India’s First Household Income Survey – Explained

Income Survey

Income Survey Latest News

  • India is set to launch its first-ever Household Income Survey in 2026 to directly measure household incomes.

Background

  • India is preparing to launch its first-ever Household Income Survey (HIS) in 2026, an ambitious effort aimed at capturing a detailed picture of household incomes, expenditures, and socio-economic conditions across the country. 
  • For policymakers, the survey promises to fill a critical data gap that has long hindered accurate assessment of income distribution and inequality. 
  • However, the sensitive nature of income-related questions and challenges in ensuring data accuracy pose significant hurdles to its successful execution.

The Need for Reliable Income Data

  • Until now, India has relied on indirect methods or partial data to estimate household income. 
  • The Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) captures wages and salaries through a labour market lens, focusing mainly on employment patterns rather than total household income. 
  • The Household Consumption Expenditure Survey (HCES) infers income based on spending patterns, a proxy that often fails to reflect ground realities. 
  • Similarly, the RBI’s Consumer Confidence Survey only tracks perceived changes in income rather than actual figures.
  • The Household Income Survey 2026 represents a crucial step forward. For the first time, it will measure income directly, linking it to social, occupational, and demographic variables to present a holistic picture of India’s income structure.

Scope and Design of the Household Income Survey 2026

  • The survey will collect a comprehensive dataset covering:
    • Household characteristics: Social group, religion, occupation, and whether the household is engaged in agriculture or non-agricultural activities.
    • Assets and property details: Land ownership, dwelling type, property value, and loans taken.
    • Income components:
      • Regular salaried workers: Salaries, overtime pay, performance-based bonuses, stock options, leave encashments, and severance payments.
      • Casual workers: Number of days worked, daily wages, and tips earned.
      • Self-employed individuals: Crop sales (quantity and value), business sector, and gross receipts.
  • This detailed approach will allow for direct income measurement and enable cross-comparison with expenditure, debt, and asset data to assess class dynamics and income inequality more precisely.

Linking Income with Expenditure and Welfare Benefits

  • The survey also borrows elements from the HCES to ensure a balanced income-expenditure analysis. 
  • Respondents will report input costs for farming (such as seeds, labour, and transportation) and for non-farm enterprises (such as raw materials and rent). 
  • Collecting both income and expense data enables accurate profit margin estimations, a critical insight into household financial health.
  • In addition, the survey will record pensions, family transfers, and remittances, alongside funds received under State-specific welfare schemes like Tamil Nadu’s Kalaignar Magalir Urimai Thittam and various Union government initiatives. 
  • This data will help assess how welfare transfers contribute to total household income, particularly for marginalised and low-income groups.

Key Challenges Identified in Pilot Testing

  • A pilot survey conducted in August 2025 across randomly selected households revealed major challenges:
  • Reluctance to Disclose Income:
    • Around 95% of respondents considered income-related questions sensitive. Many refused to answer queries about income tax payments, fearing misuse of information or privacy breaches.
  • Recall Errors and Misreporting:
    • Respondents often overstated expenses or miscalculated their income, especially in urban and affluent households. Many could not recall details about interest earned on savings or fixed deposits.
  • Variation in Comfort Levels:
    • Rural respondents showed greater willingness to answer questions than urban respondents, particularly those in gated communities or higher-income brackets, who demanded clarifications and privacy assurances.
  • To address this, the government is considering introducing a self-compilation option for affluent households, wherein respondents can submit income details privately after receiving written communication explaining the survey’s objectives.

Institutional Efforts to Build Trust and Improve Accuracy

  • Recognising the sensitivity of income-related data, the survey authorities are planning:
    • Public awareness campaigns to explain the purpose and confidentiality safeguards of the survey.
    • Use of local language enumerators to enhance trust and accuracy during interviews.
    • Training programs for field staff to standardise data collection methods and minimise errors.
  • These efforts are essential to ensure participation and data reliability, given India’s diverse socio-economic and cultural landscape.

