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 trueRahul Gandhichecked 12 Oct 2026
“He claimed that the share of education in the Union Budget had decreased from 4.6% in 2014 to 2.6% in 2026”
4.6% in 2014 to 2.6% in 2026
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
4.6% in 2014 to 2.6% in 2026
Rahul Gandhi claimed on 19 September 2026 in Indore that the share of education in the Union Budget had decreased from 4.6% in 2014 to 2.6% in 2026.
thequint.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Education's Budget allocation for 2026-27 is ₹1,39,289.48 crore, an 8.27% increase over 2025-26, according to the Ministry of Education. The official Expenditure Budget 2026-2027 lists this allocation but does not state the Ministry's share of total Union expenditure as 2.6%. An Indian Express analysis puts the education ministry's share of the Union Budget at 4.6% in 2013-14 and 2.5% in 2025-26.
The Ministry of Education's Budget allocation for 2026-27 is ₹1,39,289.48 crore, an 8.27% increase over 2025-26, according to the Ministry of Education. [13]
An Indian Express analysis puts the education ministry's share of the Union Budget at 4.6% in 2013-14 and 2.5% in 2025-26. [15]
The official Expenditure Budget 2026-2027 lists the Ministry of Education allocation but does not state its share of total Union expenditure as 2.6%. [10]
The claim's direction is supported by the analysis, but the specific figures and years are wrong. The 4.6% figure is for 2013-14, not 2014, and the latest available share is 2.5% in 2025-26, not 2.6% in 2026. Because the load-bearing numbers are contradicted by the record, the claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
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 trueAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 12 Oct 2026
“He said rules were already being violated as Form-7 continued to be filled even after the SIR.”
The claim treats any Form 7 filed after the SIR as a rule violation. But the record shows Form 7 is a standing statutory form, and the Election Commission's post-SIR response was to limit, not prohibit, its use during continuous updation. No official document says filing Form 7 after the SIR is illegal.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said rules were already being violated because Form-7 continued to be filled even after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls.
hindustantimes.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Form 7 is the statutory form under Rule 13(2) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 for objecting to an inclusion or seeking deletion of a name from the electoral roll [2]. The Election Commission has not banned Form 7 after the SIR; it has capped filings at 10 during the claims-and-objections period and five per month during continuous electoral roll updates [4][8]. The SIR process itself includes a statutory period for filing Forms 6, 7 and 8 before the final roll is published [10][11].
Form 7 is the statutory form for objecting to inclusion or seeking deletion of a name from the electoral roll under Rule 13(2) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. [2]
After the SIR row, the Election Commission capped Form 7 filings at 10 during the claims-and-objections period and five per month during continuous electoral roll updates, rather than prohibiting them. [4][8]
The SIR process includes a statutory period for filing claims and objections through Forms 6, 7 and 8 before the final roll is published. [10][11]
The claim treats any Form 7 filed after the SIR as a rule violation. But the record shows Form 7 is a standing statutory form, and the Election Commission's post-SIR response was to limit, not prohibit, its use during continuous updation. No official document says filing Form 7 after the SIR is illegal.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAbhijeet Dipke (Cockroach Janta Party)1 Oct 2026
“he alleged that the government was deciding who would remain on the voters’ list.”
The claim asserts that the government decides who remains on the voters' list. The statutory scheme and the Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment show those decisions belong to Electoral Registration Officers acting under the Election Commission, which the Constitution establishes as an independent body. The government can change rules and forms, but it does not decide individual voters' retention on the rolls. The assertion therefore misstates who actually makes these decisions.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke alleged that the government was deciding who would remain on the voters' list.
hindustantimes.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission of India describes the constitutional scheme as resting on 'an independent Election Commission.' Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the legal authority to prepare and revise each constituency's electoral roll rests with the Electoral Registration Officer, a statutory authority, not with the government. The government's role is limited to amending rules and forms, such as Form 6, under Section 28 of that Act.
The legal authority to prepare and revise the electoral roll of an Assembly constituency rests with the Electoral Registration Officer under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [2]
Each constituency's electoral roll is maintained by its Electoral Registration Officer, a statutory authority. [1]
The Supreme Court, in its May 2026 judgment on the Special Intensive Revision, framed the constitutional design as one general electoral roll, universal adult franchise and an independent Election Commission. [6]
Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act says only the Union government can amend rules governing electoral forms, including Form 6, but individual decisions on inclusion or deletion are made by electoral officials. [1]
The claim asserts that the government decides who remains on the voters' list. The statutory scheme and the Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment show those decisions belong to Electoral Registration Officers acting under the Election Commission, which the Constitution establishes as an independent body. The government can change rules and forms, but it does not decide individual voters' retention on the rolls. The assertion therefore misstates who actually makes these decisions.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhi1 Oct 2026
“He claims the economy is dead, when we have the fastest-growing economy in the world at 7.8%”
7.8%, 7.8%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
7.8%
Rahul Gandhi claims India's economy is dead, a claim cited by BJP leader Rajeev Chandrashekhar in October 2026.
hindustantimes.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
7.8%
real GDP growth, Q1 FY27, PIB, Sep 2026
static.pib.gov.in
The Press Information Bureau (PIB), the government's official information office, said on 1 September 2026 that India's real GDP growth accelerated to 7.8% in the first quarter of 2026-27, with real GVA rising 8.2%.
The Press Information Bureau said on 1 September 2026 that India's real GDP growth accelerated to 7.8% in Q1 of 2026-27, with real GVA rising 8.2%. [3][4]
The official GDP figure directly contradicts the description of the economy as dead. The 7.8% is a quarterly figure, not an annual one, and the PIB note does not say India is the fastest-growing economy in the world; that part is not supported by the retrieved record.
“the deletion and addition on names from the electoral roll through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) started after the vote chori in elections after the elections was exposed”
The claim ties the start of the Special Intensive Revision to 'vote theft' being exposed. The official record shows the SIR began with the Election Commission's order of 24 June 2025, and the Commission's own stated reasons are about roll accuracy — duplicate entries, migration, deaths and foreign illegal immigrants — with the last intensive revision having been in 2003. The Supreme Court examined the exercise and upheld it as within the Commission's statutory mandate. No official document supports the claim that the SIR was triggered by exposed vote theft, so the claim is contradicted by the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said the deletion and addition of names in the electoral roll through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) began after the vote theft in elections was exposed.
ummid.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, issued the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) order for Bihar on 24 June 2025. Its stated reasons were rapid urbanisation, frequent migration, young citizens becoming eligible to vote, non-reporting of deaths and inclusion of foreign illegal immigrants; the last intensive revision in Bihar was in 2003. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026, held that the SIR was within the Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Article 324 of the Constitution. No official document says the SIR began after 'vote theft' was exposed.
The Election Commission issued the SIR instructions for Bihar on 24 June 2025, with the stated objective of including all eligible citizens, excluding ineligible voters and bringing transparency to additions and deletions. [2]
The Commission listed the reasons for the intensive revision as rapid urbanisation, frequent migration, young citizens becoming eligible, non-reporting of deaths and inclusion of foreign illegal immigrants, and noted the last intensive revision in Bihar was in 2003. [2]
The Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment, held that the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and consistent with its constitutional obligation under Article 324 to ensure free and fair elections. [9][10]
No official source in the record states that the SIR began after 'vote theft' in elections was exposed. [2][9][10]
The claim ties the start of the Special Intensive Revision to 'vote theft' being exposed. The official record shows the SIR began with the Election Commission's order of 24 June 2025, and the Commission's own stated reasons are about roll accuracy — duplicate entries, migration, deaths and foreign illegal immigrants — with the last intensive revision having been in 2003. The Supreme Court examined the exercise and upheld it as within the Commission's statutory mandate. No official document supports the claim that the SIR was triggered by exposed vote theft, so the claim is contradicted by the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“He alleged that the government had put a tax on “every single Indian person” by imposing charges on UPI transactions and claimed that the move would result in a large amount of money going to the United States.”
every single Indian person, 96%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
every single Indian person
Rahul Gandhi alleged the government imposed a tax on every single Indian person by charging on UPI transactions, and claimed the move would send a large amount of money to the United States.
newindianexpress.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
96%
merchant UPI transactions unaffected by new MDR, PIB, Sept 2026
pib.gov.in
The Ministry of Finance said on 8 August 2026 that there would be no charges for users and that all person-to-person UPI transactions would remain free. The UPI Steering Committee fixed a 0.4% merchant discount rate on 15 September 2026 for merchant payments above ₹2,000, effective 15 October 2026. The Press Information Bureau says customers do not pay the MDR and about 96% of merchant transactions are unaffected.
The Ministry of Finance stated categorically that consumers making payments will not face any transaction charges, and all person-to-person UPI transactions will continue to be free of charge. [4]
The new 0.4% Merchant Discount Rate applies only to person-to-merchant UPI transactions above ₹2,000, is capped at ₹300 for transactions of ₹75,000 and above, and customers do not pay it; around 96% of merchant transactions remain unaffected. [5][7]
Revenue from larger merchant transactions is meant to support banks, payment service providers and UPI application providers in India, and none of the sources shows any amount going to the United States. [5][7]
The Press Information Bureau says individuals will continue to have unlimited free UPI usage with no monthly quotas, volume restrictions or tiered caps on free transactions. [5]
There is a new Merchant Discount Rate on UPI, so the claim has a kernel of truth. But the official record directly contradicts the assertion that it taxes every single Indian person: users are not charged, person-to-person payments are free, and only about 4% of merchant transactions attract the charge. The claim that a large amount of money would go to the United States is unsupported by the record; official sources describe the revenue staying with Indian payment ecosystem participants.
“He added that only fourteen percent of students can secure hostel accommodation, attributing this to privatisation and cost-cutting measures contrary to government slogans.”
14%, 1,12,575
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
14%
Rahul Gandhi said only 14% of students can secure hostel accommodation, attributing this to privatisation and cost-cutting measures contrary to government slogans.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
1,12,575
students in central university hostels, Lok Sabha answer, 27 July 2026
sansad.in
The Ministry of Education told the Lok Sabha on 27 July 2026, in answer to a question from Rahul Gandhi himself, that 1,12,575 students were residing in hostels across 47 central universities, out of 3,09,542 enrolled. That is about 36% of central university students, not 14%. The answer says universities are creating additional hostel infrastructure and lists scholarship schemes; it does not attribute the gap to privatisation or cost-cutting.
