When the Union government returned the Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) for metro rail in Coimbatore and Madurai earlier this month, it triggered not just disappointment but a political storm.
The official letter from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) pointed to technical and policy violations. The ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and its allies cried foul, calling it a bipartisan assault on Tamil Nadu’s development. And voices from the Opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) dismissed the rejection as self-inflicted, insisting the State submitted a flawed DPR and must correct it, not blame New Delhi.
Between the official objections and political heat lies a deeper question: in a rapidly urbanising state like Tamil Nadu, should metro rail depend solely on rigid nationwide norms? Or should it also be based on the evolving ground realities of different regions?
Between the State's Proposal and DPR's Promises
The DPRs submitted by the State, prepared under the supervision of Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL), laid out ambitious blueprints. For Coimbatore, the plan envisaged roughly 34 km of metro lines across key industrial and residential zones.
For Madurai, the design included nearly 32–35 km of alignment, multiple stations, and corridor mapping that aimed to pre-empt future growth in transportation demand. In official briefings, state planners emphasised that these projects were necessary to sustain growing traffic, reduce congestion, and support long-term economic and urban development in two of Tamil Nadu’s fastest-growing cities.
DPR documents, as described by officials familiar with the plan, included ridership projections, modal-shift estimates, and traffic decongestion models. Planners argued that a metro would provide a sustainable backbone for urban mobility, reduce vehicular pollution, and make the cities more attractive for industries and real estate, thus aligning transport infrastructure with urban growth.
Yet, the same DPRs contained optimistic assumptions. Ridership projections assumed a significant shift from private vehicles and buses; corridor layouts were often dependent on ideal land acquisition and unobstructed road alignments; the construction plan envisaged completion within three years. Officially, the submissions claimed these factors made the projects viable within the funding and equity-sharing framework proposed by the State and Centre.
Centre’s Response
On 14 November 2025, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) sent a curt letter rejecting the proposals as they stood. The core of the Centre’s objections revealed what lay beneath the optimism of the DPRs.
First, the Ministry expressed skepticism over the daily ridership figures. For Coimbatore, the DPR had projected roughly 5.9 lakh passengers per day, a number that exceeds by a considerable margin even what the larger 55 km metro network of a major city in the region managed recently.
Given that Coimbatore’s average trip lengths are relatively short (often under 6–8 km) and road travel speed is already comparable to what the metro promised, the Centre argued that “modal shift”, the critical shift of commuters from buses/vehicles to metro, was unlikely. As a result, the time-saving advantage would be minimal, undermining the case for a large-scale metro.
Second, the letter highlighted serious engineering and spatial constraints. Many of the roads along proposed corridors are just 7–12 metres wide and nowhere near the 20–22 metres typically required to accommodate elevated corridors and 22-metre-wide station structures. According to MoHUA, elevating metro tracks and stations on such narrow roads would require massive demolitions and land acquisition, making the project both socially fraught and financially unviable.
Third, the economic appraisal and project timeline were called into question. The DPR’s projected three-year build-out period and financial calculations reportedly diverged from the national norms set under the Metro Rail Policy, 2017. The Ministry found the assumptions overly optimistic, especially given the ground realities of Indian mid-sized cities.
Finally, and as a key normative benchmark, the Ministry pointed to population criteria. Under the 2017 policy, metro projects are generally considered for urban agglomerations with at least two million people. As per the 2011 Census, the official reference for such infrastructure decisions, both Coimbatore and Madurai fall short of this mark. This, the Centre said, was a disqualifying factor in its assessment.
On these combined grounds including ridership, spatial constraints, economic viability and demographic thresholds, the Centre returned the DPRs for revision.
Inside Metro Circles: Delhi Norms, Tamil Realities
Speaking on condition of anonymity to The Quint, metro officials reveal a more complex picture than the official letter suggests. They say the State was under political pressure to show readiness and submit. DPRs quickly, especially after prior delays spanning more than a decade.
The result: certain required documents like detailed alternative-transport analyses, granular travel demand studies or updated population data were either based on projections or not sufficiently anchored in recent, on-the-ground surveys.
One metro insider admitted that the corridor plans assumed ideal conditions including wide roads, minimal property conflicts, smooth land acquisition.
“In reality, many stretches already have buildings, narrow lanes, high density. To build elevated metro there without disruption would require huge demolition and it is socially, economically, politically difficult.”Metro Official
Another added that while metro remains the long-term goal, interim solutions like enhanced bus networks or BRTS (Bus Rapid Transit Systems) had also been proposed internally but were sidelined in favour of a full-blown metro project, perhaps because metros conferred more political prestige.
In short, metro planners concede the DPRs had structural weaknesses, and while the Centre’s technical objections are not baseless, but a more realistic DPR, based on updated data and a phased implementation plan, could overcome the objections.
DMK’s All-Out Rebuttal
The State’s political response led by multiple senior DMK leaders and local representatives have been fierce and varied.
