Prism Geo · city intelligence · pilot
Prism Geo · Rankings · Cheating Forgery
Corruption Fraud · evidence ranking · 2021–2025

Which Indian cities show the strongest cheating forgery reporting signal?

A comparison of 45 Indian cities covered by Prism Geo. 12 pass the evidence gates and are ranked by exact cheating_forgery-tagged news reports per 10,000 civic reports. This measures the prominence of a topic in coverage—not real-world incidence, prevalence, or safety.

Geographic view · 12 city-linked districts

Where the cheating forgery reporting signal is concentrated

Every highlighted polygon is the 2021 administrative district containing a ranked city's coordinate. Color shows the city's reporting-signal rank band—not a measured district-wide rate, prevalence, or severity assessment.

Ranks 1–5Ranks 6–10Ranks 11–12 Not ranked

Boundary geometry: geoBoundaries, ADM2, 2021 representation, Open Data Commons Open Database License 1.0. Districts are visual locators for city-ranked data and may not reflect later administrative changes.

How to read this ranking

Vadodara leads the normalized comparison at 31.91 tagged reports per 10,000 civic reports. Mumbai leads raw volume with 102 reports. The two leaders can differ because normalization controls for each city's overall civic-news footprint.

Cities evaluated
45
existing India profiles
Cities ranked
12
passed both evidence gates
Normalized leader
Vadodara
31.91 per 10K
Raw-volume leader
Mumbai
102 tagged reports
Largest recent rise
Nashik
+91.15 per-10K points
National comparison
-0.88
recent per-10K change
Computed findings
What stands out
Complete ranking
Primary and companion measures

Cheating Forgery reporting signal by city

The primary rank uses tagged reports per 10,000 civic reports. Raw rank, recent change, and active years show whether a result depends on city size, timing, or a narrow burst.

RankCitySignal / 10KTagged reportsRaw rankRecent changeActive years
1Vadodara
Gujarat
31.9196-54.483/5
2Nashik
Maharashtra
31.53114+91.153/5
3Thane
Maharashtra
14.79115+0.855/5
4Mumbai
Maharashtra
8.531021-6.405/5
5Surat
Gujarat
7.16312+21.742/5
6Kanpur
Uttar Pradesh
5.40410-8.972/5
7Pune
Maharashtra
4.97183-4.175/5
8Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh
3.5367+3.613/5
9Ludhiana
Punjab
3.11411-4.062/5
10Noida
Uttar Pradesh
2.9568+5.152/5
11Gurugram
Haryana
2.1059-3.582/5
12New Delhi
Delhi
1.31392+0.805/5

A city qualifies with at least 3 exact-tag reports and 300 total civic reports across complete years 2021–2025.

City-by-city evidence
Normalized #1 · raw-volume #6 · qualified coverage base

Vadodara: Cheating Forgery reporting profile

9 tagged reports appeared within 2,820 civic reports in 2021–2025, equal to 31.91 per 10,000. The recent-period comparison shows a falling share of local civic coverage: 54.48 in 2021–2023 versus 0.00 in 2024–2025. The city's peak normalized year was 2022.

Normalized signal
31.91
per 10K civic reports
Tagged coverage
9
3 active years
Recent change
-54.48
per-10K points
Action marker
88.9%
classifier coverage
20212025
Annual evidence
2021 · 18.21/10K (1 reports)2022 · 114.57/10K (7 reports)2023 · 20.33/10K (1 reports)2024 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)2025 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)
Classifier category mix
Crime & violence · 9

The classifier marked authority or institutional action in 8 reports (88.9%) and conclusion language in 0 (0.0%). These are article-level signals: repeated coverage can refer to the same underlying event, and the markers do not prove official resolution.

Open Vadodara's broader civic problems analysis →
Normalized #2 · raw-volume #4 · qualified coverage base

Nashik: Cheating Forgery reporting profile

11 tagged reports appeared within 3,489 civic reports in 2021–2025, equal to 31.53 per 10,000. The recent-period comparison shows a rising share of local civic coverage: 7.75 in 2021–2023 versus 98.90 in 2024–2025. The city's peak normalized year was 2025.

