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
What they said is not true. The official record shows something else.
Not trueDhruv Ratheechecked 12 Oct 2026
“So was Dhruv Rathee right that the tax was removed because of U.S. pressure?”
The claim urges that the equalisation levy was removed because of U.S. pressure. The official record contradicts this: the Finance Minister said in Parliament that the 2% component was removed in July 2024, before President Trump took office, and the 6% component was part of a planned stakeholder-consultation process, not a response to U.S. tariffs. A Finance Ministry press note shows the levy was handled through a bilateral transitional arrangement reached by agreement, not unilateral pressure. No source supports the pressure claim.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee claimed that the Equalisation Levy (Google Tax) was removed because of U.S. pressure.
linkedin.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman told Parliament in March 2025 that the 2% equalisation levy was removed in the July 2024 Budget after stakeholder consultation, much before President Trump took office, and the 6% component was being removed as part of that process, not in reaction to Trump's tariffs [1][3]. A Finance Ministry press note of 28 June 2024 shows India and the US had a transitional arrangement covering the 2% equalisation levy and US trade action, extended by agreement until 30 June 2024 [5][6]. No official record attributes the removal to U.S. pressure.
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman told Parliament that the equalisation levy removal was not linked to U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff policies, and that the 2% levy was removed in the July 2024 Budget before Trump took office. [1][3]
The government proposed removing the equalisation levy on online advertisements in the Finance Bill 2025; Sitharaman said the 6% levy being removed was part of that process, not a reaction to Trump. [1]
A Press Information Bureau release says India and the United States agreed on terms for India's 2% equalisation levy on e-commerce services and the U.S. trade action, and extended that transitional approach until 30 June 2024. [5][6]
The claim urges that the equalisation levy was removed because of U.S. pressure. The official record contradicts this: the Finance Minister said in Parliament that the 2% component was removed in July 2024, before President Trump took office, and the 6% component was part of a planned stakeholder-consultation process, not a response to U.S. tariffs. A Finance Ministry press note shows the levy was handled through a bilateral transitional arrangement reached by agreement, not unilateral pressure. No source supports the pressure claim.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueDhruv Ratheechecked 1 Oct 2026
“There are conflicting reports by various experts on this because the Indian Govt has not officially released any statement on it.”
The claim rests on the assertion that the Indian government had not officially released a statement. The sources include official PIB press releases and a Lok Sabha answer from the Ministry of External Affairs, all of which are official government statements on the border situation. Therefore the claim is contradicted directly.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee said there are conflicting reports by various experts on the India-China border situation because the Indian government has not officially released any statement on it.
rutube.ru, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Prime Minister's Office issued an official press release on 20 June 2020 about the Ladakh border situation [7]. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh made a detailed statement in Rajya Sabha on 17 September 2020 [3]. The Ministry of External Affairs also answered a Lok Sabha question on 16 September 2020 describing the clashes and subsequent talks [2].
The Prime Minister's Office published an official press release on 20 June 2020 titled 'Statement on All Party Meeting of 19th June 2020' covering the Ladakh LAC situation. [7]
Raksha Mantri Rajnath Singh gave a detailed official statement in Rajya Sabha on 17 September 2020 about developments on the Ladakh border, including the 15 June 2020 Galwan clash. [3]
The Ministry of External Affairs replied to Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No.604 on 16 September 2020 with details of India-China military and diplomatic meetings after the border tension. [2]
A Ministry of External Affairs statement in June 2020 said Indian troops are fully familiar with the LAC alignment, India had never undertaken actions across the LAC, and Chinese troops' actions on 15 June 2020 led to casualties. [6]
The claim rests on the assertion that the Indian government had not officially released a statement. The sources include official PIB press releases and a Lok Sabha answer from the Ministry of External Affairs, all of which are official government statements on the border situation. Therefore the claim is contradicted directly.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueDhruv Ratheechecked 1 Oct 2026
“He alleged that Modi’s assurance that the government would bring a new law and take strict action against paper leaks amounted to “false promises”.”
Dhruv Rathee's claim treats the assurance as an empty false promise, but the official record shows the government passed a law to prevent paper-leak malpractices and the CBI took concrete enforcement steps, including chargesheets and arrests. Reporting on slow trials or questions about progress does not establish that the promise was false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assurance that the government would bring a new law and take strict action against paper leaks amounted to false promises.
madhyamamonline.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Press Information Bureau said on 6 February 2024 that the Lok Sabha passed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024, to curb paper leaks and malpractices in exams such as UPSC, SSC, NEET, JEE and CUET. The Bill had been introduced the previous day, on 5 February 2024. In the 2024 NEET case, the CBI filed a chargesheet against 45 individuals by November 2024, and in the 2026 NEET case it had arrested 13 people, according to news reports.
