To fact check viral claims in India, ask five questions: who said it, what exactly did they say, where is the original report, does the evidence match the words, and does a second independent source agree? You can do this in about ten minutes on a phone. This guide shows each check using one real example: the "Rs 112 crore" figure attached to the proposed Modi Mandir in Patna.
We chose this example because it is easy to get wrong. The number is real, in the sense that it was said out loud. But many posts turn it into something bigger: an approved budget, a sanctioned project or a spending decision. Reading the reports closely shows the difference.
Key takeaways
- Ask who said a number, and in what form: a request, a plan, an order or a payment.
- Find the first news report and its date. Most viral posts are copies of copies.
- A figure said by one person is a claim. It becomes a fact about spending only when a government order or an official record shows it.
- Check pictures too. Some images in this story are labelled as AI-generated by the outlet that used them.
- It is fine to say "we do not know yet". Good readers hold a claim lightly until it is confirmed.
What is the Rs 112 crore claim, in plain words?
On 29 July 2026, the Bihar State Transgender Welfare Board held its first meeting in Patna. According to PTI, board member Rajan Singh proposed building a temple for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and the board approved the proposal. (PTI spells his first name "Ranjan". Other outlets write "Rajan".)
About two weeks later, on 11 August, ETV Bharat quoted Singh saying the board had asked the government for "five acres of land and Rs 112 crore". PatnaPress, writing the same day, described the project as not yet sanctioned. On 20 August, Singh told PTI the plan was Rs 112 crore on five acres.
So the number comes from one person's statements. We have not found any government order, budget line or sanction that fixes this amount. For the full story, read our Rs 112 crore fact check and our explainer on why reports disagree on the cost.
Check 1: Who said it?
Start with the speaker. Is this a person who can decide, or a person who is asking? A minister signing an order is different from a board member making a request.
In our example, the speaker is Rajan Singh, who proposed the idea. ETV Bharat quotes him on the next step: the proposal "will go to the Cabinet Secretariat". That is what he says will happen. It is not a report that the Cabinet Secretariat has decided anything.
Also notice how the speaker is described. PTI, The Week and The Wire call Singh a vice-president of the board. Other reports call him a board member. When titles differ, say so in your notes. It is a small sign that you should look for more than one report.
Check 2: What exactly did they say?
This is the check most people skip. Small word changes make big differences. Compare these three sentences:
| Sentence | What it means | Supported by reports? |
|---|---|---|
| "The board asked the government for Rs 112 crore." | A request | Yes. ETV Bharat quotes Singh (11 August 2026). |
| "The government has sanctioned Rs 112 crore." | A decision to spend | No report found. PatnaPress says it is not a sanctioned project. |
| "Taxpayers will pay Rs 112 crore." | A certain use of public money | Not confirmed. No sanction or budget record found. |
Words to watch for are "approved", "sanctioned", "allotted", "released" and "will be built". Each one claims something has already happened. Words like "proposed", "asked for", "plans" and "wants" describe something that may or may not happen.
Here is a good example of why this matters. The Free Press Journal reports, in its own words, that Singh said the state government will bear the construction cost and identify the land. That is his statement of what he expects. The same report gives no amount. ETV Bharat quotes Singh on what the board has asked for. Read together, the two reports describe the same plan in different ways, and neither proves the government agreed.
Check 3: Where is the original report, and what is its date?
Most viral posts are screenshots of screenshots. Your job is to walk backwards until you find the first report written by a person who was there, or who spoke to the people involved.
A simple way to trace a claim
- Copy a distinctive phrase from the post, such as "112 crore" plus "Patna" plus "temple", and paste it into a search engine.
- Sort or scan for the earliest dates. Look for news outlets that name a reporter or an agency such as PTI.
- Open the report. Check that it actually contains the number. Many posts quote a headline that the article does not support.
- Note the date. A claim from July can look new when it is reshared in October.
In our case, the first reports of the board meeting are from 29 July 2026 (PTI, carried by ThePrint, and the Free Press Journal). The Rs 112 crore figure appears in reports from 11 August onward, in ETV Bharat and PatnaPress. So any post that links the figure to the 29 July meeting is mixing two different dates. The meeting approved the idea of a temple. The figure came later, in Singh's own words.
You can see how the story developed in our Patna Modi Mandir timeline.
Check 4: Does the evidence match the words?
Numbers, photos and videos are the parts of a post that feel most real. They also need the most care.
Numbers
Ask: is this a total, a request or an estimate? Who worked it out? Is there a breakdown? For the Rs 112 crore figure, the reports we opened give no breakdown. ETV Bharat reports that Singh did not say what the statue would cost. If a post lists exact amounts for land, stone, a hospital wing or a hall, ask where the list comes from. We found no published budget with such lines, so we do not repeat any.
