Skip to content

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

2 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 proofDhruv Rathee2 Sept 2026

    “and the alleged crackdown on those documenting the crisis”

    The claim asserts that a crackdown on people documenting a government-school crisis has occurred, but the retrieved official record contains no document, court finding, police record or government figure showing such a crackdown. The government sources on education discuss budget allocations, not action against documenters. Because no order, FIR, parliamentary answer or commission report is provided to support the allegation, it remains unproven in the record.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    Dhruv Rathee states that there has been a crackdown on people documenting the crisis in India's government schools.

    youtube.com, 2 Sept 2026

    What is actually true

    The retrieved sources do not mention any documentation of a crisis in government schools or action against those documenting it. A Ministry of Education release from February 2023 describes budget allocations and schemes such as PM SHRI and Samagra Shiksha, but says nothing about a crackdown on documenters. A Ministry of Home Affairs release from April 2025 concerns anti-Maoist operations and also does not address the claim.

    • None of the retrieved sources contains a court order, police record, government notice or official figure showing action against people documenting a crisis in India's government schools. [1][2][3][4]
    • The Ministry of Education's February 2023 release focuses on the highest-ever allocation for the ministry and schemes such as PM SHRI and Samagra Shiksha, with no mention of a crisis or crackdown on documenters. [3]
    • The Ministry of Home Affairs' April 2025 release concerns Naxalism and left-wing extremism, not documentation of conditions in government schools. [4]

    [1] General Secretary, Linguistic ... vs State Of Karnataka And ... — indiankanoon.org[2] Law Commission Report - Indian Kanoon — indiankanoon.org[3] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[4] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in

    The claim asserts that a crackdown on people documenting a government-school crisis has occurred, but the retrieved official record contains no document, court finding, police record or government figure showing such a crackdown. The government sources on education discuss budget allocations, not action against documenters. Because no order, FIR, parliamentary answer or commission report is provided to support the allegation, it remains unproven in the record.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records

Misleading

1 claim

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

  • MisleadingDhruv Ratheechecked 1 Oct 2026

    “How NEET Exam Was SOLD for ₹30 Lakhs | The Complete Trail | Dhruv Rathee”

    ₹30 lakhs

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    ₹30 lakhs

    Dhruv Rathee published a video titled 'How NEET Exam Was SOLD for ₹30 Lakhs | The Complete Trail', asserting that the NEET exam was sold for ₹30 lakhs.

    bhopalsamachar.com, checked 1 Oct 2026

    What is actually true

    The Ministry of Education told the Lok Sabha on 26 March 2025 that after NEET (UG) 2024 the CBI filed five charge sheets in the paper theft case against 45 accused [7]. The same parliamentary answer quoted the Supreme Court's 2 August 2024 order saying there was no material on record indicating a systemic leak or widespread malpractice [7]. For NEET-UG 2026, the CBI said on 15 May 2026 that students paid several lakhs of rupees to attend classes where leaked question banks were dictated, but it did not give a ₹30-lakh figure [8].

    • In the 2024 NEET case, accused persons admitted that the question paper was leaked about 24 hours before the exam to those who paid ₹30–32 lakh, according to an interrogation report cited in a news account [2]. [2]
    • In 2026, India Today reported that two Rajasthan brothers allegedly bought the NEET-UG paper from a Gurugram doctor for ₹30 lakh about a week before the exam [3]. [3]
    • The Supreme Court held in its 2 August 2024 order, quoted in Parliament, that sufficient material was not on record to indicate a systemic leak or systemic malpractice, and that the material did not substantiate allegations of widespread malpractice [7]. [7]
    • The CBI filed five charge sheets against 45 accused in the NEET (UG) 2024 paper theft case, and identified candidates who were beneficiaries of the paper theft or unfair means [7]. [7]
    • For NEET-UG 2026, the CBI said students paid several lakhs of rupees to attend special coaching classes where leaked question banks were dictated, but it did not say the exam was sold for ₹30 lakhs [8]. [8]

    [2] NEET Paper Leak: How India's Biggest Exam Got Sold for ₹32 ... — lyfkeys.com[3] NEET-UG paper leak: Rajasthan brothers allegedly bought paper ... — indiatoday.in[7] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF ... — sansad.in[8] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in

    The exact ₹30-lakh figure appears in media reports about alleged deals in 2024 and 2026, not in the official record. More importantly, saying the NEET exam itself was sold overstates the matter: the Supreme Court's order quoted in Parliament found no evidence of a systemic leak in 2024, even as officials recorded paper theft and unfair-means cases. The title would need to specify that a question paper was allegedly sold, rather than the exam as a whole.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records