Maharashtra’s research ecosystem is productive but uneven. The state ranked third in India for research publications and second for patent applications in 2024-25, yet the institutions driving that output remain concentrated in a few cities, leaving students and researchers elsewhere with weaker access to laboratories, mentorship and funding.
The figures come from the India Science and Technology Scoreboard recently released by NITI Aayog. Maharashtra recorded 28,947 research publications during the financial year, behind Tamil Nadu’s 44,611 and Uttar Pradesh’s 29,298. Karnataka followed with 27,970 publications, while Delhi recorded 24,417.
The patent data presents a stronger position for Maharashtra. The state recorded 8,567 patent applications, placing it second behind Tamil Nadu’s 16,048. Karnataka was close behind with 8,413 applications. Taken together, the two indicators show a state with a significant research base and a relatively strong capacity to translate scientific work into patent applications, but one that still trails the leading state by a considerable margin in publications.
That gap matters because publications and patents measure different parts of the research system. Publications indicate the scale of documented research activity, while patent applications point to efforts to protect potentially commercialisable inventions. Maharashtra’s higher relative position in patents suggests that its research strengths may be particularly connected to sectors where scientific work has an immediate commercial or industrial pathway.
According to the scoreboard, research activity in Maharashtra is concentrated largely in pharmaceuticals, medical technology and healthcare. Critical minerals and mining are also identified as important areas. These sectors require specialised laboratories, expensive equipment, trained personnel and links between universities, public research institutions and private companies. Their geographic concentration therefore has consequences beyond the location of individual campuses: it influences who can enter the research system, which institutions can participate and where innovation-related employment is created.
Kiran Kondabagil, director of the Agharkar Research Institute, identified this geographic concentration as a major concern. He said Pune and Mumbai, and to some extent Nagpur, have important research institutions, while students from other parts of Maharashtra do not have comparable access to well-equipped laboratories or experienced researchers. He also pointed to gaps in research infrastructure and the limited number of faculty members actively involved in research at many colleges.
This is the central tension in Maharashtra’s performance. The state has institutions capable of generating a high volume of research, but that capacity is not evenly distributed across its higher education network. A ranking based on total publications can show the scale of output without revealing how many districts, colleges or students are connected to the facilities producing it.
The funding figures in the scoreboard add another layer to the picture. Around 45% of research in Maharashtra receives private-sector funding, while the state government contributes 16%. The state’s share of funding for research conducted in government laboratories stands at 8.5%. Government funding accounts for around 19% of research undertaken in academic institutions.
These numbers indicate a research system supported by multiple funding channels, but with different levels of public participation depending on where the research is conducted. Private-sector support is the largest identified source overall, while the state government’s contribution is lower. The figures do not, on their own, establish whether private funding is concentrated in particular disciplines or institutions, but they do show that Maharashtra’s research capacity cannot be understood only through government laboratories or universities.
The funding pattern also raises an institutional question: how much of the state’s research activity can be sustained in colleges and public laboratories that do not already possess strong infrastructure or established industry relationships? The supplied scoreboard data does not answer that question. It does, however, show why the distribution of research finance matters alongside the headline ranking.
For district-level colleges, access to existing research capacity may be as important as the creation of new institutions. Kondabagil said students should receive opportunities to undertake internships at leading research institutions and that faculty members in smaller cities need mentoring. He also called for laboratories and research equipment at established institutions to be made accessible to students and researchers from other colleges.
Such measures would connect Maharashtra’s research network more effectively without necessarily requiring every institution to replicate the expensive facilities available at major centres. The source material does not provide details of a state programme implementing these proposals, nor does it identify a funding commitment for shared laboratories, internships or faculty mentoring. Their significance lies in identifying the infrastructure and access barriers that the rankings do not capture.
The issue is particularly relevant to Pune, one of the state’s established research centres. Pune’s presence in the research system gives students and institutions in the city access to a concentration of scientific organisations, laboratories and experienced researchers that is not available across the state. But the same concentration can deepen the gap between the city and institutions in smaller urban centres if there are no mechanisms for wider access.
The challenge is not limited to physical laboratories. Research careers depend on time, income, supervision and continuity. Students pursuing research in Maharashtra face the long duration of PhD programmes, stipends that may be lower than private-sector salaries, irregular fellowship payments and limited opportunities for permanent employment, according to the report. These conditions affect the ability of students to remain in research, particularly when they have access to faster or more financially predictable career options.
The emergence of artificial intelligence has added another source of uncertainty for students considering research careers. The source does not establish how AI is changing employment or research output in Maharashtra, but it records concern among students about the future of research as a profession. That concern sits alongside the state’s need to increase its number of researchers and publications.
Kondabagil said Maharashtra has a larger higher education student population than Tamil Nadu but lags behind it in the number of researchers and research publications. The comparison is important because it shifts the discussion from institutional prestige to conversion capacity: how effectively does the higher education system turn its student population into researchers, publications and inventions?
The answer cannot be found in the publication ranking alone. Maharashtra’s 28,947 publications place it third nationally, but Tamil Nadu produced 44,611, a difference of 15,664 publications. In patent applications, Maharashtra’s 8,567 were more than Karnataka’s 8,413 but well below Tamil Nadu’s 16,048. The state therefore has a substantial base, yet remains behind the leading performer on both measures.
The scoreboard also suggests that research policy has to operate at several levels. At the institutional level, laboratories, equipment and faculty capacity determine whether students can undertake serious research. At the state level, funding decisions influence which institutions can build those capabilities. At the regional level, the location of research centres determines who can realistically access them.
Maharashtra’s ranking is therefore both an achievement and a diagnostic. Its publication and patent figures confirm a sizeable research economy, while the funding and geographic data reveal how dependent that economy is on concentrated institutions and uneven access. The state’s next challenge is not simply to improve its position in national rankings, but to broaden the network of colleges, laboratories and researchers contributing to that performance.
The available evidence confirms Maharashtra’s strong but uneven position in India’s research landscape. It does not establish whether funding or infrastructure reforms are currently under consideration, or how the state plans to close the gap with Tamil Nadu. Those developments, along with the distribution of research opportunities beyond Pune, Mumbai and Nagpur, will determine whether Maharashtra’s research output becomes more geographically broad-based.
