Claims, the global file

Every claim we have checked.

One file for every speaker: hand-checked dossier entries and fact checks drafted by the watch desk agents and approved by an editor. Only claims that have been checked are listed; every one opens onto the evidence behind its rating.

Last discovery run: 15 Oct 2026, 13:26 IST, via rss+tavily, 27 official series retrieved

How a claim is checked

Narrow the file

Each filter is its own address. Copy the URL and you copy the view.

2 filters applied. Clear all filters

All claims

3 in view

Misleading

3 claims

Part of it is true, but the way it was said gives a wrong picture.

MisleadingRahul Gandhi8 Aug 2026Prayagraj
Only 1 in 150 aspirants gets a government job.
A recycled ratio, presented as the national rule.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence
What they said
1 in 150 gets a government job
Prayagraj rally · 8 August 2026, 8 Aug 2026
What is actually true
The same 1-in-150 line was used in Dehradun with a different 9-crore / 6-lakh story. There is no single official 1-in-150 government-job series.
- The same “1 in 150” line was used in Dehradun with a 9-crore / 6-lakh story. There is still no single official government-job ratio of 1 in 150.
- SSC, UPSC and departmental notifications publish vacancies paper by paper. They do not publish one national 1-in-150 rule.
- Applicant-to-post ratios for a single paper can be very high. That paper’s ratio is not “the” government-job chance for the country.
Staff Selection Commission Press Information Bureau
A recycled ratio, presented as the national rule.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
MisleadingRahul Gandhi8 Aug 2026Prayagraj
Paper leaks have plagued government recruitment.
Specific failures are generalised to the whole system.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence
What they said
Paper leaks plague government recruitment
Prayagraj rally · 8 August 2026, 8 Aug 2026
What is actually true
Leaks have occurred in named papers. That is not the same as every government recruitment being plagued.
- Named papers have been leaked or cancelled. NTA and state bodies have said so for those papers.
- Most government recruitments in a year are not officially recorded as leaked. “Plagued” as a system label is not a published rate.
- PIB statements on individual failures are not a finding that government recruitment as a whole is plagued.
National Testing Agency Press Information Bureau
Specific failures are generalised to the whole system.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
MisleadingRahul Gandhi8 Aug 2026Prayagraj
AI is eliminating traditional corporate and back-office jobs.
A trend is stated as a completed wipeout.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence
What they said
AI is eliminating corporate and back-office jobs
Prayagraj rally · 8 August 2026, 8 Aug 2026
What is actually true
Firms are changing task mix. PLFS does not show corporate employment eliminated.
- PLFS still records regular wage and salary employment. Corporate and back-office work is not published as eliminated.
- Firms are changing task mix and using automation. That is a trend statement, not an official wipeout.
- There is no MOSPI series titled “traditional corporate and back-office jobs eliminated by AI”.
MOSPI, Periodic Labour Force Survey
A trend is stated as a completed wipeout.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked