Methodology & disclaimer

Every record states two different things separately: how well material facts have been verified, and what formal actions institutions have taken. Institutional progress is never treated as stronger evidence merely because an authority acted.

Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded

Sourced from established news outlets or public court, commission, and official records, and attributed to them. Not independently verified by Copwatch India. We are documenting what a qualifying external source reports or records; we are not ourselves making the underlying accusation.

An established outlet means a registered newsroom with a masthead, named editorial responsibility, and a correction process. A viral clip circulating on social media with no newsroom pickup is not a media-reported case. It enters our records at V0 and must be independently verified before it is published.

Tier B — Copwatch-verified

Records for which we have independently corroborated at least one material fact to V3 through our own verification work.

Independently verified media reports

Not every media report is an assertion. Some are verifications. Where an established outlet has itself independently verified an incident — by geolocating footage, interviewing eyewitnesses, obtaining corroborating photographs, conducting forensic analysis of the media, or examining documents — and has published its method, we record the verification status that work supports, attributed to that outlet.

We are not verifying the incident. We are recording that a credible, method-disclosed verification exists, and stating who performed it. Such a record remains Tier A. The distinction matters: a fact-checking organisation that visits a location, matches the buildings, and interviews shopkeepers has produced something different in kind from a newspaper repeating a police statement, and our records should not flatten the two.

Where an outlet asserts an incident without disclosing how it established the facts, the record stays at V2. A verified public court, commission, or official record may corroborate a material fact at V3 when an editor records what the document establishes and how its authenticity was checked.

A record may graduate from Tier A to Tier B. Where we later corroborate an externally reported case ourselves, its tier changes and its source field records both origins.

Social media is a lead, not verification

A public Instagram post, video, or other social-media item is not published as a verified incident merely because it is publicly accessible. We record its platform, account, access date, apparent uploader, visibility, verification status, and written verification notes. We seek to establish the original uploader, date, location, whether the material was edited or reposted, and what independent evidence corroborates it. Anonymous or viral material without that work remains an internal V0 lead.

Material visible only to a restricted audience, obtained from a private account, or received through a leak is not treated as a public source. Social-media material may support a published Tier B record only at V3 after the original uploader and underlying incident have been independently verified, or when a qualifying newsroom, court, commission, or official source also supports the record.

Access is not permission to reuse

Public visibility does not automatically make republication necessary or safe. We separately decide whether to cite, link, embed, or reproduce material. Our default is citation without copying. We withhold a link where it could identify or endanger a victim, witness, minor, or other vulnerable person, even if the original page remains public.

A published record always provides a public citation or states that a source has been withheld and gives a non-identifying reason. Private or restricted material may support internal verification or consented direct testimony, but it is not presented as a public source.

Courts, commissions, police authorities, governments, prosecutors, and disciplinary bodies may initiate, pause, conclude, or review formal actions. We record each action separately with its date, source, authority, independence from the accused body, legal effect, status, and any disposition.

A pending action has no disposition. A concluded action has an explicit disposition, including where it was closed without findings. A conclusion may support an allegation, reject it, reach a mixed result, make no finding, or be procedural only. Acquittals, exonerations, dismissals, closure reports, orders set aside, and relief denied are retained alongside convictions, findings, discipline, and relief granted.

An appeal is a separate action linked to the decision under review. A concluded conviction and a pending appeal can therefore both remain visible without one overwriting the other. “Concluded” applies only to that particular action; it does not mean every proceeding is complete or that the allegation was upheld.

Institutional actions are not verification statuses. An internal departmental decision, a non-binding commission recommendation, and a binding High Court judgment are reported separately and are never combined without disclosing their independence and legal effect.

A report that an inquiry, suspension, trial, or appeal began does not tell a reader what later became of it. We therefore return to published proceedings and record dated, source-linked follow-up checks. Each check targets one institutional action or one precisely stated question. A court search cannot also answer what happened in a departmental inquiry.

Every check records when it was performed and either the exact period searched or an explicit point-in-time date. It states the court, case number, portal, query, office, record, or other method consulted. The public finding is bounded by that scope. For example:

No new hearing was found in the Madurai District Court cause lists searched for 1 May–12 June 2026.

That sentence does not claim that nothing happened in the case. A hearing may have appeared elsewhere, under another number, or outside the period searched. We distinguish three results: a development was found; no new development was found within the stated search; or the search was unable to establish the current position. The last two are never combined.

A volunteer may perform and submit a check, but cannot publish it. A different authorised reviewer must approve the method, scope, source, and public sentence. Review can be handled efficiently in a queue, but every check records its own approver and approval time.

If a check finds a development, neither the finding nor its staged institutional-action revision appears publicly until the revision receives verification and legal signatures and an administrator releases both together. Until that atomic release, the previous public check — or “Never re-checked” — remains visible.

“Never re-checked” is derived from the absence of a published check. Published checks show both their date and their age. The patterns dashboard separately counts current checks, checks older than 180 days, proceedings never checked, developments found, searches finding no new development, and searches unable to establish the position.

Published follow-up checks currently use publicly repeatable sources. Confidential counsel or family confirmations will not be accepted through this workflow until protected private storage, retention, and deletion controls are available. When enabled, their public description must disclose that the source was confidentially verified without publishing the person’s identity.

Individual officers are named only from a concluded official action

Naming a specific officer is where legal liability concentrates, and where the risk of harm to an individual is greatest. A name may be published only where a public court, commission, or official source specifically names that officer in a concluded formal action, the source is linked to the name, and a qualified lawyer performs the legal review. A newsroom attribution alone is not sufficient for a name to enter our structured public record.

Redaction is mandatory at every verification status

This applies even where the original source did not redact. The editorial choices of others do not set our standard. We do not publish faces of minors, identities of sexual offence survivors, home addresses, phone numbers, identity document details, or family details of any party.

Consent and publication basis are reviewed separately

We seek and record consent before relying on private testimony, privately supplied evidence, or identifiable victim or witness media. Direct testimony is never displayed as a public source; a published record gives a non-identifying withholding explanation. A fully redacted court, commission, official, or established-media record may have another valid publication basis, but it is published only after we document that basis and assess attribution, necessity, redaction, and potential harm. A person's own public post is not blanket consent for us to reproduce it. A request not to publish blocks publication while it is reviewed.

Nothing is published on one person's decision

Every public record requires two named sign-offs: a verification lead, who confirms the facts meet the stated verification status and that redaction is complete; and a legal reviewer, who confirms framing, attribution, publication basis, and exposure. Where an officer is to be named, the legal reviewer must be a qualified lawyer. An administrator performs the final publish action after the system confirms these checks. Assessments of whether a newsroom is established and whether a source is safe to cite or link remain editorial decisions, not automated findings.

We correct and retract

If a published record is challenged and we cannot stand behind its stated verification status or institutional description, we correct the status or withdraw the record, promptly and visibly. A retraction is not a failure. Publishing something we cannot support would be.