economy. Additionally, within-country variations in PM levels can diverge greatly (by a factor of 5 in some cases), because of the direct and indirect effects of geo-climatic factors.

The primary determinants of PM concentrations are the scale and composition of economic activity, population, the energy mix, the strength of local pollution regulation, and geographic and atmospheric conditions that affect pollutant dispersion in the atmosphere.

Geographic coverage

The database covers the following countries: Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola
Antigua and Barbuda Argentina
Armenia Australia
Austria Azerbaijan
Bahamas, The
Bahrain Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus Belgium Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cayman Islands
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep.
Congo, Rep. Costa Rica
Cote d'Ivoire
Croatia Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador Egypt, Arab Rep.
El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia
Faeroe Islands
Fiji
Finland France
Gabon
Gambia, The Georgia Germany Ghana
Greece
Grenada Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong, China
Hungary Iceland India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Rep.
Iraq
Ireland Israel
Italy
Jamaica Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea, Dem. Rep.
Korea, Rep. Kuwait
Kyrgyz Republic Lao PDR Latvia
Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macao, China
Macedonia, FYR
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Mexico
Moldova Mongolia
Morocco Mozambique
Myanmar Namibia Nepal
Netherlands Netherlands Antilles
New Caledonia
New Zealand Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico Qatar
Romania Russian Federation
Rwanda
Sao Tome and Principe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovak Republic Slovenia
Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay Uzbekistan
Vanuatu Venezuela, RB
Vietnam Virgin Islands (U.S.)
Yemen, Rep. Yugoslavia, FR (Serbia/Montenegro)
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Kind of data

Observation data/ratings [obs]

Mode of data collection

Other [oth]

The Bureau of the Census has released Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent data. The file includes the following population items: sex, age, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, household relationship, and household and family characteristics. Housing items include occupancy status and tenure (whether the unit is owner or renter occupied). SF1 does not include information on incomes, poverty status, overcrowded housing or age of housing. These topics will be covered in Summary File 3. Data are available for states, counties, county subdivisions, places, census tracts, block groups, and, where applicable, American Indian and Alaskan Native Areas and Hawaiian Home Lands. The SF1 data are available on the Bureau's web site and may be retrieved from American FactFinder as tables, lists, or maps. Users may also download a set of compressed ASCII files for each state via the Bureau's FTP server. There are over 8000 data items available for each geographic area. The full listing of these data items is available here as a downloadable compressed data base file named TABLES.ZIP. The uncompressed is in FoxPro data base file (dbf) format and may be imported to ACCESS, EXCEL, and other software formats. While all of this information is useful, the Office of Community Planning and Development has downloaded selected information for all states and areas and is making this information available on the CPD web pages. The tables and data items selected are those items used in the CDBG and HOME allocation formulas plus topics most pertinent to the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), the Consolidated Plan, and similar overall economic and community development plans. The information is contained in five compressed (zipped) dbf tables for each state. When uncompressed the tables are ready for use with FoxPro and they can be imported into ACCESS, EXCEL, and other spreadsheet, GIS and database software. The data are at the block group summary level. The first two characters of the file name are the state abbreviation. The next two letters are BG for block group. Each record is labeled with the code and name of the city and county in which it is located so that the data can be summarized to higher-level geography. The last part of the file name describes the contents . The GEO file contains standard Census Bureau geographic identifiers for each block group, such as the metropolitan area code and congressional district code. The only data included in this table is total population and total housing units. POP1 and POP2 contain selected population variables and selected housing items are in the HU file. The MA05 table data is only for use by State CDBG grantees for the reporting of the racial composition of beneficiaries of Area Benefit activities. The complete package for a state consists of the dictionary file named TABLES, and the five data files for the state. The logical record number (LOGRECNO) links the records across tables.

The data shows the date-wise details of the retail selling price of petrol and diesel in metro cities for Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) Note: 1. Daily price change is applicable in India since 16.6.2017 2. Daily Price change is applicable from 6.00 AM 3. Data for 2002 to 2017 is available only for Delhi

Abstract

The National Family Health Surveys (NFHS) programme, initiated in the early 1990s, has emerged as a nationally important source of data on population, health, and nutrition for India and its states. The 2005-06 National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), the third in the series of these national surveys, was preceded by NFHS-1 in 1992-93 and NFHS-2 in 1998-99. Like NFHS-1 and NFHS-2, NFHS-3 was designed to provide estimates of important indicators on family welfare, maternal and child health, and nutrition. In addition, NFHS-3 provides information on several new and emerging issues, including family life education, safe injections, perinatal mortality, adolescent reproductive health, high-risk sexual behaviour, tuberculosis, and malaria. Further, unlike the earlier surveys in which only ever-married women age 15-49 were eligible for individual interviews, NFHS-3 interviewed all women age 15-49 and all men age 15-54. Information on nutritional status, including the prevalence of anaemia, is provided in NFHS3 for women age 15-49, men age 15-54, and young children.