Normalized signal
31.53
per 10K civic reports
Tagged coverage
11
3 active years
Recent change
+91.15
per-10K points
Action marker
18.2%
classifier coverage
20212025
Annual evidence
2021 · 17.73/10K (1 reports)2022 · 9.64/10K (1 reports)2023 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)2024 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)2025 · 165.44/10K (9 reports)
Classifier category mix
Legal Judicial · 8Corruption Fraud · 3

The classifier marked authority or institutional action in 2 reports (18.2%) and conclusion language in 2 (18.2%). These are article-level signals: repeated coverage can refer to the same underlying event, and the markers do not prove official resolution.

Open Nashik's broader civic problems analysis →
Normalized #3 · raw-volume #5 · qualified coverage base

Thane: Cheating Forgery reporting profile

11 tagged reports appeared within 7,439 civic reports in 2021–2025, equal to 14.79 per 10,000. The recent-period comparison shows a broadly stable share of local civic coverage: 14.49 in 2021–2023 versus 15.34 in 2024–2025. The city's peak normalized year was 2023.

Normalized signal
14.79
per 10K civic reports
Tagged coverage
11
5 active years
Recent change
+0.85
per-10K points
Action marker
9.1%
classifier coverage
20212025
Annual evidence
2021 · 9.14/10K (1 reports)2022 · 12.00/10K (2 reports)2023 · 19.31/10K (4 reports)2024 · 13.87/10K (2 reports)2025 · 17.17/10K (2 reports)
Classifier category mix
Corruption Fraud · 7Crime & violence · 4

The classifier marked authority or institutional action in 1 reports (9.1%) and conclusion language in 0 (0.0%). These are article-level signals: repeated coverage can refer to the same underlying event, and the markers do not prove official resolution.

Open Thane's broader civic problems analysis →
Normalized #4 · raw-volume #1 · high coverage base

Mumbai: Cheating Forgery reporting profile

102 tagged reports appeared within 119,517 civic reports in 2021–2025, equal to 8.53 per 10,000. The recent-period comparison shows a falling share of local civic coverage: 10.91 in 2021–2023 versus 4.51 in 2024–2025. The city's peak normalized year was 2023.

Normalized signal
8.53
per 10K civic reports
Tagged coverage
102
5 active years
Recent change
-6.40
per-10K points
Action marker
42.2%
classifier coverage
20212025
Annual evidence
2021 · 10.34/10K (24 reports)2022 · 8.40/10K (24 reports)2023 · 14.52/10K (34 reports)2024 · 6.20/10K (13 reports)2025 · 3.00/10K (7 reports)
Classifier category mix
Corruption Fraud · 58Crime & violence · 33Legal Judicial · 8

The classifier marked authority or institutional action in 43 reports (42.2%) and conclusion language in 2 (2.0%). These are article-level signals: repeated coverage can refer to the same underlying event, and the markers do not prove official resolution.

Open Mumbai's broader civic problems analysis →
Normalized #5 · raw-volume #12 · qualified coverage base

Surat: Cheating Forgery reporting profile

3 tagged reports appeared within 4,191 civic reports in 2021–2025, equal to 7.16 per 10,000. The recent-period comparison shows a rising share of local civic coverage: 0.00 in 2021–2023 versus 21.74 in 2024–2025. The city's peak normalized year was 2025.

Normalized signal
7.16
per 10K civic reports
Tagged coverage
3
2 active years
Recent change
+21.74
per-10K points
Action marker
33.3%
classifier coverage
20212025
Annual evidence
2021 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)2022 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)2023 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)2024 · 14.93/10K (1 reports)2025 · 28.17/10K (2 reports)
Classifier category mix
Corruption Fraud · 2Crime & violence · 1

The classifier marked authority or institutional action in 1 reports (33.3%) and conclusion language in 0 (0.0%). These are article-level signals: repeated coverage can refer to the same underlying event, and the markers do not prove official resolution.

Open Surat's broader civic problems analysis →
Normalized #6 · raw-volume #10 · qualified coverage base

Kanpur: Cheating Forgery reporting profile

4 tagged reports appeared within 7,407 civic reports in 2021–2025, equal to 5.40 per 10,000. The recent-period comparison shows a falling share of local civic coverage: 8.97 in 2021–2023 versus 0.00 in 2024–2025. The city's peak normalized year was 2021.