The Ministry of Education told the Lok Sabha on 27 July 2026 that 1,12,575 students were residing in hostels in 47 central universities, out of 3,09,542 enrolled. [1]
That works out to about 36% of central university students in hostels, not 14%. [5][1]
The Ministry's answer says additional hostel infrastructure is being created and lists scholarship schemes; it does not attribute the gap to privatisation or cost-cutting. [1]
The 14% figure is contradicted by the official record for central universities. The Ministry of Education's own answer to Rahul Gandhi's Lok Sabha question shows about 36% of central university students had hostel accommodation. The claim that privatisation and cost-cutting caused the gap is also not supported by the sources.
“Faced with issues like inflation, unemployment, a lack of investment, and the failure to double farmers' income, they are now harking back to the pre-2017 era”
3.2%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said the BJP government has failed on inflation, unemployment, investment and doubling farmers' income, and is now harking back to the pre-2017 era.
latestly.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
3.2%
unemployment rate, Economic Survey 2024-25
pib.gov.in
The Economic Survey 2024-25, presented by the Ministry of Finance, says the unemployment rate for people aged 15 and above fell from 6.0% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24, and retail headline inflation softened to 4.9% in April-December 2024. A PIB release on the Survey says gross capital formation in agriculture grew 19.04% in 2022-23. On farmers' income, a Rajya Sabha answer of 5 December 2025 says average monthly income per agricultural household rose from ₹6,426 in 2012-13 to ₹10,218 in 2018-19; a Business Standard report on a NITI Aayog member's paper says income jumped 126% between 2014-15 and 2023-24.
The Economic Survey 2024-25 says the unemployment rate for people aged 15 and above fell from 6.0% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24. [7]
The same Survey says retail headline inflation softened to 4.9% in April-December 2024, from 5.4% in FY24. [7]
A PIB release on the Economic Survey says gross capital formation in agriculture grew 19.04% in 2022-23, indicating increased investment. [3]
A Rajya Sabha answer of 5 December 2025 says average monthly income per agricultural household rose from ₹6,426 in 2012-13 to ₹10,218 in 2018-19. [2]
A Business Standard report on a NITI Aayog member's paper says farmers' income jumped 126% between 2014-15 and 2023-24, surpassing the doubling target. [1]
The claim asserts failure on inflation, unemployment, investment and doubling farmers' income. Official data contradict the first three: unemployment fell, inflation was moderate, and agricultural investment grew. The farmers' income part is not established as a failure by the official parliamentary answer, which only gives figures up to 2018-19, and a reported NITI Aayog member study says income more than doubled by 2023-24. The 'harking back' phrase is political framing, not a factual claim. Because the load-bearing assertions are contradicted by the official record, the verdict is false.
Not trueAnurag Dhandha (Arvind Kejriwal)checked 1 Oct 2026
“हम पहले दिन से कहते आ रहे हैं कि यह एसआईआर नहीं है, बल्कि बीजेपी की साजिश है।”
The claim calls the SIR 'not genuine' and a BJP conspiracy. But the official record shows the Election Commission itself directed the SIR under law, and the Supreme Court has upheld it as within the Election Commission's mandate. The sources contain only AAP leaders' allegations of a BJP conspiracy, with no document or court finding supporting that. The core assertion that the SIR is not a genuine Election Commission exercise is contradicted by the official record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP national media in-charge Anurag Dhandha said that the SIR (Special Intensive Revision) is not a genuine SIR but a conspiracy by the BJP.
jansatta.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, directed the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in 16 states and 3 union territories, including Delhi, under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Article 324 of the Constitution [7][12]. A Ministry of Law and Justice release dated 25 July 2026 says the Supreme Court examined the SIR process and held that it is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate [12]. The process includes house-to-house visits, draft rolls, claims and objections, and appeals, with safeguards against wrongful deletion [12].
The Election Commission directed the SIR in 16 states and 3 union territories, including Delhi, with a published schedule. [7]
The Ministry of Law and Justice said the SIR is meant to make electoral rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries while ensuring no eligible elector is left out. [12]
The same release says the Supreme Court held the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Article 324. [12]
The Election Commission's Bihar SIR instructions describe a participative process with political parties' booth-level agents and statutory claims, objections and appeals. [9]
The claim calls the SIR 'not genuine' and a BJP conspiracy. But the official record shows the Election Commission itself directed the SIR under law, and the Supreme Court has upheld it as within the Election Commission's mandate. The sources contain only AAP leaders' allegations of a BJP conspiracy, with no document or court finding supporting that. The core assertion that the SIR is not a genuine Election Commission exercise is contradicted by the official record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“Inflation has broken all records and the unemployment crisis is deepening by the day.”
1.7%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said inflation has broken all records and the unemployment crisis is deepening by the day.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
1.7%
average headline inflation April-December 2025, Economic Survey 2025-26
pib.gov.in
The Economic Survey 2025-26, tabled in Parliament on 29 January 2026, says India recorded its lowest inflation since the Consumer Price Index series began: average headline inflation of 1.7% for April-December 2025, with October 2025 at 0.3%, the lowest reading in the current series. The Economic Survey 2024-25 and a Rajya Sabha answer record the unemployment rate falling from 6% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24.
The Economic Survey 2025-26 says April-December 2025 average headline inflation was 1.7%, the lowest since the CPI series began, and October 2025 inflation was 0.3%, the lowest reading in the current series. [10]
The Economic Survey 2024-25 says retail headline inflation softened from 5.4% in FY24 to 4.9% in April-December 2024. [5]
A Rajya Sabha answer by the Minister of State for Finance says the all-India annual unemployment rate fell from 6% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24, and retail inflation eased to 4.6% in 2024-25, the lowest in six years. [4]
The Economic Survey 2024-25 says the unemployment rate for people aged 15 and above declined from 6% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24. [5]
The claim says inflation has 'broken all records' and unemployment is 'deepening by the day.' The official record shows the opposite: the Economic Survey 2025-26 reports the lowest inflation since the CPI series began (1.7% for April-December 2025), and official data show unemployment falling from 6% to 3.2% between 2017-18 and 2023-24. Both parts of the claim are contradicted by the record.
“अखिलेश यादव का दावा 26 हजार से अधिक स्कूल बंद, मिला ये जवाब!”
more than 26,000 schools shut since 2017, 1,37,102
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
more than 26,000 schools shut since 2017
Akhilesh Yadav claimed that more than 26,000 schools have been shut down (in Uttar Pradesh), a claim to which a response was given.
amarujala.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
1,37,102
government schools in Uttar Pradesh, UDISE+ 2023-24
sansad.in
In a Rajya Sabha answer of 23 July 2025, the Ministry of Education gave UDISE+ counts of government schools in every state. For Uttar Pradesh the count was 1,37,638 in 2019-20 and 1,37,102 in 2023-24 — nearly unchanged over the latest five years, with no drop anywhere near 26,000. The same answer says the opening, merger or closing of schools is within the state government's purview and contains no data showing 26,000 closed primary schools in Uttar Pradesh.
The Ministry of Education's Rajya Sabha answer of 23 July 2025 gives state-wise UDISE+ numbers of government schools; Uttar Pradesh's figure is 1,37,638 in 2019-20 and 1,37,102 in 2023-24. [4]
The same answer says opening, merger or closing of schools is the concerned state government's job under the Right to Education Act, 2009, and it does not list 26,000 closed primary schools in Uttar Pradesh. [4]
Media reports say Akhilesh Yadav claimed official data showed 1,13,938 government primary schools in Uttar Pradesh till March 2017 and that more than 26,000 of them were closed since then. [3]
The official record does not show the claimed mass closure. UDISE+ data tabled in the Rajya Sabha put Uttar Pradesh's total government schools at 1,37,638 in 2019-20 and 1,37,102 in 2023-24, nearly the same. The Rajya Sabha answer about closing or merging schools contains no series showing 26,000 closed primary schools. The official figures are for all government schools and begin after 2017, so they do not directly count primary schools from March 2017, but they contradict the scale of the claim and offer no support for the 1,13,938 baseline.
“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 trueAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“alleging that power projects initiated during previous Samajwadi Party governments remained incomplete”
not a single unit
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
not a single unit
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that power projects initiated during previous Samajwadi Party governments remained incomplete, criticising the state government's record on electricity generation.
devdiscourse.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Central Electricity Authority (CEA), the government body that tracks power projects, lists Uttar Pradesh thermal units completed after 2017: Jawaharpur STPP Unit 1 (660 MW, February 2024) and Unit 2 (660 MW, December 2024), Obra-C Unit 1 (660 MW, February 2024) and Unit 2 (660 MW, June 2025), and Khurja SCTPP Units 1 and 2 (660 MW each in January 2025 and September 2025). Its January–March 2026 review also lists Ghatampur TPP (3x660 MW) as under construction in Uttar Pradesh.
The CEA's January–March 2026 quarterly review lists Uttar Pradesh thermal units at Jawaharpur, Obra-C and Khurja, each of 660 MW, as commissioned after 2023. [7]
The CEA's April–June 2026 review repeats those commissions and identifies Ghatampur TPP (3x660 MW) in Uttar Pradesh as under construction. [8]
Akhilesh Yadav claimed that not a single unit had been produced or plant set up in Uttar Pradesh since the BJP took office in 2017, and that current electricity comes from SP-era plants in districts such as Etah and Kanpur Dehat. [2]
The official CEA record shows Uttar Pradesh added multiple new 660 MW thermal units after 2017, so the claim that no new unit was produced and that the state depends only on SP-era plants is contradicted. The CEA documents do not identify any SP-initiated project as unfinished, while they do show a separate project, Ghatampur, still under construction.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAbhijeet Dipkechecked 1 Oct 2026
“"Pradhan lost his chair. The Uttar Pradesh government allocated a budget of thousands of crores to repair schools. The Rajasthan govt also allocated a budget to repair schools after the Ashutosh (Ranka) issue. The Maharashtra government has started working on Ashram and government schools, but it is not that effective yet," he claimed.”
thousands of crores
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
thousands of crores
Abhijeet Dipke claimed that after student agitation forced Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan to resign, the Uttar Pradesh government allocated a budget of thousands of crores to repair schools, Rajasthan also allocated a school-repair budget after the Ashutosh Ranka issue, and Maharashtra's work on ashram and government schools is not yet effective.
freepressjournal.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
A Rajya Sabha answer of 26 March 2025 lists central Samagra Shiksha releases to Uttar Pradesh of ₹4,571.85 crore, ₹2,044.97 crore, ₹3,819.75 crore, ₹4,276.45 crore and ₹4,487.40 crore across 2020-21 to 2024-25, and describes Operation Kayakalp, but records no state budget of thousands of crores for school repairs [2]. India Today reported on 25 August 2026 that the Uttar Pradesh government approved ₹604 crore to rebuild and repair 3,126 council schools [1]. Rajasthan's ₹503 crore fund was sanctioned after a roof collapse at a government school in Piplodi, Jhalawar killed seven children [7][8].