Significance for Policymaking and Economic Planning

  • The Household Income Survey 2026 will provide the first authentic, nationally representative income database for Indian households. Its findings will help:
    • Accurately map income inequality across regions, social groups, and occupations.
    • Assess the impact of welfare schemes and government transfers.
    • Enable data-driven policymaking in areas like taxation, employment generation, and poverty alleviation.
    • Verify progress on policy goals such as “Doubling Farmers’ Income” and inclusive economic growth.
  • Such comprehensive data will also improve the credibility of India’s economic statistics globally, strengthening the foundation for evidence-based policymaking.

Source: TH | IE

Income Survey FAQs

Q1: What is the Household Income Survey 2026?

Ans: It is India’s first national survey designed to directly measure household income, expenses, and related socio-economic factors.

Q2: Why is the survey significant?

Ans: It fills a long-standing data gap by providing reliable income statistics to support evidence-based policymaking.

Q3: What challenges were found during pilot testing?

Ans: Respondents were hesitant to disclose income details, leading to accuracy concerns and refusal to answer sensitive questions.

Q4: How will the survey ensure accurate data collection?

Ans: Through public awareness drives, local-language field staff, and optional self-compilation for affluent households.

Q5: What insights will the survey provide?

Ans: It will reveal income patterns, class dynamics, and the economic impact of government welfare schemes across India.

India’s New AI Governance Guidelines: Innovation with Guardrails

India AI Governance Guidelines

India AI Governance Guidelines Latest News

  • The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) released the India AI Governance Guidelines, advocating a light-touch, innovation-friendly approach to regulating artificial intelligence.
  • The document, a revised version of the January 2025 draft, was prepared by a committee led by Balaraman Ravindran, head of the Department of Data Science and AI at IIT Madras, while the earlier framework was overseen by Principal Scientific Adviser Ajay K. Sood.
  • These guidelines are independent of the recently released draft IT Rules amendment (2021), which seeks to mandate labelling of AI-generated content on social media.

Key Highlights of the India AI Governance Guidelines

  • The goal is to harness AI’s transformative power for inclusive development and global competitiveness while addressing risks to individuals and society.
  • The framework is structured into four parts: Key Principles, Key Recommendations, Action Plan, and Practical Guidelines.

Part 1 – Key Principles (Seven Sutras)

  • The seven guiding sutras shape India’s AI philosophy across all sectors:
    • Trust is the Foundation: Without public trust, innovation and adoption will stagnate.
    • People First: Human-centric design, oversight, and empowerment.
    • Innovation over Restraint: Prioritise responsible innovation rather than excessive caution.
    • Fairness & Equity: Ensure inclusivity and prevent discrimination.
    • Accountability: Clear allocation of responsibility and enforcement mechanisms.
    • Understandable by Design: Transparent, explainable AI systems for users and regulators.
    • Safety, Resilience & Sustainability: Build robust, secure, and environmentally responsible AI systems.

Part 2 – Key Recommendations (Six Pillars)

  • Infrastructure:
    • Expand access to data, compute, and digital public infrastructure (DPI).
    • Encourage investments and innovation through national platforms like AI Kosh.
  • Capacity Building:
    • Strengthen education, skilling, and awareness programmes for citizens and regulators.
    • Empower small businesses and government officials to responsibly use AI.
  • Policy & Regulation:
    • Adopt agile, flexible, and balanced frameworks.
    • Review existing laws, identify gaps, and introduce targeted amendments for AI-specific risks.
  • Risk Mitigation:
    • Develop India-specific risk assessment frameworks based on real-world harms.
    • Introduce voluntary, techno-legal, and context-specific safeguards for sensitive AI use.
  • Accountability:
    • Implement a graded liability system based on risk and function.
    • Increase transparency about actors in the AI value chain and their compliance.
  • Institutions:
    • Adopt a whole-of-government approach.
    • Establish an AI Governance Group (AIGG) and Technology & Policy Expert Committee (TPEC) for oversight.
    • Strengthen the AI Safety Institute (AISI) to provide technical expertise on trust and safety.