A special feature of NFHS-3 is the inclusion of testing of the adult population for HIV. NFHS-3 is the first nationwide community-based survey in India to provide an estimate of HIV prevalence in the general population. Specifically, NFHS-3 provides estimates of HIV prevalence among women age 15-49 and men age 15-54 for all of India, and separately for Uttar Pradesh and for Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Manipur, and Tamil Nadu, five out of the six states classified by the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) as high HIV prevalence states. No estimate of HIV prevalence is being provided for Nagaland, the sixth high HIV prevalence state, due to strong local opposition to the collection of blood samples.

NFHS-3 covered all 29 states in India, which comprise more than 99 percent of India's population. NFHS-3 is designed to provide estimates of key indicators for India as a whole and, with the exception of HIV prevalence, for all 29 states by urban-rural residence. Additionally, NFHS-3 provides estimates for the slum and non-slum populations of eight cities, namely Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Indore, Kolkata, Meerut, Mumbai, and Nagpur. NFHS-3 was conducted under the stewardship of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW), Government of India, and is the result of the collaborative efforts of a large number of organizations. The International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), Mumbai, was designated by MOHFW as the nodal agency for the project. Funding for NFHS-3 was provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), DFID, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, UNICEF, UNFPA, and MOHFW. Macro International, USA, provided technical assistance at all stages of the NFHS-3 project. NACO and the National AIDS Research Institute (NARI) provided technical assistance for the HIV component of NFHS-3. Eighteen Research Organizations, including six Population Research Centres, shouldered the responsibility of conducting the survey in the different states of India and producing electronic data files.

The survey used a uniform sample design, questionnaires (translated into 18 Indian languages), field procedures, and procedures for biomarker measurements throughout the country to facilitate comparability across the states and to ensure the highest possible data quality. The contents of the questionnaires were decided through an extensive collaborative process in early 2005. Based on provisional data, two national-level fact sheets and 29 state fact sheets that provide estimates of more than 50 key indicators of population, health, family welfare, and nutrition have already been released. The basic objective of releasing fact sheets within a very short period after the completion of data collection was to provide immediate feedback to planners and programme managers on key process indicators.

Geographic coverage

• National (29 states )
• Regional (for HIV Prevalence : Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Manipur, and Tamil Nadu)
• Local (population and health indicators for slum and non-slum populations for eight cities, namely Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Indore, Kolkata, Meerut, Mumbai, and Nagpur)

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49
• Men age 15-59

Universe

The population covered by the 2005 DHS is defined as the universe of all ever-married women age 15-49, NFHS-3 included never married women age 15-49 and both ever-married and never married men age 15-54 as eligible respondents.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

SAMPLE SIZE

Since a large number of the key indicators to be estimated from NFHS-3 refer to ever-married women in the reproductive ages of 15-49, the target sample size for each state in NFHS-3 was estimated in terms of the number of ever-married women in the reproductive ages to be interviewed.

The initial target sample size was 4,000 completed interviews with ever-married women in states with a 2001 population of more than 30 million, 3,000 completed interviews with ever-married women in states with a 2001 population between 5 and 30 million, and 1,500 completed interviews with ever-married women in states with a population of less than 5 million. In addition, because of sample-size adjustments required to meet the need for HIV prevalence estimates for the high HIV prevalence states and Uttar Pradesh and for slum and non-slum estimates in eight selected cities, the sample size in some states was higher than that fixed by the above criteria. The target sample was increased for Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Manipur, Nagaland, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh to permit the calculation of reliable HIV prevalence estimates for each of these states. The sample size in Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, and West Bengal was increased to allow separate estimates for slum and non-slum populations in the cities of Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Indore, Kolkata, Mumbai, Meerut, and Nagpur.