A Rajya Sabha answer of 26 March 2025 records central Samagra Shiksha releases to Uttar Pradesh of ₹4,571.85 crore, ₹2,044.97 crore, ₹3,819.75 crore, ₹4,276.45 crore and ₹4,487.40 crore from 2020-21 to 2024-25, and mentions Operation Kayakalp, but no state budget of thousands of crores for school repairs [2]. [2]
India Today reported on 25 August 2026 that the Uttar Pradesh government approved ₹604 crore to rebuild and repair 3,126 council-run primary and upper primary schools [1]. [1]
Rajasthan's ₹503 crore school repair fund was sanctioned after a roof collapse at a government school in Piplodi, Jhalawar killed seven children, not after an 'Ashutosh Ranka issue' [7][8]. [7][8]
No source in the record shows Dharmendra Pradhan resigned or lost his chair; a 2023 PIB release refers to him as Union Education Minister [4]. [4]
The claim is false on its load-bearing specifics. The Uttar Pradesh figure is ₹604 crore, not thousands of crores, and the Rajasthan fund followed the Piplodi roof collapse, not an Ashutosh Ranka issue. No source shows Pradhan resigned, and the record contains no evidence on Maharashtra's effectiveness.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueArvind Kejriwalchecked 1 Oct 2026
“Election Commissioner Sandhu wrote to the CEC stating that orders were being issued without the Commission's approval and that information was being received via the media. Another commissioner, Joshi ji, wrote that circulars were being issued without the Commission's approval; any orders issued without such approval are illegal,”
The claim gets the recipient and subject wrong. The official record and reporting say the letters went to the Cabinet Secretary and were about an officer's functioning, not to the CEC about orders issued without Commission approval. No source shows Sandhu wrote to the CEC that information was arriving via the media, or that Joshi wrote that circulars issued without approval were illegal. The Election Commission's press note also says the Special Intensive Revision schedules were issued with unanimous approval, which cuts against the suggestion of unauthorised orders.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal said Election Commissioner Sandhu wrote to the CEC that orders were issued without the Commission's approval and information arrived via the media, and that Commissioner Joshi wrote that circulars were issued without the Commission's approval, which he called illegal.
freepressjournal.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, issued a press note on 26 September 2026. It says work re-distribution orders by the concerned officer were not implemented after the two Election Commissioners objected, and that Special Intensive Revision schedules were issued with unanimous approval. The Commission's clarification, as reported, said the letters from Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi were sent to the Cabinet Secretary, not the Chief Election Commissioner, and concerned the functioning of an officer on deputation, not policy matters.
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says work re-distribution orders by the concerned officer were not implemented after the two Commissioners objected, and that Special Intensive Revision schedules were issued with unanimous approval. [10]
The Commission clarified that the letters from Sandhu and Joshi were sent to the Cabinet Secretary, not the CEC, and concerned the functioning of an officer on deputation, not policy matters. [1][4][5]
Media reports also state the letters were addressed to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan about a senior deputy election commissioner's functioning. [2][3]
The Hindu reported that Sandhu and Joshi flagged anomalies in the Special Intensive Revision process over 10 months, but it does not support the specific claim that Sandhu wrote to the CEC or that Joshi called circulars illegal. [8]
The claim gets the recipient and subject wrong. The official record and reporting say the letters went to the Cabinet Secretary and were about an officer's functioning, not to the CEC about orders issued without Commission approval. No source shows Sandhu wrote to the CEC that information was arriving via the media, or that Joshi wrote that circulars issued without approval were illegal. The Election Commission's press note also says the Special Intensive Revision schedules were issued with unanimous approval, which cuts against the suggestion of unauthorised orders.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Rahul Gandhi demanded an immediate rollback of the new UPI merchant discount rate, calling it a "UPI tax" and alleging it would benefit the US.”
UPI tax
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
UPI tax
Rahul Gandhi called the new UPI merchant discount rate a 'UPI tax'.
msn.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Press Information Bureau said on 24 March 2025 that the merchant discount rate is the fee merchants and businesses pay to a payment processing company, and that small merchants' UPI transactions up to ₹2,000 attract zero merchant discount rate. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said on 25 September 2026 that the proposed merchant discount rate on select high-value UPI transactions is neither a tax, cess nor a surcharge, and the collections will not come to the Consolidated Fund of India.
The charge is a merchant discount rate — a processing charge paid by merchants to their acquiring bank or payment aggregator — not a government levy; the merchant also bears GST on that merchant discount rate, while the UPI transfer itself does not attract GST. [7]
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said the proposed merchant discount rate on select high-value UPI transactions is neither a tax, cess nor a surcharge, and the collections will not accrue to the government or the Consolidated Fund of India. [3][5][6]
The Press Information Bureau said the merchant discount rate is the fee merchants and businesses pay to a payment processing company, and that under the incentive scheme small merchants' UPI transactions up to ₹2,000 would attract zero merchant discount rate. [1]
The National Payments Corporation of India has announced a 0.4 per cent merchant discount rate on specified person-to-merchant UPI transactions above ₹2,000 from 15 October; transactions up to ₹2,000 remain at zero merchant discount rate. [2][3][4]
Calling the charge a 'UPI tax' is contradicted by the official record. The Finance Minister has explicitly said it is not a tax, cess or surcharge and that the collections do not go to the government. The charge is collected within the merchant payment ecosystem, and the government says about 96 per cent of person-to-merchant UPI transactions will remain unaffected.
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 trueAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“The administration of Raebareli has effectively shifted to Bareilly.”
The claim says Raebareli's administration has effectively shifted to Bareilly. The official record shows the opposite: Raebareli's administrative officers and structure are located in Raebareli, and Bareilly is a separate district. No source shows any order or arrangement moving Raebareli's administration to Bareilly.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the administration of Raebareli was effectively controlled from Bareilly.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Raebareli district administration's own website states that general administration of the district is vested in the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, assisted by Additional District Magistrates, Sub-Divisional Magistrates and a Chief Development Officer, and its directory lists these officers with Raebareli phone numbers. Bareilly is a separate district with its own tehsils and administrative set-up.
Raebareli district's official website says its general administration is vested in the District Magistrate, also called Deputy Commissioner, who is assisted by Additional District Magistrates, Sub-Divisional Magistrates and a Chief Development Officer. [3]
The Raebareli district directory lists Additional District Magistrate (F&R) and Additional District Magistrate (e) with Raebareli phone numbers. [5]
Bareilly is a separate district with six tehsils and fifteen blocks, according to its official district website. [7]
The claim says Raebareli's administration has effectively shifted to Bareilly. The official record shows the opposite: Raebareli's administrative officers and structure are located in Raebareli, and Bareilly is a separate district. No source shows any order or arrangement moving Raebareli's administration to Bareilly.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueSanjay Singh, Aam Aadmi Party (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“What Congress is doing with Akhilesh in Uttar Pradesh today is what they did with Tejashwi in Bihar. The first time, they contested 77 seats and lost many of them, and the government fell short of the majority by just five seats.”
77 seats and five seats short
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
77 seats and five seats short
AAP MP Sanjay Singh alleged that Congress's actions prevented the Rashtriya Janata Dal from forming the government in the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections, saying Congress had earlier contested 77 seats, lost many of them, and the government fell short of a majority by just five seats.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India published statistical reports on the 2025 Bihar election on 19 November 2025, though the excerpts do not give party tallies. Reporting of the final results says the NDA won 202 seats, above the 122-seat majority mark, while the Mahagathbandhan—including the RJD and Congress—won 34 seats (RJD 25, Congress 6).
The Election Commission of India published statistical reports for the 2025 Bihar Assembly election on 19 November 2025, within five days of the poll results. [7]
Final result reporting shows the NDA won 202 seats and the Mahagathbandhan won 34 seats, against a majority mark of 122. [6]
In that tally, the RJD won 25 seats and the Congress won six seats. [6]
The RJD contested 143 seats in the 2025 election, according to election result reporting. [1][2]
The claim's 'fell short by just five seats' conflicts with the final 2025 tally: the opposition alliance had 34 seats, leaving it 88 seats below the 122-seat majority, not five. No retrieved source shows the Congress contesting 77 seats in that election; reporting puts the Congress at six seats won. If the speaker was referring to an earlier Bihar election, the provided record does not cover it.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueSanjay Singh, Aam Aadmi Party (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“The second time, in the recent Assembly elections, Congress kept Tejashwi Yadav hanging until the last moment. They kept talking to contest an equal number of seats, took most of the seats, and did not announce Tejashwi as the chief ministerial candidate in time. We all know what the result was.”
The claim is partly accurate: Congress did delay endorsing Tejashwi, and the CM announcement came late. But the specific assertion that Congress took most of the seats is contradicted by the reported seat-sharing, which gave the RJD 130 seats and Congress 50. No source in the record supports the claim that Congress negotiated for an equal number of seats. Because a load-bearing specific is wrong, the claim is false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP MP Sanjay Singh said that in the recent 2025 Bihar Assembly elections Congress kept Tejashwi Yadav waiting until the last moment, negotiated for an equal number of seats, took most of the seats, and did not announce Tejashwi Yadav as chief ministerial candidate in time.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Reporting on the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections shows the Mahagathbandhan announced Tejashwi Yadav as its chief ministerial candidate on 23 October 2025, after days of negotiations. The Indian Express reported that Congress's refusal to endorse Tejashwi as the CM face before the polls was among the issues holding up the seat-sharing deal. News18 reported the seat-sharing arrangement as 130 seats for the RJD and 50 for Congress.