Normalized signal
5.40
per 10K civic reports
Tagged coverage
4
2 active years
Recent change
-8.97
per-10K points
Action marker
0.0%
classifier coverage
20212025
Annual evidence
2021 · 18.54/10K (2 reports)2022 · 10.12/10K (2 reports)2023 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)2024 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)2025 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)
Classifier category mix
Corruption Fraud · 2Crime & violence · 2

The classifier marked authority or institutional action in 0 reports (0.0%) and conclusion language in 0 (0.0%). These are article-level signals: repeated coverage can refer to the same underlying event, and the markers do not prove official resolution.

Open Kanpur's broader civic problems analysis →
Normalized #7 · raw-volume #3 · qualified coverage base

Pune: Cheating Forgery reporting profile

18 tagged reports appeared within 36,239 civic reports in 2021–2025, equal to 4.97 per 10,000. The recent-period comparison shows a falling share of local civic coverage: 6.75 in 2021–2023 versus 2.58 in 2024–2025. The city's peak normalized year was 2021.

Normalized signal
4.97
per 10K civic reports
Tagged coverage
18
5 active years
Recent change
-4.17
per-10K points
Action marker
33.3%
classifier coverage
20212025
Annual evidence
2021 · 9.88/10K (6 reports)2022 · 6.85/10K (5 reports)2023 · 4.07/10K (3 reports)2024 · 1.23/10K (1 reports)2025 · 4.07/10K (3 reports)
Classifier category mix
Corruption Fraud · 10Crime & violence · 8

The classifier marked authority or institutional action in 6 reports (33.3%) and conclusion language in 0 (0.0%). These are article-level signals: repeated coverage can refer to the same underlying event, and the markers do not prove official resolution.

Open Pune's broader civic problems analysis →
Normalized #8 · raw-volume #7 · qualified coverage base

Ghaziabad: Cheating Forgery reporting profile

6 tagged reports appeared within 17,010 civic reports in 2021–2025, equal to 3.53 per 10,000. The recent-period comparison shows a rising share of local civic coverage: 2.02 in 2021–2023 versus 5.63 in 2024–2025. The city's peak normalized year was 2025.

Normalized signal
3.53
per 10K civic reports
Tagged coverage
6
3 active years
Recent change
+3.61
per-10K points
Action marker
33.3%
classifier coverage
20212025
Annual evidence
2021 · 3.01/10K (1 reports)2022 · 2.89/10K (1 reports)2023 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)2024 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)2025 · 13.08/10K (4 reports)
Classifier category mix
Corruption Fraud · 4Crime & violence · 2

The classifier marked authority or institutional action in 2 reports (33.3%) and conclusion language in 0 (0.0%). These are article-level signals: repeated coverage can refer to the same underlying event, and the markers do not prove official resolution.

Open Ghaziabad's broader civic problems analysis →
Normalized #9 · raw-volume #11 · qualified coverage base

Ludhiana: Cheating Forgery reporting profile

4 tagged reports appeared within 12,851 civic reports in 2021–2025, equal to 3.11 per 10,000. The recent-period comparison shows a falling share of local civic coverage: 4.06 in 2021–2023 versus 0.00 in 2024–2025. The city's peak normalized year was 2021.

Normalized signal
3.11
per 10K civic reports
Tagged coverage
4
2 active years
Recent change
-4.06
per-10K points
Action marker
0.0%
classifier coverage
20212025
Annual evidence
2021 · 12.22/10K (3 reports)2022 · 2.40/10K (1 reports)2023 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)2024 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)2025 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)
Classifier category mix
Corruption Fraud · 3Crime & violence · 1

The classifier marked authority or institutional action in 0 reports (0.0%) and conclusion language in 0 (0.0%). These are article-level signals: repeated coverage can refer to the same underlying event, and the markers do not prove official resolution.

Open Ludhiana's broader civic problems analysis →
Normalized #10 · raw-volume #8 · qualified coverage base

Noida: Cheating Forgery reporting profile

6 tagged reports appeared within 20,361 civic reports in 2021–2025, equal to 2.95 per 10,000. The recent-period comparison shows a rising share of local civic coverage: 0.83 in 2021–2023 versus 5.98 in 2024–2025. The city's peak normalized year was 2024.

