Comparing all 28 Indian states on key governance and development indicators using official data from NFHS-5, ASER, NCRB, CMIE, CAG and Ministry reports.
Education performance is measured using a composite of school enrollment rates, learning outcome assessments from ASER surveys, teacher vacancy rates from UDISE+ data, and infrastructure quality indicators including functional toilets and drinking water availability in government schools. States are categorised as High, Medium or Low performing based on their composite score relative to the national median.
| State | Literacy Rate | Gross Enrolment (Sec.) | ASER Learning Level | Teacher Vacancy % | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kerala | 94% | 91% | High | 3% | ⲠStrong |
| Himachal Pradesh | 83% | 89% | High | 5% | ⲠStrong |
| Tamil Nadu | 80% | 88% | Medium-High | 7% | ⲠStrong |
| Maharashtra | 82% | 79% | Medium | 12% | â Medium |
| Karnataka | 75% | 76% | Medium | 14% | â Medium |
| Gujarat | 78% | 74% | Medium | 11% | â Medium |
| Rajasthan | 66% | 65% | Low-Medium | 22% | âŧ Needs Work |
| Uttar Pradesh | 67% | 60% | Low | 28% | âŧ Needs Work |
| Bihar | 61% | 54% | Low | 34% | âŧ Critical |
| Jharkhand | 66% | 56% | Low | 30% | âŧ Critical |
Source: Census 2011 (literacy), UDISE+ 2022-23, ASER 2023. Full 28-state data updated as new surveys are released.
Healthcare rankings use a composite of indicators from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5, 2019-21), National Health Mission reports and World Bank India data. Key indicators include infant mortality rate, maternal mortality ratio, institutional delivery percentage, full immunisation coverage and public health expenditure as a share of state budget. Healthcare performance has a direct and measurable impact on life expectancy, productivity and poverty outcomes in every state.
| State | Infant Mortality (per 1000) | Institutional Deliveries | Full Immunisation | Doctors per 1000 | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kerala | 6 | 99.8% | 89% | 2.1 | ⲠStrong |
| Goa | 8 | 98% | 85% | 1.8 | ⲠStrong |
| Tamil Nadu | 14 | 99% | 80% | 1.2 | ⲠStrong |
| Maharashtra | 19 | 94% | 76% | 1.0 | â Medium |
| Punjab | 22 | 88% | 71% | 0.9 | â Medium |
| Rajasthan | 35 | 84% | 58% | 0.6 | âŧ Needs Work |
| Madhya Pradesh | 43 | 81% | 53% | 0.5 | âŧ Needs Work |
| Uttar Pradesh | 38 | 83% | 56% | 0.5 | âŧ Critical |
| Bihar | 41 | 75% | 51% | 0.4 | âŧ Critical |
Source: NFHS-5 (2019-21), NHM reports 2023, Sample Registration System 2020.
Water access data is drawn from the Jal Jeevan Mission real-time dashboard, NFHS-5 household survey data on piped water access and sanitation facility usage, and Central Pollution Control Board water quality assessments. A critical distinction exists between states that have installed water connections and states where those connections provide consistent, safe water â CJP tracks both, as the implementation gap is significant in several high-priority states.
| State | Piped Water Access | Safe Drinking Water | ODF Villages | Sanitation Coverage | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kerala | 92% | 88% | 100% | 97% | ⲠStrong |
| Sikkim | 96% | 90% | 100% | 99% | ⲠStrong |
| Himachal Pradesh | 88% | 84% | 100% | 95% | ⲠStrong |
| Gujarat | 79% | 72% | 96% | 88% | â Medium |
| Haryana | 74% | 68% | 95% | 85% | â Medium |
| Bihar | 41% | 33% | 82% | 64% | âŧ Critical |
| Jharkhand | 38% | 30% | 79% | 60% | âŧ Critical |
| Uttar Pradesh | 56% | 48% | 88% | 71% | âŧ Needs Work |
Employment data uses CMIE monthly unemployment surveys, Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) annual reports and Reserve Bank of India state finance studies. Economic performance is measured through per capita Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) growth, formal employment generation and poverty headcount ratios from the latest available national survey data.
| State | Unemployment Rate | Per Capita NSDP Growth | Formal Employment % | Poverty Rate | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gujarat | 3.2% | 8.4% | 34% | 12% | ⲠStrong |
| Karnataka | 3.8% | 9.1% | 32% | 15% | ⲠStrong |
| Tamil Nadu | 4.1% | 8.8% | 30% | 11% | ⲠStrong |
| Maharashtra | 5.4% | 7.2% | 29% | 16% | â Medium |
| Telangana | 5.1% | 8.0% | 26% | 17% | â Medium |
| Bihar | 14.8% | 3.1% | 9% | 51% | âŧ Critical |
| Jharkhand | 12.4% | 3.8% | 11% | 42% | âŧ Critical |
| Uttar Pradesh | 9.8% | 4.2% | 13% | 37% | âŧ Needs Work |
All rankings on this page use the most recently available official data for each indicator. Because different surveys are conducted on different schedules, some indicators may reflect different reference years. We note the source year for all data and update rankings when newer data is published.
Rankings reflect average state-level performance and may hide significant within-state variation. A state with a strong average score on healthcare may still have severely underserved districts. Citizens should use state rankings as a starting point and investigate district-level data for a complete picture of governance quality in their area.
If you identify an error in our data or believe a figure is outdated, please contact us with the correction and source. We review all data corrections and update accordingly.