The Mahagathbandhan announced Tejashwi Yadav as its chief ministerial candidate on 23 October 2025. [1][3][4][7]
News18 reported the seat-sharing arrangement as 130 seats for the RJD and 50 for Congress. [2]
The Indian Express reported that Congress's refusal to endorse Tejashwi as the CM face before the polls was among the issues holding up the seat-sharing deal, and the announcement came after days of negotiations. [4]
Moneycontrol reported that the alliance fielded 253 candidates for 243 seats amid seat-sharing disputes that forced parties to file unilaterally before the nomination deadline. [7]
The claim is partly accurate: Congress did delay endorsing Tejashwi, and the CM announcement came late. But the specific assertion that Congress took most of the seats is contradicted by the reported seat-sharing, which gave the RJD 130 seats and Congress 50. No source in the record supports the claim that Congress negotiated for an equal number of seats. Because a load-bearing specific is wrong, the claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“In 10 years of BJP rule, farmers have never received fertiliser and seeds on time.”
91.72 lakh metric tonnes
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said that in 10 years of BJP rule, farmers have never received fertiliser and seeds on time.
msn.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
91.72 lakh metric tonnes
urea availability in Uttar Pradesh, 2024-25, Lok Sabha answer
sansad.in
The Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers told Parliament on 31 July 2026 that the Uttar Pradesh government reported no shortage or delayed supply of fertilisers in the state. A separate Lok Sabha answer on 12 December 2025 gave urea availability in Uttar Pradesh as 91.72 lakh metric tonnes against a requirement of 77 lakh metric tonnes in 2024-25, and said major fertilisers remained adequate over the last three years.
In a Lok Sabha answer dated 31 July 2026, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers stated the Uttar Pradesh government informed there is no shortage or delayed supply of fertilisers in the state. [1]
In a Lok Sabha answer dated 12 December 2025, the ministry provided data showing urea availability in Uttar Pradesh was 91.72 lakh metric tonnes against a requirement of 77 lakh metric tonnes in 2024-25. [5]
The same answer said urea, DAP, MOP and NPKS remained adequate in Uttar Pradesh during the last three years. [5]
The claim says farmers 'never' received fertiliser and seeds on time in ten years of BJP rule. Official parliamentary answers show fertiliser was available and not delayed in Uttar Pradesh, with urea availability exceeding requirement in 2024-25. That directly contradicts the fertiliser part of the claim. The retrieved record does not cover seed distribution, but the absolute claim about fertiliser is false.
““I heard that 8,000 schools have shut down in Assam and that in 2,000 schools there is only one teacher. Himanta Biswa Sarma should have met Ashutosh Ranka and listened to his findings.””
Arvind Kejriwal said he had heard that 8,000 schools have shut down in Assam and that 2,000 schools have only one teacher, and said Himanta Biswa Sarma should have met Ashutosh Ranka.
pratidintime.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
0
government/provincialised schools closed in Assam, Lok Sabha answer, 2026
sansad.in
A written answer in the Lok Sabha on 1 December 2025 said the Assam school education department reported that no government or provincialised primary, middle, high or higher secondary school in the state has been closed; instead, 2,774 elementary and 206 secondary schools were merged or amalgamated over the last five years. A Rajya Sabha answer on 26 March 2025, using UDISE+ 2023-24 data, put Assam's single-teacher schools with primary sections at 2,613.
In a Lok Sabha answer dated 1 December 2025, the Ministry of Education said no government or provincialised primary, middle, high or higher secondary school in Assam has been closed till date. [1]
The same answer said 2,774 elementary and 206 secondary schools in Assam were merged or amalgamated over five years, a school rationalisation measure, not closure. [1]
UDISE+ 2023-24 data placed before the Rajya Sabha on 26 March 2025 shows Assam had 2,613 single-teacher schools with primary sections, not 2,000. [6]
The official record directly contradicts the 8,000 shutdown figure: Assam's education department told Parliament that no government or provincialised school had been closed, and 2,980 were merged or amalgamated. The claim that 2,000 schools have only one teacher is also unsupported; official UDISE+ data lists 2,613 single-teacher primary schools in Assam. Because the load-bearing numbers are wrong, the claim is false.
“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 trueSaurav Daschecked 30 Sept 2026
“Das claims that the powers of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) at the constituency level to add and delete voters have been usurped and concentrated in the Delhi Election Commission, where an IT officer reporting to the government now controls these crucial functions.”
The official process described by the Election Commission and the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer still places additions and deletions with Electoral Registration Officers, with notices, recorded reasons and appeals. The claim that these powers have been usurped and concentrated in a Delhi Election Commission where an IT officer controls them names a mechanism the cited records do not show. The ECINet dispute is real, but it involves concerns about ERO discretion, not an established takeover by an IT officer.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Saurav Das claimed that the powers of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to add and delete voters have been usurped and concentrated in the Delhi Election Commission, where an IT officer reporting to the government controls these functions.
news9live.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, has said field officers have role-based access to the ECINet system 'as per their statutory powers'. The Press Information Bureau, publishing the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision safeguards on 25 July 2026, states that deletion happens only after reasons are recorded and the process under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 is followed, with appeals to the District Magistrate and then the Chief Electoral Officer. The Delhi Chief Electoral Officer's office has also said notices in the revision do not by themselves mean deletion, and that Electoral Registration Officers consider relevant material while deciding individual cases.
The Election Commission has said field officers have role-based access to the ECINet system according to their statutory powers, not that an IT officer controls voter additions or deletions. [2]
The Election Commission's published safeguards for the Special Intensive Revision say deletion requires recording of reasons and following the statutory process under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, with a right to appeal to the District Magistrate and then the Chief Electoral Officer. [9]
The Delhi Chief Electoral Officer's office has clarified that Special Intensive Revision notices are part of verification and do not automatically mean deletion; Electoral Registration Officers consider relevant material while deciding individual cases. [3]
Two Election Commissioners did flag on record that the ECINet software was curtailing the powers of Electoral Registration Officers, and the Maharashtra Chief Electoral Officer sought changes to restore ERO discretion, but this is an internal concern about software, not evidence that an IT officer has taken over the Delhi election machinery. [4]
The official process described by the Election Commission and the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer still places additions and deletions with Electoral Registration Officers, with notices, recorded reasons and appeals. The claim that these powers have been usurped and concentrated in a Delhi Election Commission where an IT officer controls them names a mechanism the cited records do not show. The ECINet dispute is real, but it involves concerns about ERO discretion, not an established takeover by an IT officer.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
““No action was taken against any official. This shows the Commission is not impartial,” Yadav said.”
The claim is a blanket statement that no action was taken against any official. The record includes a disciplinary recommendation in an Uttar Pradesh electoral roll revision and the suspension of seven officials in West Bengal in connection with voter-list revision. These examples directly contradict the factual assertion. The conclusion that the Commission is therefore not impartial rests on that incorrect premise.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said no action was taken against any official, and that this shows the Election Commission is not impartial.
hindustantimes.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note on the summary revision of the 35-Thakurdwara assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh recommends disciplinary action against officers for dereliction of duty and asks the disciplinary authority to report the action within six months. Separately, the Commission has suspended seven West Bengal officials and directed the state chief secretary to start disciplinary proceedings against them over the Special Intensive Revision, a voter-list update exercise.
An Election Commission press note records a recommendation for disciplinary action against officers for dereliction of duty during the summary revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh's 35-Thakurdwara assembly constituency, with action to be communicated within six months. [3]
The Election Commission suspended seven West Bengal officials and directed the West Bengal chief secretary to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them for misconduct during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. [1][6][7]
The claim is a blanket statement that no action was taken against any official. The record includes a disciplinary recommendation in an Uttar Pradesh electoral roll revision and the suspension of seven officials in West Bengal in connection with voter-list revision. These examples directly contradict the factual assertion. The conclusion that the Commission is therefore not impartial rests on that incorrect premise.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhi30 Sept 2026
“CEC has lifelong immunity for helping Modi govt. steal elections: Rahul”
The claim rests on two parts: a legal assertion that the CEC enjoys lifelong immunity, and an allegation that he helped steal elections. The legal record contradicts the first part — protections are limited to tenure and acts done in official duty, and a pending PIL explicitly argues there is no personal criminal immunity. The second part remains an allegation, with no court or Election Commission finding in the sources upholding it.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged that the Chief Election Commissioner has lifelong immunity for helping the Modi government steal elections.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's judgment of 23 September 2026 states that India has a government of laws and that officials 'can never be above the law.' A pending public interest litigation before the Supreme Court argues that Article 361 gives personal immunity only to the President and Governors and that Article 324 protects only the CEC's tenure, not personal criminal immunity. The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision orders were issued with unanimous approval.
The Supreme Court's 23 September 2026 judgment says: 'ours is a government of laws, not of men, where the rulers are bound by the law; they can never be above the law.' [11]
A pending public interest litigation before the Supreme Court argues that absolute personal immunity from criminal proceedings is reserved under Article 361 for the President and Governors alone, and that Article 324 secures only the CEC's tenure. [3]
The same litigation, as reported, describes Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 as a statutory protection tied to official duty, not a blanket lifetime shield. [2]
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision orders for Bihar, West Bengal and other states were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. [12]
The Supreme Court judgment and the Election Commission press note contain no finding that the CEC helped the Modi government steal elections. [11][12]
The claim rests on two parts: a legal assertion that the CEC enjoys lifelong immunity, and an allegation that he helped steal elections. The legal record contradicts the first part — protections are limited to tenure and acts done in official duty, and a pending PIL explicitly argues there is no personal criminal immunity. The second part remains an allegation, with no court or Election Commission finding in the sources upholding it.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueGopal Rai (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“ओलांद के खुलासे से राफेल सौदे में घोटाले की बात सामने आई है. इससे दुनिया के सामने देश को शर्मनाक स्थिति का सामना करना पड़ रहा है.”
Hollande's statement concerned the choice of an offset partner, not a proven scam in the Rafale deal. The Supreme Court considered the allegations and did not order an investigation, while the Ministry of Defence denied any government role in that selection. The official record therefore contradicts the assertion that the disclosure revealed a scam, and the 'shameful situation before the world' is a political framing rather than a recorded finding.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Gopal Rai said that Hollande's disclosure revealed a scam in the Rafale deal and that the country is facing a shameful situation before the world.
zeenews.india.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
On 14 December 2018, the Supreme Court declined to order a court-monitored investigation into the purchase of 36 Rafale jets and recorded that Dassault, Reliance and the Indian government had all called former French President François Hollande's allegations false. The Ministry of Defence also said on 22 September 2018 that the government had no role in selecting Reliance Defence as offset partner, a commercial decision of the aircraft maker.