The Lok Sabha passed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024 on 6 February 2024, a law aimed at curbing paper leaks in recruitment and entrance exams. [2]
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 5 February 2024. [3][4]
In the 2024 NEET paper-leak case, the CBI filed a chargesheet against 45 individuals by November 2024; in the 2026 NEET case it arrested 13 people according to reports. [1]
Prime Minister Modi announced fast-track courts and tougher measures against paper leaks, and the government said it had further tightened existing laws against paper leaks and cheating. [7][8]
Dhruv Rathee's claim treats the assurance as an empty false promise, but the official record shows the government passed a law to prevent paper-leak malpractices and the CBI took concrete enforcement steps, including chargesheets and arrests. Reporting on slow trials or questions about progress does not establish that the promise was false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueDhruv Ratheechecked 1 Oct 2026
“The bottom 50% of India's population contributes over 60% of total GST revenue.”
over 60%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
over 60%
Dhruv Rathee said the bottom 50% of India's population contributes over 60% of total GST revenue.
jotosob.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
In a Lok Sabha reply, the Ministry of Finance said the Oxfam Report 2023 figure of 64.3% is "not with respect to the total GST revenue but GST from only some selected items," and added that 90% of GST is paid by the top 22% of businesses with turnover above ₹50 crore. Independent academic work estimates the bottom 50% of the population contributes about 9.6% of total GST revenue, not over 60%. Oxfam's own 64.3% figure, as reported in the press, is for select food and non-food items only.
A Ministry of Finance reply in the Lok Sabha says the 64.3% figure from the Oxfam Report 2023 'is not with respect to the total GST revenue but GST from only some selected items.' [1]
The same Lok Sabha reply says that from return-filing data for April 2022 to January 2023, 90% of GST is paid by the top 22% of businesses with turnover above ₹50 crore. [1]
An SPJIMR paper estimates the bottom 50% of the population contributes 28% of the GST paid by households and only 9.6% of total GST revenue collected. [3]
A paper by Vidhu Shekhar likewise finds the bottom 50% contributes only 9.6% of total GST revenue, contrary to Oxfam's 64.3% claim. [4]
Media coverage of the Oxfam report says a little less than two-thirds, 64.3%, of GST comes from the bottom 50%, and further says the figure is for spending on select food and non-food items. [8]
The claim says the bottom 50% contributes 'over 60% of total GST revenue.' The 64.3% figure exists, but the government's reply in Parliament clarifies that it is GST from only some selected items, not total GST. Independent academic estimates put the bottom 50%'s share of total GST far lower, around 9.6%. Because the claim attaches the over-60% number to total GST revenue, the specific assertion is contradicted by the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueDhruv Ratheechecked 30 Sept 2026
“Dhruv Rathee's video claims the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision arbitrarily removed about 12% of West Bengal's electorate using untested software, dropping the total from 75.8 million in 2024 to 64.56 million now.”
The 12% headline figure is roughly accurate according to reporting. But the accusation that removals were 'arbitrary' is directly contradicted by the Supreme Court, which examined the procedure and found it was not contrary to the rules. The 'untested software' part has no basis anywhere in the record, which describes the revision as Booth Level Officer house-to-house verification, not a software process. The specific numbers attributed to the claim, 75.8 million falling to 64.56 million, also do not match the reported figures of 7.66 crore to 6.77 crore.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee claimed that the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision arbitrarily removed about 12% of West Bengal's electorate using untested software, dropping the total from 75.8 million in 2024 to 64.56 million now.
x.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Hindu reports the Special Intensive Revision in West Bengal began on November 4, 2025 with 7.66 crore voters on the list, and the number of eligible voters after the exercise is 6.77 crore [5]. The BBC and Times Now both describe a drop of about 12%, or roughly nine million voters, from a 76 million electorate [2][4]. The Supreme Court, in its May 2026 judgment, held that deletions made under the Special Intensive Revision 'cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules' [10]. The Election Commission describes deletions as carried out only after house-to-house verification by Booth Level Officers, covering deaths, permanent shifts of residence, duplicate entries and untraceable electors [11][12].
The Special Intensive Revision in West Bengal began with 7.66 crore voters on the roll, and the eligible electorate after the exercise stood at 6.77 crore [5]. [5]
Reporting puts the drop at about 12%, or roughly nine million voters removed from a 76 million electorate [2][4]. [2][4]
The Supreme Court held that deletions under the Special Intensive Revision were not contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules [10]. [10]
The Election Commission says deletions happened only after house-to-house verification by Booth Level Officers, under categories of death, permanent shifting of residence, duplicate entries and untraceable electors [11][12]. [11][12]
No source in the record mentions any software used in the revision, tested or otherwise; the process is described as enumeration by Booth Level Officers [11][12]. [11][12]
The 12% headline figure is roughly accurate according to reporting. But the accusation that removals were 'arbitrary' is directly contradicted by the Supreme Court, which examined the procedure and found it was not contrary to the rules. The 'untested software' part has no basis anywhere in the record, which describes the revision as Booth Level Officer house-to-house verification, not a software process. The specific numbers attributed to the claim, 75.8 million falling to 64.56 million, also do not match the reported figures of 7.66 crore to 6.77 crore.
How this was checked: Checked against official records