Part 3 – Action Plan (Short, Medium & Long-Term Goals)

  • Short-term
    • Key Priorities - Establish AIGG, TPEC, and risk frameworks; suggest legal changes; adopt voluntary commitments; expand infrastructure; launch awareness campaigns.
    • Expected Outcomes - Strong institutions, trust-building, readiness for AI risk management.
  • Medium-term
    • Key Priorities - Publish standards, operationalise AI incident systems, amend laws, pilot regulatory sandboxes, and integrate DPI with AI.
    • Expected Outcomes - Safe experimentation and improved accountability.
  • Long-term
    • Key Priorities - Continuous review, horizon scanning, and new laws for emerging risks.
    • Expected Outcomes - Sustainable, future-ready AI governance ecosystem.

Part 4 – Practical Guidelines

  • For Industry:
    • Comply with Indian laws and adopt voluntary standards and transparency reports.
    • Create grievance redressal mechanisms and apply techno-legal risk mitigation tools.
  • For Regulators:
    • Support innovation while mitigating real harms.
    • Prefer flexible, periodic, and non-burdensome frameworks over heavy compliance.
    • Use techno-legal approaches (e.g., bias detection, privacy preservation) to implement policies.

India AI Governance Guidelines: Key Analysis

  • Shift from Risk Control to Innovation Enablement
    • The new framework marks a departure from earlier drafts that focused heavily on risk mitigation.
    • It now prioritises “innovation with guardrails”, scaling back references to NITI Aayog and OECD principles that influenced the previous approach.
    • The emphasis is on creating an adaptive governance model that balances growth and safety in AI deployment.
  • No Immediate Plan for a Dedicated AI Law
    • While acknowledging that future legislation may be needed, the report suggests drafting new laws only when “emerging risks and capabilities” warrant it.
  • Linked to Global AI Initiatives
    • The launch aligns with preparations for the Delhi AI Impact Summit (February 2026) — part of a global series of AI governance events following those at Bletchley Park (UK), Seoul, and Paris.
    • The guidelines are designed to position India as a responsible yet innovation-driven global AI player.

Conclusion

  • India’s AI Governance Guidelines propose a balanced, agile, pro-innovation, and future-ready framework — enabling AI-driven growth, inclusion, and competitiveness, while safeguarding individuals and society through trust, transparency, and accountability.

Source: TH | PIB | LM

India AI Governance Guidelines FAQs

Q1: What are the India AI Governance Guidelines?

Ans: Released by MeitY in November 2025, they outline India’s vision for responsible AI — balancing innovation, inclusion, and accountability through a non-restrictive governance model.

Q2: Who drafted the AI Governance Guidelines?

Ans: The committee was chaired by Balaraman Ravindran from IIT Madras, following a revision of the earlier draft overseen by Principal Scientific Adviser Ajay K. Sood.

Q3: What are the seven guiding principles of India’s AI policy?

Ans: Trust, People-Centricity, Responsible Innovation, Equity, Accountability, Understandability, and Safety, Resilience & Sustainability form the core of India’s AI governance framework.

Q4: Will India introduce a separate AI law?

Ans: Not immediately. MeitY clarified that new AI legislation will be considered only when “emerging risks and capabilities” justify legal intervention.

Q5: How will India implement these AI guidelines?

Ans: Through short- and medium-term actions: establishing AI governance institutions, developing risk frameworks, amending laws, and integrating digital public infrastructure with AI systems.

India’s Road Accidents 2024: Fatalities Rise Despite State-Level Gains

Road Accidents

Road Accidents Latest News

  • According to a provisional Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) report, Uttar Pradesh recorded one of the deadliest road safety records in 2024, with one death in every two crashes — among the highest in India.
  • While India’s total road accidents and fatalities are expected to exceed 2023 levels, nine states, including Gujarat, Haryana, and Punjab, reported a decline in both accidents and deaths.
  • In contrast, Kerala recorded the lowest accident severity, with one death per 13 accidents, highlighting regional disparities in road safety outcomes.

