An open theme: you pick the idea, it just has to be about managing and generating renewable or sustainable energy more efficiently.
AICTE · AICTE, MIC-Student Innovation · Hardware · open theme
Signing in saves it for your whole team — everyone on your invite link sees the same two entries. Anything you shortlisted while signed out comes with you.
The government names the area and nothing else, so there is no requirement list to satisfy and no deliverable to match. That freedom is the point, and it is also the risk: with nothing specified, your idea is judged entirely on its own merits.
Generated from the brief's own wording and the competition's published rules — never from a guess about what this ministry prefers.
This brief is published with too little detail to decode — no unanswered specifics, no stated evaluator focus. So these are the questions asked of every team rather than questions about this problem statement, and a brief this vague is a panel with room to ask anything.
Has any part of this been shown at a previous event, hackathon or college project?
The guidelines are explicit: your solution must not have appeared in any previous event or programme, of any sort. A recycled project is what a team under time pressure reaches for.
Where does your data come from — a published source, one you collect, or one you generate?
No dataset is attached to this problem statement, so sourcing it is part of the work and nobody told you that.
Why not use what already exists? Name the closest thing to this that is already running.
A team that has not named the alternative themselves is answering this for the first time in the room.
Which single thing will you demonstrate end to end, start to finish, with nothing skipped?
Each one is quoted from a gap in the brief, not a guess about your team.
Needs physical hardware
Listed as a hardware problem statement, so a working demo needs physical components you have to source yourself.
What the organisers attached, and what the brief assumes you can get.
Same organisation, same year. Reading two of theirs tells you more about what they care about than reading one.
Pick what you are about to do and copy the prompt. It carries the organisers' own wording, the constraints they never spell out, and an instruction not to invent requirements they never set.
Who has this problem, what already exists, and what you would have to find out.
The official description is only 113 characters, so we have held back the evaluator read and the risk flags rather than guess at them.
Ours, not a rule: a narrow thing that fully works survives questioning better than a broad thing that half works. If nobody on the team can name it, that is the finding.