The Supreme Court, in its 14 December 2018 decision, declined a court-monitored investigation into the Rafale purchase. [6]
The Court recorded that Dassault, Reliance and the Indian government had all said Hollande's allegations were false. [6]
The Ministry of Defence said the government had no role in selecting Reliance Defence as offset partner and called the controversy unnecessary. [3]
Hollande's statement concerned the choice of an offset partner, not a proven scam in the Rafale deal. The Supreme Court considered the allegations and did not order an investigation, while the Ministry of Defence denied any government role in that selection. The official record therefore contradicts the assertion that the disclosure revealed a scam, and the 'shameful situation before the world' is a political framing rather than a recorded finding.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueSaurav Daschecked 30 Sept 2026
“A particularly stark allegation is that since 2024, the Election Commission has ceased enrolling Gen Z voters, a move reportedly objected to by two other Election Commissioners.”
1,84,81,610
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Saurav Das alleged that since 2024, the Election Commission has ceased enrolling Gen Z voters.
news9live.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
1,84,81,610
electors aged 18-19 in final 2024 roll, ECI/PIB
pib.gov.in
The Election Commission's release of 9 February 2024, published by the Press Information Bureau, says the Special Summary Revision 2024 was completed and final electoral rolls were published with 1 January 2024 as the qualifying date. It lists 1,84,81,610 electors in the 18-19 age group in the final roll and says over 2.63 crore new electors were included. Media reports about a stalled annual revision concern later revision cycles, not the 2024 cycle itself.
The Election Commission's 2024 Special Summary Revision was completed and final rolls were published on 8 February 2024; the final roll had 96.88 crore registered electors, including 1,84,81,610 electors aged 18-19 and over 2.63 crore new electors. [6]
Election Commission documents for the 2024 cycle record that the Special Summary Revision was conducted with 1 January 2024 as the qualifying date and applications were invited from eligible citizens seeking registration. [7]
Media reports describe a stalled annual summary revision cycle in 2026, with possible delay in adding new 18-year-old voters and divisions within the Election Commission, but this is about later revision cycles, not a total halt to enrolling young voters from 2024. [1][2][3]
Election Commission data for the 2024 Lok Sabha election counted 97,97,51,847 registered electors, an increase of 7.43 percent over 2019, showing rolls continued to grow through the 2024 election cycle. [10]
The claim says enrolment of Gen Z voters has ceased since 2024, but the official record for 2024 shows the Election Commission enrolled millions of young voters, including 1.84 crore electors aged 18-19. Reporting that the annual revision later stalled does not support the absolute assertion that enrolment stopped from 2024. The official data directly contradicts the claim as worded.
“The Special Intensive Revision, through which more than 13 crore names have been deleted across 30 states, is completely illegal because it was not officially approved by the Election Commission.”
more than 13 crore names
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
more than 13 crore names
Arvind Kejriwal said the Special Intensive Revision had deleted more than 13 crore names across 30 states and was completely illegal because it was not officially approved by the Election Commission.
patialapolitics.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
A Press Information Bureau release of 14 May 2026 says the Election Commission of India directed the Special Intensive Revision in phases, including 16 States and 3 Union Territories in Phase III [6]. Another PIB release describes the SIR as a phased exercise with verification, public draft rolls, claims and objections, and restoration of valid names before the final roll [5]. Media reports put draft-stage removals at over 13 crore names across 30 States/UTs, not final deletions [1][2][4].
The 13-crore figure counts names removed from draft electoral rolls, not final deletions; reports describe 13.37 crore names left out of draft rolls across 30 States/UTs. [1][2][4]
The Election Commission of India itself directed the Special Intensive Revision; a PIB release dated 14 May 2026 announces Phase III in 16 States and 3 UTs. [6]
The PIB says the SIR includes house-to-house verification, draft roll publication, a claims and objections period, and restoration of valid names before the final roll. [5]
The speaker's number tracks draft-roll deletions reported for 30 States/UTs, but calling the entire exercise illegal because it was not approved by the Election Commission is contradicted by the Election Commission's own official release, which says the ECI directed the SIR. Draft deletions are subject to claims and objections and restoration, so treating them as final deletions overstates the record. Because the legality part is directly refuted by an official document, the overall claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAbhijeet Dipkechecked 30 Sept 2026
“If we look at the unemployment data, India currently has the highest unemployment rate in the last 40 years”
5.2%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke said that India currently has the highest unemployment rate in the last 40 years.
bbc.co.uk, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
5.2%
overall unemployment rate, persons 15+, PLFS April 2026
static.pib.gov.in
The National Statistics Office's Periodic Labour Force Survey monthly bulletin for April 2026 put the all-India unemployment rate for persons aged 15 and above at 5.2% using the current weekly status measure. The Ministry of Labour and Employment told Parliament that the annual usual-status unemployment rate fell from 6.0% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24. A 2017-18 PLFS figure of 6.1% was described in one analysis as the highest in 45 years.
The National Statistics Office's monthly Periodic Labour Force Survey bulletin for April 2026 says the overall unemployment rate for people aged 15 and above remained broadly stable at 5.2%. [3][4]
The Ministry of Labour and Employment has stated in Parliament that the annual usual-status unemployment rate decreased from 6.0% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24. [8]
The Hindu reported that Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi made a similar claim on 24 August 2026 that unemployment is the highest in 40 years, but that is a political assertion, not an official data finding. [1]
The claim that unemployment is currently the highest in 40 years is contradicted by official labour force data. The most recent monthly bulletin shows a rate of 5.2%, while the government's parliamentary answer says the usual-status rate was 6.0% in 2017-18 and 3.2% in 2023-24. Since a higher rate was recorded several years ago, India is not at a 40-year peak now.
Not trueCockroach Janata Party (Abhijeet Dipke's outfit) (Abhijeet Dipke)checked 30 Sept 2026
“But there was always one option left - to vote against the regime. Now even that’s being taken away! Resist this, Save Democracy!”
The post asserts that the Special Intensive Revision removes the last way to vote against the ruling side, but the official record shows no such removal. The exercise includes a statutory claims-and-objections window and appeal rights, the Supreme Court has upheld it as legal and consistent with free and fair elections, and the Election Commission's stated rule is that no eligible voter should be left out. The claim is therefore contradicted by the record, not merely unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
The Cockroach Janata Party, founded by Abhijeet Dipke, alleged in a post that the option of voting against the regime is now being taken away, framing the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls as an attack on democracy.
freepressjournal.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Law and Justice, citing the Election Commission, which runs elections, said on 25 July 2026 that the Special Intensive Revision aims to make rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries while ensuring no eligible elector is left out. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 27 May 2026, held the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and consistent with its constitutional duty under Article 324 to ensure free and fair elections.
The Election Commission's press note, reproduced by the Ministry of Law and Justice on 25 July 2026, says the Special Intensive Revision aims to make electoral rolls accurate and up-to-date while ensuring that no eligible elector is left out. [7]
The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated 27 May 2026, examined the legality of the Special Intensive Revision and held that it is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and consistent with Article 324's requirement of free and fair elections. [7]
The revision process requires publication of a draft roll, a period for filing claims and objections, and provides appeals to the District Magistrate and Chief Electoral Officer before the roll is finalised. [7][2]
After Bihar's Special Intensive Revision, the Election Commission said any eligible person left out could still apply for inclusion up to ten days before the last date for filing nominations, and could appeal against an Electoral Registration Officer's decision. [9]
In the 2026 assembly elections in Assam, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala and Puducherry, voting was conducted on the revised rolls and results were declared on 4 May 2026. [6]
The post asserts that the Special Intensive Revision removes the last way to vote against the ruling side, but the official record shows no such removal. The exercise includes a statutory claims-and-objections window and appeal rights, the Supreme Court has upheld it as legal and consistent with free and fair elections, and the Election Commission's stated rule is that no eligible voter should be left out. The claim is therefore contradicted by the record, not merely unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“over 1.5 crore students have been deprived of scholarship”
over 1.5 crore students, 48,04,208
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
over 1.5 crore students
Rahul Gandhi said that over 1.5 crore students in India have been deprived of scholarships, presenting data on a slide show at the Chhatron Ki Goonj event in Indore.
The Press Information Bureau (PIB), the government's official release, says the Post-Matric Scholarship Scheme for Scheduled Castes benefited 48,04,208 students in 2024-25, with central assistance of ₹5,562.23 crore, and the Pre-Matric Scholarship Scheme benefited over 26 lakh SC students with ₹562.36 crore. It does not state that 1.5 crore students were deprived of scholarships.
The PIB release says 48,04,208 Scheduled Caste students received post-matric scholarships in 2024-25, with central assistance of ₹5,562.23 crore. [2]
The same release says over 26 lakh Scheduled Caste students received pre-matric scholarships, with central assistance of ₹562.36 crore. [2]
The SBI Foundation's Asha Scholarship 2026-27 is open for applications and offers aid from ₹15,000 to ₹15 lakh; it does not mention 1.5 crore students deprived of scholarships. [1]
The claim's figure of over 1.5 crore students deprived of scholarships does not appear in the official record. The PIB release on scholarship schemes shows lakhs of students received scholarships, not that 1.5 crore were deprived. The SBI article is about a private scholarship open for applications and also does not support the claim.
Rahul Gandhi alleged at the 'Chhatron Ki Goonj' rally in Dehradun on July 17 that the NEET UG 2026 question paper was being sold for Rs 40 lakhs.
wionews.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Central Bureau of Investigation, India's federal investigation agency, registered a case on 12 May 2026 after the Ministry of Education complained about alleged irregularities and paper leak in NEET-UG 2026. CBI releases say students allegedly paid several lakhs of rupees for leaked questions, and that 13 people had been arrested by 27 May 2026. None of these official releases mentions ₹40 lakh.