India’s Road Safety Data Shows Rising Trend in Accidents and Fatalities

  • The Transport Research Wing (TRW) of the MoRTH recorded 4.73 lakh road accidents and 1.70 lakh deaths across 35 states and Union Territories in 2024, with West Bengal’s data still pending.
  • In 2023, India had 4.80 lakh accidents and 1.73 lakh fatalities. 
    • Since West Bengal alone reported 13,795 accidents and 6,027 deaths that year, inclusion of its 2024 data will likely push national totals beyond 2023 levels.
    • This continues the upward trend in crashes and fatalities seen since the pandemic lull of 2020–21.

About the Road Safety Data

States Showing Improvement in Road Safety

  • Despite India’s rising national road accident figures, nine states and Union Territories recorded a decline in both accidents and fatalities between 2023 and 2024.
  • This indicates encouraging progress in road safety enforcement and awareness.

Larger States with Declining Numbers

  • Gujarat: Accidents fell from 16,349 (2023) to 15,588 (2024); fatalities dropped slightly from 7,854 to 7,717.
  • Haryana: Accidents declined from 10,463 to 9,806, while fatalities reduced from 4,968 to 4,689.
  • Punjab: Reported 6,063 accidents and 4,759 deaths in 2024, down from 6,269 accidents and 4,829 deaths the previous year.
    • These consistent reductions reflect stronger traffic enforcement and safety initiatives in these states.

Smaller States and UTs Making Gains

  • Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Manipur, Nagaland, and the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir also reported improvements in both key metrics.
  • Notably, Nagaland achieved a dramatic fall in road crashes — from 303 in 2023 to 129 in 2024 — demonstrating the potential impact of localized safety interventions.

Key Takeaway

  • The trend suggests that focused state-level efforts—such as safer infrastructure, stricter enforcement, and public awareness—can yield tangible results in reducing both accidents and fatalities, even as the national totals continue to rise.

States with Mixed Road Safety Performance in 2024

  • Several states and Union Territories displayed mixed outcomes in 2024 — with reductions in accidents but rises in fatalities, or vice versa — highlighting uneven progress in road safety implementation.

States with Fewer Accidents but More Deaths

  • Andhra Pradesh: Accidents dropped slightly from 19,949 to 19,557, but fatalities rose from 8,137 to 8,346.
  • Karnataka: Accidents decreased from 43,440 to 43,062, yet fatalities edged up from 12,321 to 12,390.
  • Delhi: Recorded fewer crashes (5,834 to 5,657), but more deaths (1,457 to 1,551).
  • Ladakh (UT): Accidents fell from 289 to 264, while fatalities rose marginally from 59 to 61.
  • These cases suggest that severity of crashes, rather than frequency, remains a key concern.

States with More Accidents but Fewer Deaths

  • Kerala: Accidents rose from 48,091 to 48,789, but fatalities declined from 4,080 to 3,846.
  • Tripura: Accident numbers remained steady (577 to 578), yet deaths dropped from 261 to 226, reflecting improved emergency response and medical care.

States with Highest Overall Accident Counts

  • In 2024, Tamil Nadu continued to report the most road accidents for the seventh consecutive year, with 67,526 cases, followed by Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, and Karnataka.
  • The mixed trends reveal that reducing fatalities requires more than lowering accident frequency — it calls for safer road design, better vehicle standards, faster trauma response, and consistent enforcement across states.

India’s Road Safety Crisis: The Bigger Picture

  • Despite multiple government campaigns and road safety programs, India continues to witness a steady rise in accidents and fatalities. 
  • The data reveal that Indian roads are becoming increasingly unsafe, underscoring the need for stronger implementation and accountability.

India Tops Global Road Fatalities List

  • According to World Road Statistics (International Road Federation), India ranks first globally in the total number of road deaths, followed by China and the United States.
  • While Iran records the highest fatality rate per lakh population, India’s rate remains significantly higher than countries such as Pakistan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and China, even after adjusting for population size.