Chief Minister MK Stalin posted on X that the Centre’s decision was “a vendetta” against Tamil Nadu’s democratic choice. He claimed smaller Tier-II cities in BJP-ruled states had received metro approval, while key Tamil cities were denied, calling it a violation of federal principles.
“Self-respecting, rich Tamil Nadu will never accept the destruction of federalism,” he declared, promising to persevere and secure metro rail for Coimbatore and Madurai.
Senior party leader TR Baalu echoed this sentiment, calling the return of the DPR “step-motherly treatment” by the Centre. Another DMK minister, Palanivel Thiaga Rajan, argued that using 2011 Census figures was unfair when both cities have grown substantially. The minister said relying on such outdated data showed a disregard for current urban reality.
Local DMK MLAs and civic leaders also weighed in. In Coimbatore, Singanallur constituency MLA N Karthik said the rejection would deprive thousands of daily commuters of a faster, safer alternative pointing out that traffic snarls, pollution and road-safety risks have worsened over the years. In Madurai, DMK MLA Thalapathy said the city needs long-term infrastructure and that a BRTS alone would not solve structural transport challenges.
Prominent DMK central leaders, including Udhayanidhi Stalin, Kanimozhi, A Raja and T Mano Thangaraj, weighed in with strong criticism. They accused the Centre of applying standards selectively, arguing that metros in cities such as Agra, Patna, Bhopal, many of them with populations similar to or lower than Coimbatore/Madurai, had received approval. Their message: the rejection was not a technical judgement but a deliberate decision to sideline Tamil Nadu.
Even DMK ministers in the state government highlighted recent proposals for better urban transport, suggesting that the rejection should not be seen as the end but as a demand for better, more realistic DPRs.
In public meetings across both cities, DMK cadres and supporters rallied. Protests and demonstrations were organised, emphasising what they see as “biased treatment” toward Tamil Nadu and raising questions on the fairness of central infrastructure allocation.
BJP’s Riposte: Faulty DPR, Not Political Bias
BJP leaders in Tamil Nadu rejected the notion of bias, placing the blame squarely on the state’s handling of the DPR. K Annamalai, a senior figure, insisted the rejection was the result of a “deliberately flawed” report, not political animus. “The State must correct its technical mistakes and resubmit,” he told reporters, asserting that the framework for approval remains open, so long as norms are met.
Coimbatore South, BJP MLA Vanathi Srinivasan went a step further, linking the metro’s revival to a BJP-led government at the State level. She said that once the NDA takes power in Tamil Nadu, the metro project would move forward. She offered the party’s assistance in helping rectify the DPR, provided there is “serious intent to meet policy requirements.”
The wider BJP argument emphasises policy fidelity: metro projects must be financially and technically viable, and cannot be granted merely on political or populist grounds.
The Larger Questions: Policy, Planning and Politics
The episode raises urgent questions about how metro projects are sanctioned in India. The 2017 Metro Rail Policy offers clear guidelines, such as the minimum population thresholds, ridership estimates, right-of-way clearance, financial viability. But is a rigid application of the rules enough for cities in flux?
Critics argue that many Indian cities, especially in the south and west, have seen fast population growth since the 2011 Census, rapid suburban expansion, and evolving mobility patterns. When DPRs rely on dated data yet aim to capture projected demand, they straddle the line between present constraints and future aspirations. The Delhi-Singapore model of centralised standards may not always reflect on-the-ground dynamics in cities like Coimbatore or Madurai.
At the same time, political trust seems eroded. For the DMK, the metro promise was part of a larger narrative of state development, industrial growth, and urban modernity. Its rejection feeds perceptions of discrimination and fuels resentment toward the Centre. For the BJP, the rejection reinforces a commitment to structural rigour and prudent infrastructure financing, even if it means delaying high-profile projects.
The timing, just months ahead of a Tamil Nadu Assembly election, further complicates matters. For voters in Coimbatore and Madurai, the stakes are high: public transport, pollution, connectivity, job growth. For politicians and party operatives, the contest over who blocked infrastructure and who will deliver it may shape the narrative of 2026.
What Happens Next - A Path to Reconciliation?
Despite the tensions, there remains a path to resolution, if both sides move beyond blame and politics. Metro officials suggest that with updated population and travel-demand studies, realistic ridership modelling, flexible corridor design (with options for BRTS or “metro-light” where full-fledged metro isn’t viable), and phased implementation, the DPRs can be revised and resubmitted.
If such a revised DPR emerges, with concrete data and realistic assumptions, the Centre’s objections may be addressed. But that requires political will from the State to commission fresh studies, and from the Centre to respond in a cooperative spirit.
Otherwise, the verdict may remain unchanged, converting the metro denial from a technical decision into a symbol of mistrust, not just between two cities and the central government, but between Tamil Nadu and the idea of fair federal cooperation.
(Vinodh Arulappan is an independent journalist with over 15 years of experience covering Tamil Nadu politics, socio-culture issues, courts, and crime in newspapers, television, and digital platforms.)