Skip to content
Tathya ShastraTATHYASHASTRASTUDYOFFACTSTSTathya Shastra

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.

Verdict
EverythingNot trueMisleadingMissing contextTrueUnverified
Who said it
All speakersRahul Gandhi155Akhilesh Yadav54Arvind Kejriwal17Dhruv Rathee22Cockroach Janta Party12Abhijeet Dipke23Saurav Das9Indian National Congress18Aam Aadmi Party12Samajwadi Party20
Topic
All topicsEducation15repolls in Bihar Assembly election 2025, PIB6lithium ore inferred resource, GSI, J&K5terror camps targeted in Operation Sindoor, MEA5students in central university hostels, Lok Sabha answer, 27 July 20264attached from main accused in UP paper-leak case, ED, June 20243Employment3Ministry of Education budget 2026-27, Press Information Bureau3net reduction in Bihar electoral roll after SIR, ECI PIB, 30 Sep 20253Air travel2
Place
All placesUttarakhand13Uttar Pradesh12Maharashtra11Rajasthan4

2 filters applied. Clear all filters

All claims

1 in view

No proof

1 claim

A serious accusation with nothing behind it: no court, no inquiry and no official figure supports it, and the speaker gave none.

  • No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026

    “Targeting the government over ethanol blending in petrol, the SP chief alleged that the benefits of the process were not adequately reaching farmers. He claimed that the government was making profits from ethanol blending while farmers continued to face financial difficulties.”

    ₹1,04,000 crore

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the benefits of ethanol blending in petrol were not adequately reaching farmers and that the government was making profits from ethanol blending while farmers faced financial difficulties.

    latestly.com, checked 30 Sept 2026

    What is actually true

    ₹1,04,000 crore

    paid to farmers under ethanol blending, Rajya Sabha answer, March 2025

    sansad.in

    In a Rajya Sabha answer on 24 March 2025, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas said the Ethanol Blended Petrol programme had resulted in expeditious payment to farmers of more than ₹1,04,000 crore up to January 2025. A PIB factsheet says the programme has delivered ₹1.60+ lakh crore in additional farmer earnings, and states that ethanol procurement costs have risen above refined petrol costs, so the mandate continues for energy security, environmental and farm income gains rather than profit.

    • The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas told the Rajya Sabha on 24 March 2025 that the ethanol blending programme had resulted in expeditious payment to farmers of more than ₹1,04,000 crore up to January 2025. [2]
    • A PIB factsheet says the programme has delivered ₹1.60+ lakh crore in additional farmer earnings and that ethanol procurement costs have risen above refined petrol costs, so the government is not pocketing a price difference. [1]
    • The government says maize-based ethanol is procured at around ₹71.86 per litre to ensure farmers receive a fair price. [4]
    • A Frontline analysis argues that farmers are not beneficiaries of the ethanol policy, showing the matter is disputed. [7]

    [1] Ethanol Blending in India — pib.gov.in[2] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS ... — sansad.in[4] Ethanol Blended Petrol Programme — static.pib.gov.in[7] E20 Fuel Policy: Who Really Benefits From Ethanol Blending? — frontline.thehindu.com

    The claim is an allegation that the government is profiting from ethanol blending while farmers do not adequately benefit. The official record shows large payments to farmers and the government's position that it is not making a profit from the price difference, but this is the government's own account. Independent reporting in Frontline argues farmers are not beneficiaries, so the matter is disputed. No court, audit or independent official figure in the sources establishes the allegation.

    Open official seriesHow this was checked: Checked against official records