Pictures
PatnaPress puts a caption on its main image saying it is an AI-generated image for representation only. That means the picture does not show a real design. If you see a glowing temple render in a post, do not treat it as a plan.
To test any picture, use a reverse image search. Google explains the steps on its help page: open Search by image on google.com, upload the file or paste the picture's web address, or right-click a picture in Chrome and choose Google Lens. Look for older copies, the first date it appeared, and whether any news site or fact-checker has described it.
Videos and events
Events are easy to misdescribe. On 20 August 2026, a "Modi Chalisa" reading took place at the Press Club of India in Delhi. The club said it had not organised the event. According to PTI (in The Week), an organisation had rented the hall for a press conference, broke the rental terms, and the club stopped the event. The Wire reported that the club then issued show-cause notices and is reviewing its booking rules. Read the whole account in our article on what happened at the Press Club of India.
Check 5: Does a second, independent source agree?
One report can be wrong, or can repeat what one person said. Look for a second report that did its own work, ideally from a different outlet.
Independent does not mean "another site copying the first one". Two reports that both quote only Singh are still one voice. Better is a report that adds something new, such as an official record, a different person or a documented disagreement.
In this story, that second layer is mixed. Queerbeat reported that another board member, Anupriya Singh, called the temple Rajan Singh's personal agenda, and that the 29 July minutes it saw did not mention the temple. We have not seen those minutes ourselves, so we treat this as one outlet's report. It does show why you should not accept "the whole board unanimously backs it" without checking. PatnaPress and ETV Bharat attribute the approval to the board, but a dispute has been reported. Read more in our analysis of the social media discussion and our look at national media coverage.
What we know and what we do not know yet
What we know:
- The board held its first meeting on 29 July 2026 and, per PTI, approved a proposal for a Modi temple.
- Rajan Singh said on 11 August that the board asked the government for five acres and Rs 112 crore.
- PatnaPress and Drishti IAS describe the project as not yet sanctioned.
- The Press Club of India said it did not organise the 20 August event.
What we do not know yet:
- Whether the state government or the Cabinet Secretariat has taken any decision.
- Whether any land has been chosen. Navbharat Live reported on 1 August that no site was fixed.
- Whether any money has been sanctioned, collected or spent.
- Whether the full board supports the idea. One member is reported to disagree.
Saying "we do not know" is not weak. It is the honest answer when the record is thin. We also found no reported response on the temple from the Prime Minister's Office, the Bihar government or national parties. If you see a post quoting one, ask for the original source.
Quick checklist you can save
| Check | Ask yourself | In the Rs 112 crore case |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Who | Can they decide, or only ask? | A board member asking the government |
| 2. What | Request, plan or decision? | A request, quoted by ETV Bharat |
| 3. Where | What is the first report and date? | 11 August 2026 for the figure |
| 4. Evidence | Do numbers and pictures hold up? | No breakdown found; one image labelled AI-generated |
| 5. Second source | Does an independent source agree? | PatnaPress repeats the figure and says the project is not sanctioned |
- Who said it, and can they decide or only ask?
- What are the exact words? Is it a request, a plan or a decision?
- Where is the first report, and what is its date?
- Do the numbers, pictures and videos hold up?
- Does a second independent source agree? What is missing?
If you cannot answer two or more of these, wait before sharing. Nothing is lost by waiting a day.
Common questions
Is the Rs 112 crore figure fake?
No. Rajan Singh said it, and ETV Bharat and PTI reported it. What is not confirmed is that it is an approved or sanctioned budget. We found no government order for it.
What is the quickest way to test a viral image?
Run a reverse image search on Google or Google Lens. Check the oldest date it appears and whether news sites describe it as real. Some outlets label their own images as AI-generated, as PatnaPress did.
Should I trust a post that cites a news channel but gives no link?
Not until you find the report yourself. Search for the channel's name plus the key words of the claim. If you cannot find it, treat the post as unverified.
Does a claim become true if many people share it?
No. Sharing shows interest, not accuracy. Always go back to the first source and the date.
Sources
- ETV Bharat, "Bihar Kinnar Board Proposes To Build Temple For Modi", 11 August 2026
- PatnaPress, report on the golden Modi temple proposal, 11 August 2026
- Free Press Journal, board approves construction of temple dedicated to Modi, 29 July 2026
- Drishti IAS, state news summary, 12 August 2026
- The Wire, Press Club of India says hall was booked for a press conference
- The Week, Modi Chalisa at Press Club sparks backlash, 20 August 2026
- Google Search Help, Search with an image
More on this topic: Politics and reaction, all FAQs and the timeline.
Last checked on 24 October 2026. Spotted a mistake? Tell us through our contact page.