Root Causes: Poor Engineering and Planning

  • Union Minister Nitin Gadkari has attributed the rise in road accidents to poor civil engineering and substandard Detailed Project Reports (DPRs).
  • At the Global Road Infratech Summit & Expo (GRIS) in March, he said that engineering errors and design flaws in road construction projects are a major cause of preventable deaths.

Key Takeaway

  • The persistence of high accident rates despite reforms points to systemic flaws in road design, project execution, and enforcement.
  • Improving engineering quality, infrastructure audits, and accountability will be essential for making Indian roads truly safe in the coming decade.

Source: IE | ToI

Road Accidents FAQs

Q1: How many road accidents occurred in India in 2024?

Ans: According to MoRTH’s provisional data, India reported 4.73 lakh road accidents and 1.70 lakh deaths across 35 states and UTs in 2024.

Q2: Which states showed improvement in road safety?

Ans: Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Manipur, Nagaland, and Jammu & Kashmir recorded declines in both accidents and fatalities.

Q3: Which states showed mixed results?

Ans: Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Delhi, Tripura, and Ladakh saw either fewer accidents but more deaths or vice versa, reflecting uneven safety outcomes.

Q4: Which state had the highest number of accidents?

Ans: Tamil Nadu topped for the seventh consecutive year with 67,526 accidents, followed by Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, and Karnataka.

Q5: Why are road fatalities rising despite reforms?

Ans: Experts and Union Minister Nitin Gadkari blame poor civil engineering and flawed road project reports (DPRs), calling for stricter design audits and accountability.

Reforming India’s Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Policy Amid US Tariff Pressures

Special Economic Zone

Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Latest News

  • A government panel comprising officials from the Commerce and Industry Ministry, NITI Aayog, and exporters is formulating new Special Economic Zone (SEZ) norms to revive manufacturing and support exporters adversely affected by steep US tariffs. 
  • The move comes amid rising requests for de-notification of SEZ units and demands for a reverse job work policy to enable better domestic market integration.

SEZs in India

  • Meaning: SEZs in India are geographically delineated, duty-free enclaves that are treated as foreign territory for the purposes of trade operations, duties, and tariffs
  • Objectives: They are industrial areas designed to promote exports, attract domestic and foreign investment, generate employment, and develop robust infrastructure by offering a more stable and business-friendly regulatory environment with a variety of incentives. 
  • History:
    • 1965 - India’s first Export Processing Zone (EPZ) was set up in Kandla, Gujarat.
    • 2000 - India introduced SEZ policy to increase exports and attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).
    • 2005 - The SEZ Act was passed, formalising SEZ regulation in India.
    • 2006 - SEZ rules were notified, leading to rapid growth in SEZ approvals.
  • Administration: SEZs are managed through a three-tier structure - 
    • The Board of Approval (BoA) for approving SEZ establishments, 
    • The Unit Approval Committee (UAC) at the zone level for unit approvals, and 
    • The Development Commissioner (DC) who oversees daily operations. 
  • Operations
    • Operational flexibility is provided through aspects like allowing 100% FDI in most sectors via the automatic route and the requirement for units to be a "Net Foreign Exchange Earner" over a five-year period. 
    • India currently has nearly 276 operational SEZs across different states, focusing on a wide array of industries including IT, pharmaceuticals, and engineering.

SEZs and Their Challenges

  • Export performance: India’s SEZ exports in FY25 stood at $172 billion from nearly 276 units, with only 2% of production catering to the domestic market.
  • Comparative lag: Indian SEZs have underperformed compared to China’s SEZ model, which transformed its industrial base through large-scale manufacturing, logistics integration, and export-led growth.
  • Current crisis: Several SEZ units catering primarily to the US market face reduced competitiveness due to tariff hikes, leading to production losses and job risks.

