MAIN MENU
Evidence Unverified
Claims or conclusions that are not independently established by the available evidence.
The 2013 ‘Snoopgate’ reports alleged that Gujarat police monitored a woman in 2009 under political direction. Her family described it as requested protection, and the Gujarat High Court later stopped an inquiry at their request. Those developments leave separate questions about surveillance powers, evidence and privacy.
Families near Meta’s Georgia data centre say their wells became clogged with sediment and have sued, while Meta disputes responsibility. With over half of India’s data centres in water-stressed regions, the case exposes why expansion needs local water checks, public disclosure and protection for nearby residents.
In a 10 October exchange, reporter Pranav Pradhi questioned police about stopping demonstrators under BNSS Section 163 while reportedly allowing threatening counter-groups to assemble. The restrictions are documented; the alleged groups’ identities, threats and police response remain unverified, raising a specific test of equal enforcement.
At the 12 October 2026 Delhi march over electoral-roll changes, women protesters and opposition supporters accused police of rough treatment while dispersing crowds. The footage raises a specific question: how far may police go to control a restricted protest, and what evidence is needed to assess allegations of excessive force?
A reporter at the 16 October 2026 Connaught Place march says a counter-gathering chanted for ‘traitors’ to be shot. The allegation remains independently unconfirmed, but the documented counter-protest, police restrictions and electoral-roll dispute expose a central democratic distinction: questioning authorities is not disloyalty, and political disagreement cannot justify threats of violence.
Amit Shah’s 8,000-person claim versus Delhi’s protest restrictions: Why the dates and numbers matter
Amit Shah said a 12 October opposition march drew only 8,000 people. A reel contrasts this with Delhi’s massive security deployment, Metro restrictions and cancelled trains — but much of that disruption concerned a separate 10 October protest. The distinction exposes an important question about the proportionality of restrictions on peaceful assembly, not proof of…
A 10 October reel shows a man repeatedly questioning Delhi Police over alleged assaults and harassment near the CJP protest. His questions highlight a real accountability test amid documented mass detentions, but the alleged attackers’ identities, police knowledge and response in this particular incident remain unverified.
An Instagram reel shows a man confronting police and saying his father died after an hour-long VIP traffic hold-up. The claim's location, duration and connection to the death remain unverified, but documented ambulance stoppages show why emergency access must come before convoy convenience.
A reel attributed to former interim CBI chief M. Nageswara Rao alleges the Modi government changed the law to shield itself from future investigations. Section 17A really did place an approval barrier before certain corruption probes, and Supreme Court judges split over its validity in 2026. The claim about the government's motive remains unproven.