The target sample size for HIV tests was estimated on the basis of the assumed HIV prevalence rate, the design effect of the sample, and the acceptable level of precision. With an assumed level of HIV prevalence of 1.25 percent and a 15 percent relative standard error, the estimated sample size was 6,400 HIV tests each for men and women in each of the high HIV prevalence states. At the national level, the assumed level of HIV prevalence of less than 1 percent (0.92 percent) and less than a 5 percent relative standard error yielded a target of 125,000 HIV tests at the national level.

Blood was collected for HIV testing from all consenting ever-married and never married women age 15-49 and men age 15-54 in all sample households in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Manipur, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh. All women age 15-49 and men age 15-54 in the sample households were eligible for interviewing in all of these states plus Nagaland. In the remaining 22 states, all ever-married and never married women age 15-49 in sample households were eligible to be interviewed. In those 22 states, men age 15-54 were eligible to be interviewed in only a subsample of households. HIV tests for women and men were carried out in only a subsample of the households that were selected for men's interviews in those 22 states. The reason for this sample design is that the required number of HIV tests is determined by the need to calculate HIV prevalence at the national level and for some states, whereas the number of individual interviews is determined by the need to provide state level estimates for attitudinal and behavioural indicators in every state. For statistical reasons, it is not possible to estimate HIV prevalence in every state from NFHS-3 as the number of tests required for estimating HIV prevalence reliably in low HIV prevalence states would have been very large.

SAMPLE DESIGN

The urban and rural samples within each state were drawn separately and, to the extent possible, unless oversampling was required to permit separate estimates for urban slum and non-slum areas, the sample within each state was allocated proportionally to the size of the state's urban and rural populations. A uniform sample design was adopted in all states. In each state, the rural sample was selected in two stages, with the selection of Primary Sampling Units (PSUs), which are villages, with probability proportional to population size (PPS) at the first stage, followed by the random selection of households within each PSU in the second stage. In urban areas, a three-stage procedure was followed. In the first stage, wards were selected with PPS sampling. In the next stage, one census enumeration block (CEB) was randomly selected from each sample ward. In the final stage, households were randomly selected within each selected CEB.

SAMPLE SELECTION IN RURAL AREAS

In rural areas, the 2001 Census list of villages served as the sampling frame. The list was stratified by a number of variables. The first level of stratification was geographic, with districts being subdivided into contiguous regions. Within each of these regions, villages were further stratified using selected variables from the following list: village size, percentage of males working in the nonagricultural sector, percentage of the population belonging to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, and female literacy. In addition to these variables, an external estimate of HIV prevalence, i.e., 'High', 'Medium' or 'Low', as estimated for all the districts in high HIV prevalence states, was used for stratification in high HIV prevalence states. Female literacy was used for implicit stratification (i.e., villages were

As of September 2024, Pune was the leading Indian city in local purchasing power among other Indian cities, with an index score of over ***. It was followed by Gurgaon and Hyderabad. The local purchasing power index depicts the relative purchasing power of goods and services in a city for the average net salary in that city.

Monthly PM2.5 concentrations in Indian cities followed similar patterns between 2020 and 2024, with the highest concentrations typically recorded in the winter months. In Delhi, the highest average PM2.5 concentration during the period in consideration was recorded in November 2024, at over *** micrograms per cubic meter of air (μg/m³). Delhi had the second-highest average PM2.5 concentration among Indian cities in 2024.

In 2022, ****** was home to the highest number of millionaires, followed by India’s capital New Delhi, and the IT capital - Bengaluru. This comes as no surprise since all three cities have the largest share of high net worth households along with a booming economic outlook. Overall, India had around *** billionaires as of March 2023, and ranked third globally in terms of its ultra-net-worth individuals. A growing wealth gap Despite this, India also has a very high wealth inequality with millions of people living below the poverty line. In fact, according to the last census, the state of Maharashtra (with Mumbai as its capital city) had the highest number of slums across the country with over *** million households. Furthermore, according to a 2015 study on the geography of the super-rich, Bangalore was ranked first in terms of the inequality between its rich and poor, with the wealth of the city’s billionaires being ******* times that of the average per capita GDP in the city. Mumbai came second in this listing, while Delhi was ranked fifth. It's a rich man's world As of 2018, the richest ** percent of Indians owned **** percent of the country’s wealth. The Indian economy was also seen to be one of the fastest growing economies across the world. This indicates the level of unequal distribution of wealth in the country. This is a matter of grave concern and has several implications in terms of the country’s development and progress.