The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case on 12 May 2026 over alleged irregularities and paper leak in NEET-UG 2026, based on a complaint from the Department of Higher Education in the Ministry of Education. [6]
A CBI release says the source of the Chemistry paper leak was a lecturer involved in the examination process, and students allegedly paid several lakhs of rupees for special coaching classes where questions were dictated. [7]
News reports citing sources said students paid Rs 2 lakh to Rs 5 lakh for access to leaked papers, not Rs 40 lakh. [1]
No CBI release or news report in the record states that the NEET-UG 2026 question paper was sold for Rs 40 lakh. [1][6][7]
The broader allegation that the NEET-UG 2026 paper was leaked for money is supported by the CBI's findings. But the specific figure of Rs 40 lakh is not supported by any record provided; the amounts mentioned are in the range of a few lakhs, with one report citing Rs 2 lakh to Rs 5 lakh. Since the figure is the load-bearing part of the claim, the claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAbhijeet Dipkechecked 30 Sept 2026
“every year there’s not been one single government examination where the paper isn’t leaked, or the paper or the exam isn’t cancelled”
The claim is built on an absolute: that in every year, not one single government exam escaped either a paper leak or a cancellation. The sources show many serious leaks and cancellations, but they also identify a major central examination body with no comparable systemic leak crisis and classify some exams as not cancelled. Because even one exam that was neither leaked nor cancelled would make the claim false, the available record contradicts the absolutist wording.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke said that every year there has not been a single government examination in India where the paper was not leaked, or the paper or exam was not cancelled.
bbc.co.uk, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which runs civil-services and other central government exams, has 'not had a comparable systemic paper leak crisis,' according to India Today. A 2005–2026 review of exam fraud cases classifies some exams as 'Cancelled' and others as 'Not cancelled,' so not every listed exam was cancelled. The Press Information Bureau's material on the anti-leak laws treats leaks as a significant problem the laws aim to reduce, not as a feature of every exam.
India Today reports that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which conducts civil-services and other central government exams, has 'not had a comparable systemic paper leak crisis.' [2]
A 2005–2026 review of exam fraud cases contains separate 'Cancelled' and 'Not cancelled' categories for both pre-2015 and post-2015 cases, so the record does not show that all government exams were cancelled. [1]
The Hindu says India relives the same paper-leak headline 'every few months' — a recurring problem, not proof that every exam every year is leaked or cancelled. [7]
The Press Information Bureau's official document on strengthening anti-leak law says the aim is to give exam candidates 'greater confidence' that papers will not leak, and it does not state that every government exam is compromised. [4]
The claim is built on an absolute: that in every year, not one single government exam escaped either a paper leak or a cancellation. The sources show many serious leaks and cancellations, but they also identify a major central examination body with no comparable systemic leak crisis and classify some exams as not cancelled. Because even one exam that was neither leaked nor cancelled would make the claim false, the available record contradicts the absolutist wording.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“31 July 2025. Rahul Gandhi: "The Indian economy is dead."”
Calling the Indian economy dead is contradicted by official and independent data in the record. Global rating agencies were raising India's growth forecasts for FY27, and the economy actually grew 7.8 per cent in the June quarter. A government reply to Parliament also described India's economy as strong.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said on 31 July 2025 that the Indian economy is dead.
x.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Fitch Ratings raised India's FY27 GDP growth forecast to 6.9 per cent from 6.4 per cent, and OECD, S&P, Moody's and ADB projected growth of 7 to 7.1 per cent. India's economy expanded 7.8 per cent in the April-June quarter and also grew 7.8 per cent in the previous fiscal year 2025-26. A Ministry of Finance reply in Parliament referred to India's strong economy while explaining the rupee's fall.
Fitch Ratings raised India's FY27 GDP growth forecast to 6.9 per cent from 6.4 per cent, and said India's growth remains very strong. [1][2]
India's economy expanded 7.8 per cent in the April-June quarter. [1][3][4]
OECD, S&P, Moody's and ADB projected India's FY27 GDP growth at 7 to 7.1 per cent. [2][3][4]
A Finance Ministry reply in Parliament described India's economy as strong while explaining that the rupee's depreciation does not reflect a weak economy. [6]
Calling the Indian economy dead is contradicted by official and independent data in the record. Global rating agencies were raising India's growth forecasts for FY27, and the economy actually grew 7.8 per cent in the June quarter. A government reply to Parliament also described India's economy as strong.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueArvind Kejriwalchecked 30 Sept 2026
“Kejriwal claimed that the previous AAP government had installed 2.62 lakh CCTV cameras and 2.80 lakh streetlights across Delhi. He alleged that more than half of these installations are currently non-functional and urged the government to restore them.”
The installation numbers Kejriwal cited are broadly supported: records show about 2.63 lakh CCTV cameras installed and a similar scale of LED streetlight replacement. But the allegation that more than half are non-functional is contradicted by the audit, which found 32,000 non-functional cameras out of 2.64 lakh — far fewer than half. No source supports the claim that more than half of streetlights are non-functional.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal claimed the previous AAP government installed 2.62 lakh CCTV cameras and 2.80 lakh streetlights across Delhi, and alleged more than half are currently non-functional.
punjabnewsline.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
A Delhi government audit reported in July 2025 found 2.64 lakh CCTV cameras installed across 70 assembly constituencies, of which over 32,000 were non-functional and over 15,000 remained uninstalled [1]. PWD records show 2.63 lakh cameras installed under a project to install 2.80 lakh [4]. A 2017 Lok Sabha reply said 2.86 lakh streetlights had been replaced with LED lights in the South Delhi Municipal Corporation area, but it does not show the AAP government installed 2.80 lakh streetlights across Delhi or how many work now [5].
A Delhi government audit found 2.64 lakh CCTV cameras installed across 70 assembly constituencies, with over 32,000 non-functional and over 15,000 uninstalled. [1]
PWD records show 2.63 lakh CCTV cameras installed under a project to install 2.80 lakh. [4]
A 2017 Lok Sabha reply said 2.86 lakh streetlights had been replaced with LED lights in the South Delhi Municipal Corporation area. [5]
The installation numbers Kejriwal cited are broadly supported: records show about 2.63 lakh CCTV cameras installed and a similar scale of LED streetlight replacement. But the allegation that more than half are non-functional is contradicted by the audit, which found 32,000 non-functional cameras out of 2.64 lakh — far fewer than half. No source supports the claim that more than half of streetlights are non-functional.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Gandhi also said students had received 1.5 crore fewer scholarships and that over 10 lakh teaching posts in government schools remain vacant.”
The teaching vacancy part is close but the exact official figure is 9.82 lakh, under 10 lakh, so 'over 10 lakh' is an overstatement. The scholarship part is the bigger problem: the specific 1.5 crore drop does not appear in any official release provided; the releases show ongoing disbursal to lakhs of students. Because a load-bearing specific is unsupported and the vacancy figure is overstated, the claim is false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said students received 1.5 crore fewer scholarships and over 10 lakh teaching posts in government schools remain vacant.
thenewsmill.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The 2024-25 school education framework data show 9,82,662 vacant sanctioned teaching posts — nearly 10 lakh, not over 10 lakh. A parliamentary panel flagged around 10 lakh vacant school-teacher posts. Official scholarship releases show 48,04,208 Scheduled Caste students received post-matric scholarships in 2024-25 and over 26 lakh SC students received pre-matric scholarships, while the Prime Minister's Scholarship Scheme disbursed 49,189 scholarships from 2006-07 to 2023-24; none shows a 1.5 crore reduction.
The 2024-25 school education framework data show 69,85,760 sanctioned teaching posts and 9,82,662 vacancies — nearly 10 lakh, not over 10 lakh. [1]
A Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education flagged around 10 lakh vacant school-teacher posts. [1][5]
Official government releases show 48,04,208 Scheduled Caste students received post-matric scholarships in 2024-25 and over 26 lakh SC students received pre-matric scholarships. [3]
The Prime Minister's Scholarship Scheme disbursed 49,189 scholarships from 2006-07 to 2023-24. [4]
The official scholarship releases in the record show current beneficiaries in lakhs, not a 1.5 crore reduction. [3][4]
The teaching vacancy part is close but the exact official figure is 9.82 lakh, under 10 lakh, so 'over 10 lakh' is an overstatement. The scholarship part is the bigger problem: the specific 1.5 crore drop does not appear in any official release provided; the releases show ongoing disbursal to lakhs of students. Because a load-bearing specific is unsupported and the vacancy figure is overstated, the claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueArvind Kejriwalchecked 30 Sept 2026
““Today, it has come to light that the government has made software through which, in many areas, the SDM has been removed and some people sitting in the Delhi Election Commission have the power to delete or add anyone's vote without verification. This is very dangerous,””
The claim that people in the Delhi Election Commission can delete or add anyone's vote 'without verification' is contradicted by the Election Commission's public clarification and by the Supreme Court's ruling. The official record describes a process with notices, hearings, appealable orders and verification, not unchecked power. Because the load-bearing part of the allegation, deletion or addition without any verification, is directly denied by the record, the claim is false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal alleged that the government has created software under which the SDM has been removed in many areas and people sitting in the Delhi Election Commission can delete or add anyone's vote without verification.
pratidintime.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission clarified on 20 September 2026 that Special Intensive Revision notices are the start of a verification process, not automatic deletion, and that no name can be deleted without a chance to be heard and a proper speaking and appealable order. The Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment, held that deletions made under the Special Intensive Revision were not contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. Parliament was told that the exercise ends with a final electoral roll after due verification and that valid grievances result in names being restored.
The Election Commission said on 20 September 2026 that receiving a Special Intensive Revision notice does not mean a voter's name will be deleted; it is the start of verification, not an order for deletion. [2]
The Election Commission says no name can be deleted without giving the person an opportunity to be heard and without a proper speaking and appealable order. [2]
The Supreme Court on 27 May 2026 held that deletions made under the Special Intensive Revision cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. [11]
A parliamentary answer states the Special Intensive Revision involved house-to-house enumeration, publication of draft rolls, claims and objections, and finalisation only after due verification; grievances found valid led to restoration of names. [10]
The claim that people in the Delhi Election Commission can delete or add anyone's vote 'without verification' is contradicted by the Election Commission's public clarification and by the Supreme Court's ruling. The official record describes a process with notices, hearings, appealable orders and verification, not unchecked power. Because the load-bearing part of the allegation, deletion or addition without any verification, is directly denied by the record, the claim is false.
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
Not trueArvind Kejriwalchecked 30 Sept 2026
“The entire SIR process, through which over 13 crore names were deleted, is illegal; the SIR process must be scrapped.”
