Editorial

India’s decision to revise its GDP base year to 2022–23 has led to a striking statistical outcome: the FY26 real GDP growth projection now stands at 7.6 per cent. The upward revision, attributed largely to stronger-than-expected performance in manufacturing and agriculture, has injected fresh optimism into official narratives. But the central question remains — does this revision reflect deeper structural strength, or is it largely a statistical correction?

Rebasing GDP is not unusual. Economies periodically shift base years to better capture changing consumption patterns, sectoral weights, and price structures. A 2022–23 base year arguably provides a more contemporary reflection of India’s post-pandemic recovery and evolving industrial ecosystem. The manufacturing surge, particularly in electronics, defence production, and capital goods, signals the impact of production-linked incentive schemes and infrastructure expansion. Simultaneously, agriculture has benefited from improved procurement, better crop diversification, and supportive monsoon conditions.

Yet, a higher growth number on paper does not automatically translate into broader prosperity. Manufacturing growth must be employment-intensive to meaningfully reduce joblessness. Agriculture, despite output gains, still grapples with fragmented landholdings, price volatility, and farmer indebtedness. Without structural reforms in labour markets, rural income stability, and MSME competitiveness, headline growth risks remaining unevenly distributed.

There is also the matter of credibility. Statistical revisions often invite scrutiny, particularly when they coincide with politically sensitive periods. Transparency in methodology, independent validation, and clear communication are essential to ensure confidence in official data. Growth projections must be seen as credible not merely because they are optimistic, but because they are robust.

Moreover, global conditions remain uncertain. Sluggish global demand, geopolitical tensions, and volatile commodity prices can temper export-led expansion. Domestic demand must therefore become the primary engine of sustained growth. Rising private consumption, urban investment, and rural purchasing power will determine whether 7.6 per cent becomes a sustained trajectory or a one-year spike.

India’s growth story has undeniable momentum. Infrastructure build-out, digital expansion, and demographic advantage provide strong fundamentals. However, growth by revision should not obscure growth by reform. The true measure of economic success lies not only in recalibrated statistics but in tangible improvements in employment, income distribution, and social welfare.

The revised GDP outlook offers an opportunity — but it must be accompanied by accountability, inclusivity, and sustained policy focus. Only then can optimism rooted in numbers transform into confidence rooted in lived reality.

In a significant legal development, a court has discharged Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia in the long-running excise policy case, bringing unexpected relief to the Aam Aadmi Party leadership. The decision marks a dramatic turn in a controversy that has dominated political discourse in Delhi and beyond for months. Reports of emotional scenes inside the courtroom underline how deeply the case has affected not only the individuals involved but also the broader political climate.

The excise policy case, investigated primarily by the Central Bureau of Investigation, was projected as a major anti-corruption crackdown. Allegations of irregularities and undue benefits in the framing and implementation of the liquor policy led to high-profile arrests and prolonged legal battles. The discharge order now raises important questions about the strength of the prosecution’s case and the evidentiary standards applied during investigation.

For the CBI, the development invites scrutiny. When central investigative agencies pursue cases involving prominent opposition leaders, public perception becomes as significant as legal merit. A discharge at this stage inevitably fuels criticism that the case may have been politically overstated. It also reinforces long-standing concerns about the autonomy and impartiality of investigative institutions in highly charged political environments.

However, it is equally important to remember that a discharge does not equate to a sweeping judicial endorsement of policy decisions. Courts assess whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed with trial; they do not necessarily pronounce on broader political accountability. The excise policy itself had already been withdrawn amid controversy, and the debate over transparency and governance standards remains relevant.

Politically, the ruling offers a morale boost to the AAP leadership and could reshape narratives ahead of future electoral contests. For supporters, it vindicates claims of political targeting. For critics, it may signal weaknesses in investigative strategy rather than innocence beyond doubt.

Ultimately, the episode underscores a deeper institutional challenge. Investigative agencies must function with unimpeachable professionalism, insulated from political pressures. At the same time, governments must ensure that policymaking processes are transparent and well-documented to withstand scrutiny.

In a democracy, accountability operates through both legal and political mechanisms. The court’s decision is a reminder that allegations must meet rigorous standards of proof — and that institutions, above all, must retain public trust.

• SAS Kirmani