Collecting religion-wise administrative data can help evidence-based policy but can also cause social profiling. Discuss, citing the Sachar Commission and the HLCDC.

Religion is recorded in very few Indian administrative records. States can supply it only from birth registration and from records of apprehended or deported migrants [2]. Two bodies show why this data is contested. The Sachar Committee (2005) used it for welfare, while the High-Level Committee on Demographic Change (HLCDC, 2026) is using it for enforcement. The same kind of data can serve inclusion or profiling, and its purpose and safeguards decide which.

Religion-wise data as a tool for evidence-based policy

• Measuring deprivation: Sachar recorded how Muslims lagged in education, jobs and access to credit [3]. The government accepted most of its recommendations, which then shaped scholarships, credit access and minority-focused schemes [3].
• Targeting welfare: community-level data shows which groups a scheme is failing to reach.
• Security planning: the HLCDC is to study illegal immigration and "abnormal settlement patterns" in border districts [1]. Without credible numbers, the State cannot plan a fair mechanism to identify, detain and deport illegal migrants [1].
• Consistency: people who backed Sachar cannot treat all religion-wise data as illegitimate in principle.

Religion-wise data as a risk of social profiling

• Suspicion by community: the HLCDC has asked for voter registrations of people without "prior-generation birth certificates", sorted by religion [2]. This treats having no papers as a sign of non-citizenship, and it hits the poor and migrants hardest.
• New surveillance: mapping religious structures built over 15 years, and collecting reports on conversions among Scheduled Tribes, would require fresh data collection [2]. It would not simply share existing records.
• Consequences of error: under Sachar, a data error meant someone missed a benefit. In an enforcement pipeline, a data error can mean a citizen is detained. The MHA had to circulate a Model Detention Centre Manual (2019) to protect detainees' dignity [4].
• Constitutional concerns: religion-based targeting conflicts with Article 15 and with the informational privacy right recognised in Puttaswamy (2017).

Sachar and the HLCDC show that religion-wise data is neither good nor bad in itself; its use decides its legitimacy. The HLCDC should rely on aggregate Census data through its Census Commissioner member [1] and limit data use to its stated purpose under the DPDP Act, 2023. It should also refer any new surveys to formal Centre–State consultation. That keeps evidence-based policy consistent with the Constitution's promise of equality and fraternity.