The claim has two parts: the deletion figure and the legal conclusion. The figure of over 13 crore deletions is supported by media reports based on ECI draft roll data. But the central assertion that the SIR process 'is illegal' is directly contradicted by the Supreme Court's judgment of 27 May 2026, which upheld the Election Commission's power and authority to conduct the SIR. A court of law has examined and rejected the illegality argument, so the claim as stated is false. The deletions occurred largely in draft rolls, and final rolls show smaller net reductions after eligible voters were added back.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal said the entire Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, through which over 13 crore names were deleted from electoral rolls, is illegal and must be scrapped.
freepressjournal.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Indian Express reports over 13 crore deletions from draft rolls, and Deccan Herald puts the figure at 13.3 crore from draft voter lists. But the Supreme Court, in its 2026 INSC 564 judgment dated 27 May 2026, examined the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar and upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct it, holding that the exercise falls within the Commission's constitutional mandate under Article 324 and the statutory framework. The eo-matters report summarises that the Court 'upheld the legality of the Bihar exercise and recognised the Election Commission's power to conduct intensive electoral-roll revisions within the statutory framework.'
Media reports state that over 13 crore names were deleted from draft electoral rolls across India during the SIR exercise, with Deccan Herald quoting 13.3 crore deletions from draft voter lists. [2][4]
The Supreme Court on 27 May 2026 upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar, rejecting challenges to its legality. [10]
The eo-matters analysis states that the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the Bihar exercise and recognised the ECI's power to conduct intensive electoral-roll revisions within the statutory framework. [8]
Bihar's final 2025 electoral roll contained approximately 7.42 crore electors, compared with 7.89 crore before the revision, a net reduction of about 47 lakh after additions. [3][8]
The claim has two parts: the deletion figure and the legal conclusion. The figure of over 13 crore deletions is supported by media reports based on ECI draft roll data. But the central assertion that the SIR process 'is illegal' is directly contradicted by the Supreme Court's judgment of 27 May 2026, which upheld the Election Commission's power and authority to conduct the SIR. A court of law has examined and rejected the illegality argument, so the claim as stated is false. The deletions occurred largely in draft rolls, and final rolls show smaller net reductions after eligible voters were added back.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“He has put a tax on every single Indian person by taxing UPI and giving huge amount of money to the United States.”
The claim uses the word 'every single Indian person', but the record directly contradicts this. Person-to-person UPI transfers have no charge, and roughly 96% of merchant payments are also unaffected. The new MDR is a fee on merchants for select larger transactions, not a tax on individuals, so saying every Indian has been taxed is wrong. The second part, about giving a huge amount of money to the United States, is not addressed by any source at all, but the inaccurate UPI framing is decisive on its own.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said the government has imposed a tax on every Indian by taxing UPI and is giving a huge amount of money to the United States.
indiatoday.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Press Information Bureau, the government's official publicity arm, says the new UPI framework has no impact on any person-to-person transaction and that UPI remains completely free for all such transfers regardless of amount. It adds that about 96% of person-to-merchant transactions remain unaffected because payments up to ₹2,000 and those to small merchants stay free, and that individuals continue to have unlimited free usage with no monthly quotas or caps. The Ministry of Finance's FAQ document confirms the 0.4% merchant discount rate (MDR) applies only to person-to-merchant UPI payments above ₹2,000, with a cap of ₹300 for transactions of ₹75,000 and above, and that the charge is on the merchant payment ecosystem, not on individual users.
All person-to-person UPI transactions remain completely free, irrespective of the amount transferred. [2][3][6]
Approximately 96% of person-to-merchant UPI transactions remain unaffected by the new charge because payments up to ₹2,000 and those to small merchants stay free. [2][3]
The 0.4% merchant discount rate applies only to person-to-merchant UPI transactions above ₹2,000, with a ₹300 cap for transactions of ₹75,000 and above. [2][3][6]
Individuals have unlimited free usage of UPI, with no monthly quotas, volume restrictions or tiered caps on free transactions. [2][3][6]
The claim uses the word 'every single Indian person', but the record directly contradicts this. Person-to-person UPI transfers have no charge, and roughly 96% of merchant payments are also unaffected. The new MDR is a fee on merchants for select larger transactions, not a tax on individuals, so saying every Indian has been taxed is wrong. The second part, about giving a huge amount of money to the United States, is not addressed by any source at all, but the inaccurate UPI framing is decisive on its own.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Gandhi’s address included claims about the closure of over one lakh schools nationwide, with a significant proportion in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.”
The claim's central number is over one lakh schools closed. The official data in the record put the decline at about 89,000 government schools, or more than 93,000 schools over a decade. Both figures are below one lakh. Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh do lead in closures, but that does not make the national figure over one lakh.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi claimed that over one lakh schools have closed nationwide, with a significant proportion in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.
thequint.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Hindu, citing UDISE+ data, reports that government schools fell from 11.07 lakh in 2014-15 to 10.17 lakh in 2023-24, a decline of roughly 89,000. News reports of Union Education Ministry data presented in the Lok Sabha put closures at more than 93,000 schools over a decade, with Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh recording the highest numbers. An official annexure for Uttar Pradesh shows government school numbers nearly unchanged from 2021-22 to 2023-24, at 1,37,068 and 1,37,003.
UDISE+ data show government schools fell from 11.07 lakh in 2014-15 to 10.17 lakh in 2023-24, a decline of roughly 89,000. [1]
Union Education Ministry data presented in the Lok Sabha show more than 93,000 schools closed in a decade, with Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh recording the highest closures. [6][7]
An official annexure shows Uttar Pradesh had 1,37,068 government schools in 2021-22 and 1,37,003 in 2023-24. [8]
The claim's central number is over one lakh schools closed. The official data in the record put the decline at about 89,000 government schools, or more than 93,000 schools over a decade. Both figures are below one lakh. Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh do lead in closures, but that does not make the national figure over one lakh.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“over 1.5 crore students have been deprived of scholarship.”
The claim's figure of over 1.5 crore students deprived of scholarships is not supported by any official record provided. The only source that mentions 1.5 crore is a blog that says students are 'allegedly' affected, while official data show a much smaller drop of 2.23 lakh scholarships in one major central scheme. The specific number in the claim is therefore wrong on the record available.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said over 1.5 crore students have been deprived of scholarships.
freepressjournal.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Under the National Means-cum-Merit Scholarship Scheme (NMMSS), the number of scholarships granted fell from 4,29,955 in 2017-18 to 2,06,794 in 2021-22, a drop of 2,23,161 scholarships, or 51.9 per cent. A Lok Sabha answer also says the Ministry of Minority Affairs' pre-matric, post-matric and merit-cum-means scholarship schemes have not been approved beyond 2021-22.
Under the National Means-cum-Merit Scholarship Scheme (NMMSS), scholarships granted fell from 4,29,955 in 2017-18 to 2,06,794 in 2021-22, a drop of 2,23,161 scholarships, or 51.9 per cent. [1]
A Lok Sabha answer states that the Ministry of Minority Affairs' pre-matric, post-matric and merit-cum-means scholarship schemes have not been approved beyond 2021-22. [4]
The claim's figure of over 1.5 crore students deprived of scholarships is not supported by any official record provided. The only source that mentions 1.5 crore is a blog that says students are 'allegedly' affected, while official data show a much smaller drop of 2.23 lakh scholarships in one major central scheme. The specific number in the claim is therefore wrong on the record available.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)29 Sept 2026
“History bears witness that ten years ago, this very Prime Minister devastated India’s economy with the decision of “demonetization.””
7.1 per cent
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said that ten years ago Prime Minister Narendra Modi devastated India's economy with the decision on demonetisation.
hindustantimes.com, 29 Sept 2026
What is actually true
7.1 per cent
real GDP growth average after demonetisation, Lok Sabha answer, Dec 2025
sansad.in
In a written answer in the Lok Sabha on 8 December 2025, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary said national accounts data from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation show real GDP growth averaged about 7.1 per cent in the immediate years after demonetisation, 2016-17 and 2017-18, and about 7.3 per cent between 2016-17 and 2024-25 excluding the pandemic-affected years. The Economic Survey 2016-17 Volume 2 said the real economy grew 7.1 per cent in 2016-17, down from 8 per cent the previous year, but called the economy relatively resilient to the liquidity shock.
A written Lok Sabha answer on 8 December 2025 said real GDP growth averaged about 7.1 per cent in 2016-17 and 2017-18, and about 7.3 per cent between 2016-17 and 2024-25 excluding pandemic-affected years, with India remaining one of the fastest-growing major economies after demonetisation. [7]
The Economic Survey 2016-17 Volume 2 noted the real economy grew 7.1 per cent in 2016-17 compared with 8 per cent the previous year, and said this suggested the economy was relatively resilient to the large liquidity shock of demonetisation. [8]
The Reserve Bank of India's annual report said the Indian economy demonstrated resilience in 2016-17, marked by moderate expansion, low inflation, and improvement in current account and fiscal deficits. [2]
The claim says demonetisation devastated the Indian economy. Official figures show the economy kept growing after demonetisation: real GDP growth averaged about 7.1 per cent in the next two years, and growth slowed from 8 per cent to 7.1 per cent in 2016-17. That is a slowdown, not devastation. The official record therefore contradicts the assertion that the economy was devastated.
Not trueMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)28 Sept 2026
“Rubber bullets were fired in the farmers’ movement, and 750 farmers lost their lives," he said, adding, "In Una, Gujarat, Dalits were beaten up, but justice hasn’t been served even now.”
The specific figure of 750 is not supported by the record; parliamentary debates and reporting cite around 700 or over 200 deaths, depending on the period. The claim that rubber bullets were fired is absent from all retrieved sources. Because the load-bearing number is contradicted by the available record and the ammunition claim is unverified, the statement is not accurate.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said that rubber bullets were fired in the farmers’ movement and 750 farmers lost their lives.
thehindu.com, 28 Sept 2026
What is actually true
A Lok Sabha debate on 2 July 2024 records a member saying 'almost 700 farmers gave their lives' in the first farmers' agitation [7]. A February 2021 Lok Sabha debate put the figure at 'over 200 farmers' killed since the protests began [8]. The Conversation reported '700 lives lost' in the year of protests [5]. None of these sources mentions rubber bullets being fired.
