New Delhi: Parliament has issued one of its starkest warnings yet on the credibility of the country’s official statistics, saying persistent divergences across datasets, inconsistent methodologies and weak institutional authority are undermining the reliability of numbers that anchor key policy decisions. In its 27th report reviewing the National Statistical Commission (NSC), the Standing Committee on Finance said India’s statistical system—long held up as a backbone of governance—now faces “serious challenges of consistency, quality and coordination,” with some of the most consequential indicators varying widely depending on the source.
The committee’s findings point to chronic mismatches across ministries and States, especially in employment, welfare and disability data. In one example, estimates of workers under MGNREGA registered in State administrative systems did not align with national survey findings. MoSPI told the panel that the Periodic Labour Force Survey “is not tailored to specifically net workers engaged in MGNREGA,” making direct comparisons unreliable even at the national level—an admission that two of India’s most heavily used datasets cannot be read together. Similar discrepancies appear in disability statistics, where population counts differ by double-digit margins depending on whether they come from household surveys, census-linked sources or ministry-level registrations. The report notes that the NSC regularly “deliberates on issues relating to data quality, inconsistencies and duplication,” but says the system still lacks the “standardisation, harmonisation and coherence” needed to reconcile datasets.
Welfare datasets show a similar pattern, with administrative beneficiary lists often exceeding survey-based estimates by large margins, prompting the panel to caution that recurring mismatches “raise questions on the reliability and usability of these figures for policymaking.” Industrial statistics also reveal strain. The committee observed that despite the NSC’s broad audit mandate, India’s Index of Industrial Production has undergone only one major audit since 2011, even though shifts in sectoral composition and enterprise listings over the past decade warrant more frequent scrutiny.
The credibility questions come at a time when international institutions are already raising red flags. The IMF recently urged India to “strengthen the independence of its statistical authorities” and improve transparency around revisions and methodologies, after analysts abroad pointed to inconsistencies between national accounts, corporate filings and high-frequency indicators.
The committee said these systemic gaps are compounded by operational weaknesses within the NSC itself. For several years, key member positions remained vacant—“one post… was vacant” or “two posts… were vacant for most of the year”—leading to fewer meetings and surrendered funds, including Rs 0.67 crore unspent in 2021–22 alone. While the government maintains that the NSC “has the requisite autonomy”, the panel argued that its advisory-only status limits its authority. When MPs asked why the long-pending NSC Bill, which would give the body statutory backing, has stalled, MoSPI responded that “there is no such proposal under consideration,” a stance the committee suggested hampers the NSC’s ability to enforce standards and conduct systematic audits across ministries.
MoSPI has introduced a series of reforms—the National Metadata Structure, Data Innovation Labs, the Statistical Quality Assessment Framework with 19 principles and 85 quality requirements, and digital platforms such as e-SIGMA to monitor surveys in real time—but the committee said these efforts have not eliminated fundamental inconsistencies. Even after survey modernisation, sampling frames across labour, enterprise and household datasets remain misaligned. Core datasets are still being reconciled with GST and administrative records ahead of the 2026 base-year revision for GDP, CPI and IIP, which the committee warned could face distortions unless the underlying population and enterprise frames are fully stabilised.
Survey timelines have improved sharply, with annual releases reduced to 90 days and quarterly PLFS findings arriving within 45 days, but the panel said faster dissemination “does not automatically translate into credibility” when the underlying numbers diverge. The NSC itself has conceded that the current approach remains supply-driven and that survey demand from ministries must be mapped more systematically to avoid misaligned or duplicative efforts.
The report also points to uneven State capacity as a major source of variation. Karnataka showcased an advanced analytics ecosystem—AI-driven modelling, GIS-based planning, integrated data lakes—that impressed the NSC. But most States lack comparable infrastructure, skilled personnel or IT systems, creating large differences in data quality and reporting standards that ultimately distort national aggregates.
The committee said India’s statistical system is now at a “critical juncture,” with credibility increasingly at stake unless the country strengthens oversight, enforces harmonised definitions, prioritises transparent auditing and enhances State-level capacity. The warning comes as India prepares major revisions to national accounts and industrial and price indices—changes that will shape the country’s macroeconomic narrative for years. For now, the panel’s report stands as Parliament’s clearest signal that the integrity of India’s data—once taken for granted—is fast becoming a national economic concern.