Normalized signal
2.95
per 10K civic reports
Tagged coverage
6
2 active years
Recent change
+5.15
per-10K points
Action marker
50.0%
classifier coverage
20212025
Annual evidence
2021 · 3.08/10K (1 reports)2022 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)2023 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)2024 · 9.82/10K (5 reports)2025 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)
Classifier category mix
Crime & violence · 3Corruption Fraud · 2Policing & law enforcement · 1

The classifier marked authority or institutional action in 3 reports (50.0%) and conclusion language in 0 (0.0%). These are article-level signals: repeated coverage can refer to the same underlying event, and the markers do not prove official resolution.

Open Noida's broader civic problems analysis →
Normalized #11 · raw-volume #9 · qualified coverage base

Gurugram: Cheating Forgery reporting profile

5 tagged reports appeared within 23,841 civic reports in 2021–2025, equal to 2.10 per 10,000. The recent-period comparison shows a falling share of local civic coverage: 3.58 in 2021–2023 versus 0.00 in 2024–2025. The city's peak normalized year was 2022.

Normalized signal
2.10
per 10K civic reports
Tagged coverage
5
2 active years
Recent change
-3.58
per-10K points
Action marker
0.0%
classifier coverage
20212025
Annual evidence
2021 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)2022 · 6.99/10K (4 reports)2023 · 1.82/10K (1 reports)2024 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)2025 · 0.00/10K (0 reports)
Classifier category mix
Corruption Fraud · 5

The classifier marked authority or institutional action in 0 reports (0.0%) and conclusion language in 0 (0.0%). These are article-level signals: repeated coverage can refer to the same underlying event, and the markers do not prove official resolution.

Open Gurugram's broader civic problems analysis →
Normalized #12 · raw-volume #2 · established coverage base

New Delhi: Cheating Forgery reporting profile

39 tagged reports appeared within 297,207 civic reports in 2021–2025, equal to 1.31 per 10,000. The recent-period comparison shows a broadly stable share of local civic coverage: 1.00 in 2021–2023 versus 1.80 in 2024–2025. The city's peak normalized year was 2025.

Normalized signal
1.31
per 10K civic reports
Tagged coverage
39
5 active years
Recent change
+0.80
per-10K points
Action marker
53.8%
classifier coverage
20212025
Annual evidence
2021 · 1.10/10K (5 reports)2022 · 1.54/10K (10 reports)2023 · 0.42/10K (3 reports)2024 · 1.79/10K (11 reports)2025 · 1.82/10K (10 reports)
Classifier category mix
Corruption Fraud · 20Crime & violence · 8Legal Judicial · 8

The classifier marked authority or institutional action in 21 reports (53.8%) and conclusion language in 3 (7.7%). These are article-level signals: repeated coverage can refer to the same underlying event, and the markers do not prove official resolution.

Open New Delhi's broader civic problems analysis →
National trend and methodology
All 45 cities

Annual normalized signal

20212025
2021 · 3.08/10K (48)2022 · 2.80/10K (61)2023 · 2.36/10K (51)2024 · 1.71/10K (35)2025 · 1.96/10K (38)

Annual values use all covered cities, including cities that do not pass the page-level ranking gate.

Transparent limits

How Prism Geo built this ranking

  • Universe: 45 Indian cities with an existing Prism Geo city manifest; conservative legacy names such as Bangalore/Bengaluru are merged.
  • Window: complete calendar years 2021–2025. Partial 2026 data is excluded.
  • Signal: the exact source tag cheating_forgery; topic variants are not silently combined.
  • Score: tagged reports ÷ all civic reports × 10,000; raw volume is shown alongside it.
  • Coverage, action, and conclusion figures are classifier outputs. Multiple reports can concern one event, and absence of coverage is not absence of a problem.

Source: marketai.civic_geo_agg. This dataset supports comparison of reporting patterns only; it cannot establish actual case counts, risk, prevalence, or official performance.

Need to go deeper than a city?

Fliar Prism answers any market, company or research question with the same depth — real-time, across every industry.

Explore Fliar Prism →