An electric-car showroom is a beautifully controlled environment. The vehicle is charged, the application is connected, the route demonstration is short and somebody has calculated your fuel savings on a laminated sheet. The conversation becomes less composed when I ask a buyer where the car will charge on a rainy night during an intercity journey. Sales staff point to an application containing many pins. A pin, I have learned, is not the same thing as a dependable charger.
India’s public-charging network is expanding, and dismissing that progress would be unfair. A March 2026 government response on FAME-II charging infrastructure said 6,645 public stations were operational against 9,332 sanctioned. The Centre has also issued guidelines intended to improve interoperability and deployment. Those are meaningful steps. But “operational” is an administrative category. A driver experiences uptime, connector compatibility, queue length, lighting, payment and help when something fails.
The unit that matters is a successful charging session
Infrastructure reporting should move beyond installed stations. Publish charger-level uptime, successful session rates, average repair time and utilisation. Distinguish slow chargers from highway-capable fast units. Count connectors, not merely locations. A parking facility with two low-power points is not equivalent to a highway hub containing several reliable fast chargers, yet both can become one dot on a map.
NITI Aayog’s e-AMRIT charging locator is useful because visibility reduces uncertainty. The next stage should integrate live status across networks through open standards. Drivers should be able to see whether a connector is occupied, out of service or power-limited without installing five applications. Roaming and simple payment are not luxuries. Nobody expects a petrol driver to create a new account at every oil company.
Private operators sometimes resist open access because applications create customer relationships and data. Regulators should insist that essential charging information be publicly available and that common payment methods work. Competition should occur on location, price, speed and service—not on how effectively a network traps users inside an account. QR payment with clear tariffs should be a minimum standard, backed by a helpline answered by someone capable of remotely resetting a unit.
Home charging determines who can comfortably buy
Most private electric-car owners prefer charging at home. This is the technology’s great convenience: the vehicle replenishes while parked. It is also the source of a class and housing divide. A family with a dedicated parking bay and cooperative residential association can install a charger. A tenant using street parking cannot. Apartment societies may object over wiring, metering, safety or ownership of the bay. Showroom savings calculations rarely include this institutional negotiation.
Building codes and distribution companies need clear, enforceable processes for residential charging. Societies should not be able to ban safe installations arbitrarily, but owners must follow load and fire standards. Shared chargers can serve apartment complexes if billing is transparent. New buildings should be wired for a significant share of spaces before occupancy; retrofitting conduit later is expensive and disruptive. EV readiness is electrical planning, not merely reserving a green-painted parking spot.
Public charging cannot compensate entirely for lack of home access because repeated fast charging is less convenient and can be more expensive. Urban policy therefore needs neighbourhood slow charging at workplaces, markets and overnight parking areas. Cars sit idle most of the day. We should use that time instead of forcing every user into a petrol-station model of rapid refuelling. The ideal network combines abundant slow points with strategic fast corridors.
Two- and three-wheelers require a different approach. They dominate India’s road electrification opportunity, yet car chargers attract disproportionate attention. Swapping, removable batteries and depot charging can work for specific fleets, while standard plug charging suits others. Policy should avoid declaring one universal architecture. Delivery riders and auto drivers need uptime, affordable finance and predictable daily range more urgently than premium-car owners need lounge coffee.
Highways expose every weak link
Intercity travel creates range anxiety not because modern EVs always lack range but because charger reliability remains uncertain. A nominal 400-kilometre claim does not account for high speed, air-conditioning, elevation, load and battery buffers. Drivers plan conservatively, then arrive at a charger hoping it works. One failed unit can convert a meal stop into a multi-hour problem. Redundancy is therefore crucial: highway sites should have multiple chargers and backup arrangements, not a solitary machine beside a closed restaurant.
Location quality includes toilets, food, lighting and security. Women should not be expected to wait forty minutes in an isolated, dark forecourt. Operators and highway authorities must audit basic amenities and emergency access. Charging time can become a pleasant break if sites are designed for people. Otherwise, the infrastructure silently assumes a male driver willing to improvise at any hour.
Grid connection delays and demand charges can undermine station economics. A fast-charging site may experience low early utilisation while paying substantial fixed costs. Targeted support is defensible during network formation, but subsidies should reward reliability and useful placement rather than hardware installation alone. Release part of the incentive only after sustained uptime. Taxpayers should purchase service, not stranded equipment.
Renewable energy claims also need honesty. An EV charged from the grid still generally reduces local pollution and can improve lifecycle emissions, but the benefit depends on vehicle size, use and electricity mix. Giant electric SUVs carrying one person are not environmental absolution. Efficiency standards and public transport remain essential. Electrification changes propulsion; it does not solve congestion, road danger or excessive urban land devoted to cars.
The transition needs trust
Battery warranties have improved, and manufacturers increasingly offer longer coverage on some models. Yet consumers still worry about degradation, resale value and accident repair. Standard battery-health certificates would help used-EV markets. Insurers and workshops need training to diagnose packs rather than replacing them unnecessarily. Fire incidents, though statistically contextualised, demand transparent investigation because secrecy magnifies fear.
Dealers should provide buyers with realistic charging education. Explain AC and DC speeds, connector types, charging curves and the difference between advertised peak power and average session time. Test the home site before delivery. Identify functioning chargers on regular routes. A customer who understands the system becomes an advocate; one stranded after receiving a breezy showroom promise becomes a cautionary tale.
I am optimistic about Indian EVs precisely because the remaining problems are visible and solvable. Battery costs will evolve, local models are expanding and urban driving suits electric powertrains beautifully. The government has moved from early subsidies toward broader infrastructure and industrial policy. Now it must become obsessive about execution. Publish reliability data, enable roaming, enforce safety and align incentives with successful sessions.
The public should stop treating every criticism of charging infrastructure as hostility to EVs. Honest friction reports are how a network improves. I want drivers to choose electric without needing the temperament of a beta tester. That will happen when charging becomes boring: arrive, plug in, pay and leave. Until then, each optimistic map pin should carry an asterisk. The transition will be won not by the number of chargers announced, but by the number nobody has to think about.