Key Policy Demand - Reverse Job Work

  • What is reverse job work? A proposed policy allowing SEZ units to perform production or processing work for the domestic tariff area (DTA) instead of exclusively for exports.
  • Rationale behind the demand:
    • Optimal utilisation: SEZ units face seasonal export demand, resulting in underused labour and equipment capacity.
    • Efficiency boost: Integration with the domestic market could enhance productivity and resource utilisation.
    • Fair competition: The challenge lies in ensuring parity in duty exemptions between SEZ and domestic units so that domestic producers are not disadvantaged.

Sectoral Focus - Gems and Jewellery Industry

  • Dominant share: Nearly 65% of India’s studded jewellery exports originate from SEZ units.
  • Tariff impact: The US, being the largest destination, has severely affected this sector.
  • Industry demands:
    • Allow reverse job work and DTA sales.
    • Extend export obligation periods.
    • Grant interest moratorium on packing credit and working capital loans.
    • Keep factories and artisans engaged and safeguard employment.
  • Trade imbalance concern: Rising imports of raw materials and marginal growth in exports are leading to a negative trade balance within SEZs.

Structural Challenges in SEZs

  • Declining unit numbers: For example, before 2019 there were 500 gems and jewellery units, which reduced to around 360 units in 2021-22, reflecting policy uncertainty and reduced fiscal incentives.
  • Low R&D investment: Only 4 of 14 surveyed SEZ units invested in R&D, revealing minimal innovation focus.
  • Skill and technology gaps: Lack of modern training, inadequate funds, and poor quality of upskilling programmes.
  • Weak FDI: 
    • FDI inflows remain low due to -
      • Absence of investment protection agreements (unlike Vietnam).
      • Negative perception of Indian SEZs.
      • Weak brand promotion and marketing efforts.
    • FDI is crucial for technology transfer, brand building, and global networking.

Institutional and Policy Response

  • Instead of waiting for a comprehensive SEZ Bill, the government is considering faster administrative measures.
  • However, the Finance Ministry’s reservations on potential revenue loss have delayed immediate implementation.
  • The ICRIER has recommended a review of trade balance mechanisms after the removal of the Net Foreign Exchange (NFE) earnings criteria.

Way Forward

  • Adopt reverse job work policy: Allow limited DTA access under transparent norms ensuring fairness with domestic manufacturers.
  • Promote R&D and skill development: Establish dedicated innovation funds and training centres within SEZs.
  • Enhance FDI attractiveness: Introduce investment protection agreements and marketing initiatives to improve SEZ image.
  • Streamline SEZ governance: Simplify compliance and integrate SEZs within the logistics and industrial corridors.
  • Sectoral support measures: Particularly for gems and jewellery, offer credit relief, export extensions, and infrastructure upgrades.

Conclusion

  • India’s SEZ policy is at a crossroads. While global trade disruptions and US tariffs have exposed structural weaknesses, they also present an opportunity to restructure SEZs for long-term competitiveness. 
  • It is essential to revitalise SEZs as engines of export-led industrial growth, ensuring both resilience and job preservation in key manufacturing sectors.

Source: IE

Special Economic Zone (SEZ) FAQs

Q1: What is the objective behind the government’s ongoing reform of Special Economic Zone (SEZ) norms?

Ans: To boost manufacturing competitiveness, support exporters hit by US tariffs, and integrate SEZs more effectively with the domestic market.

Q2: What is the concept of ‘reverse job work’ policy proposed for SEZs?

Ans: It allows SEZ units to undertake production for the domestic market, helping optimise capacity utilisation and sustain employment during low export demand.

Q3: Why is the gems and jewellery sector particularly affected by the recent US tariff hike?

Ans: Because nearly 65% of India’s studded jewellery exports originate from SEZs that heavily depend on the US market.

Q4: What are the key structural challenges faced by Indian SEZs?

Ans: Low R&D investment, declining units, limited FDI, inadequate skill upgradation, and weak marketing and policy stability.

Q5: What measures are needed to revitalise India’s SEZs?

Ans: Implement reverse job work, incentivise R&D and FDI, streamline SEZ governance, etc.

Enquire Now