7.8% or 2.6%? What is behind India's GDP data controversy
What's the story
The Indian government has clarified the revisions to its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) estimates, following a claim by former Finance and Economic Affairs Secretary Subhash Chandra Garg. Garg had questioned the official Q1 FY27 growth figures of 7.8%, asserting that without last year's downward revision, the growth at current prices would have only been 2.6%. The government has now issued a clarification on this matter.
Official response
MoSPI clarifies on GDP revisions
In its clarification, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) said that the nominal GDP for Q1 FY26 was originally pegged at ₹86.05 lakh crore under the 2011-12 base-year series.
Following the shift to a 2022-23 base year in February 2026, that estimate was revised down to ₹80.32 lakh crore.
According to Garg, a ₹6 lakh crore downward revision to the previous year's estimate created a lower base, making the current year's 10.3% nominal GDP growth look artificially stronger.
Clarification details
Ministry addresses concerns over production-expenditure-side GDP estimates discrepancy
The MoSPI further explained that base-year revisions involve a complete re-estimation of the historical series with new data sources, coverage, and methodologies.
It emphasized that the earlier ₹86.05 lakh crore estimate and the latest Q1 FY27 figures cannot be directly compared, as they stem from different GDP base-year series.
The ministry said this discrepancy is a statistical balancing item as GDP is independently estimated through different approaches.
Discrepancy explanation
MoSPI cautions against drawing conclusions from current discrepancy
The MoSPI clarified that the current discrepancy cannot be used to conclude whether GDP has been understated or overstated.
It also cautioned against using this discrepancy to predict future revisions.
The ministry emphasized that the direction and magnitude of future revisions will depend on changes in underlying production and expenditure estimates, not a mechanical adjustment of the discrepancy.