A Lok Sabha debate on 2 July 2024 records a member saying 'almost 700 farmers gave their lives' in the first farmers' agitation, not 750. [7]
A February 2021 Lok Sabha debate said 'over 200 farmers have been killed since the inception of farmers' protests.' [8]
The Conversation reported '700 lives lost' in the farmers' protests, not 750. [5]
None of the retrieved sources mentions rubber bullets being fired during the farmers' movement. [5][7][8]
The specific figure of 750 is not supported by the record; parliamentary debates and reporting cite around 700 or over 200 deaths, depending on the period. The claim that rubber bullets were fired is absent from all retrieved sources. Because the load-bearing number is contradicted by the available record and the ammunition claim is unverified, the statement is not accurate.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhi27 Sept 2026
“Now, the Election Commissioners themselves are acknowledging it and bringing the truth to light.”
The claim depends on two Election Commissioners having publicly admitted vote theft. No official Election Commission statement in the record says this, and the ECI's own published material denies that EVMs record wrong votes. A party video caption is not independent evidence of such an acknowledgment. The official record therefore contradicts the assertion.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said the Election Commissioners themselves are acknowledging vote theft and bringing the truth to light.
indiatribune.com, 27 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Congress video is captioned with the assertion that two Election Commissioners acknowledged the party's 'vote chori' claim, but that is the party's own statement. The Election Commission's 'Myth vs Reality' page states EVMs 'NEVER record a Wrong Vote' and says election officials work under the ECI's direction. The PIB releases do not quote an Election Commissioner admitting vote theft.
A Congress Facebook video carries the caption that what the party has said on 'vote chori' has 'now been acknowledged by two Election Commissioners.' [1]
The Election Commission's official Myth vs Reality page states EVMs 'NEVER record a Wrong Vote' and says election officials work under the ECI's supervision. [7]
PIB releases discuss the Election Commission's constitutional role and contain an unattributed remark that 'vote theft has ended,' but do not show Election Commissioners acknowledging vote theft. [3]
The claim depends on two Election Commissioners having publicly admitted vote theft. No official Election Commission statement in the record says this, and the ECI's own published material denies that EVMs record wrong votes. A party video caption is not independent evidence of such an acknowledgment. The official record therefore contradicts the assertion.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAkhilesh Yadav25 Sept 2026
“Yadav said inflation and unemployment are at their peak.”
3.0%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said inflation and unemployment in Uttar Pradesh are at their peak.
thestatesman.com, 25 Sept 2026
What is actually true
3.0%
Uttar Pradesh unemployment rate, PLFS 2023-24
sansad.in
The National Statistics Office's Periodic Labour Force Survey for 2023-24 puts Uttar Pradesh's usual-status unemployment rate for persons aged 15 and above at 3.0%, with 2.2% in rural areas and 6.7% in urban areas. All-India unemployment fell from 6.0% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24. For inflation, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation's Consumer Price Index press note for July 2026 records all-India retail inflation of 4.45%, and the Economic Survey 2025-26 says average inflation for April-December 2025 was 1.7%, the lowest since the CPI series began.
The Periodic Labour Force Survey 2023-24 records Uttar Pradesh's usual-status unemployment rate at 3.0% for persons aged 15 and above: 2.2% in rural areas and 6.7% in urban areas. [3]
All-India unemployment rate on usual status fell from 6.0% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24, according to the Ministry of Labour and Employment. [1]
All-India Consumer Price Index inflation was 4.45% in July 2026, and the Economic Survey 2025-26 states average headline inflation for April-December 2025 was 1.7%, the lowest since the CPI series began. [5][6]
The claim says inflation and unemployment in Uttar Pradesh are at their peak. Official data contradict this: Uttar Pradesh's unemployment rate in the latest annual survey was 3.0%, and all-India unemployment has fallen sharply since 2017-18. Retail inflation is 4.45%, far below the 6.7% recorded in 2022-23, and the Economic Survey describes recent inflation as the lowest since the CPI series began. These are not peak levels.
Not trueAbhijeet Dipke (Cockroach Janta Party)24 Sept 2026
“But ever since Gyanesh Kumar took over as Chief Election Commissioner, the government decides who votes and who does not.”
The claim says the government decides who votes, but the record shows voter-list decisions are made by the Election Commission, a constitutional body. The internal rift reported is between the CEC and the other two Election Commissioners, not evidence of government control. No source establishes that the government decides voter eligibility.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke alleged that ever since Gyanesh Kumar took over as Chief Election Commissioner, the government decides who votes and who does not.
ndtv.com, 24 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Indian Express reported that two Election Commissioners lodged 14 formal objections against poll panel decisions led by CEC Gyanesh Kumar in 10 months; the Commission is a constitutional body under Article 324 whose business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible. ECI press notes describe its own initiatives for electoral roll accuracy.
The Election Commission is a constitutional body under Article 324, with the CEC and two Election Commissioners equal in rank; its business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible. [4]
Two Election Commissioners lodged 14 formal objections against poll panel decisions led by CEC Gyanesh Kumar in 10 months, not against the government. [4]
The ECI announced initiatives for electoral roll accuracy in line with CEC Gyanesh Kumar's proposals. [3]
OpIndia described the claim that the government now decides who votes as devoid of factual merit. [1]
The claim says the government decides who votes, but the record shows voter-list decisions are made by the Election Commission, a constitutional body. The internal rift reported is between the CEC and the other two Election Commissioners, not evidence of government control. No source establishes that the government decides voter eligibility.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAbhijeet Dipke24 Sept 2026
“Dipke alleged that more than 130 million names have been struck off draft electoral rolls across 30 states and union territories during the SIR process.”
The claim's two load-bearing specifics are the deletion figure of 130 million and the count of 30 states/UTs. The record contradicts the state/UT count: BBC says only 13 states/UTs had undergone SIR so far, and the EC's phased schedule shows the exercise was not complete across 30 states/UTs. No source provides a 130 million figure; West Bengal, one reported case, had 9 million deletions. Because at least the 30-state element is wrong on the record, the claim is false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke alleged that more than 130 million names were struck off draft electoral rolls across 30 states and union territories during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process.
dw.com, 24 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's 25 July 2026 press note describes SIR in phases, with Phase II covering nine states and three union territories and Phase III underway or proposed in the remaining states/UTs; it provides no all-India deletion total. A BBC report on the 2026 rolls says nine million voters were removed in West Bengal and that thirteen states and federally administered territories had undergone SIR so far. The Supreme Court order in 2026 INSC 564 discusses SIR deletions but gives no 130 million or 30-state figure.
The ECI press note says SIR is being carried out in phases, with Phase II covering nine states and three union territories, and Phase III underway or proposed in remaining states/UTs; it does not state any total deletion figure. [1]
BBC reporting on the 2026 rolls says nine million voters were removed in West Bengal and that thirteen states and federally administered territories have undergone the SIR process so far. [6]
The Supreme Court order examines deletions under the SIR but does not mention 130 million names or 30 states/UTs. [5]
The claim's two load-bearing specifics are the deletion figure of 130 million and the count of 30 states/UTs. The record contradicts the state/UT count: BBC says only 13 states/UTs had undergone SIR so far, and the EC's phased schedule shows the exercise was not complete across 30 states/UTs. No source provides a 130 million figure; West Bengal, one reported case, had 9 million deletions. Because at least the 30-state element is wrong on the record, the claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhi23 Sept 2026
“जैसे रुकी हुई सरकारी भर्तियाँ”
The claim says government recruitment has been stalled. But official sources show recruitment is continuing: the Union Public Service Commission advertised posts and finalised results in 2026, and a parliamentary answer says recruitment drives are ongoing. The Madhya Pradesh fact-check also says the 87:13 formula did not halt recruitment. So the claim is false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi says students told him at the Indore 'Chhatron Ki Goonj' event that government recruitment has been stalled.
youtube.com, 23 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The official record does not show government recruitment stalled. The Union Public Service Commission, which hires for central government posts, advertised direct recruitment in August 2026 and finalised recruitment cases in June 2026. A Rajya Sabha answer on 30 March 2026 said recruitment drives in the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Airports Authority of India and Directorate General of Civil Aviation are ongoing.
The Union Public Service Commission invited applications for direct recruitment to various Government of India posts in August 2026, with applications open from 8 August to 28 August 2026. [8]
The Union Public Service Commission finalised recruitment cases in June 2026 and March 2026. [5][6][7]
A Rajya Sabha answer on 30 March 2026 said recruitment drives in the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Airports Authority of India and Directorate General of Civil Aviation are ongoing and are periodically reviewed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. [4]
In Madhya Pradesh, the 87:13 formula did not halt recruitment; appointments continued against 87 per cent of the advertised vacancies. [1]
The claim says government recruitment has been stalled. But official sources show recruitment is continuing: the Union Public Service Commission advertised posts and finalised results in 2026, and a parliamentary answer says recruitment drives are ongoing. The Madhya Pradesh fact-check also says the 87:13 formula did not halt recruitment. So the claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhi22 Aug 2026Pune
Six out of every 100 women in India are raped.
Off by three orders of magnitude from the official crime rate.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
6 in 100 women (6%)
Pune rally · 22 August 2026, 22 Aug 2026
What is actually true
NCRB Crime in India records rape on the order of about 4 per lakh women, not 6,000 per lakh.
NCRB Crime in India records rape as a counted offence. Recent all-India rates are on the order of about 4 recorded rapes per lakh women, not 6,000 per lakh.
Six in 100 women would be 6%. That is three orders of magnitude above the official recorded rate.
Under-reporting is real. NFHS and NCRB both say so in different ways. Under-reporting does not turn 4 per lakh into 6 per 100 as an official fact.
One reason-code anecdote is stated as the dropout rate.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi22 Aug 2026Pune
99% of sexual violence, rape, and molestation cases go unreported.
Under-reporting is real. 99% is not the official dark figure.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
99% of sexual violence unreported
Pune rally · 22 August 2026, 22 Aug 2026
What is actually true
NCRB publishes reported cases. NFHS publishes some disclosure questions. Neither series is a 99% official unreported rate.
NCRB publishes recorded sexual offences. By definition those are the reported cases, not the unreported share.
NFHS publishes some questions on whether violence was told to anyone. Those disclosure items are not a 99% official dark figure for rape, molestation and sexual violence together.
Research on under-reporting exists. It does not become a 99% official rate.
Under-reporting is real. 99% is not the official dark figure.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi22 Aug 2026Pune
Boys can take examinations multiple times after the age limit, but the marriage age is 23 for women.
Two different systems are fused into one official rule that does not exist.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Exam age limits for boys vs marriage age 23 for women
Pune rally · 22 August 2026, 22 Aug 2026
What is actually true
Legal marriage age is not 23. Exam age limits vary by paper and are not a marriage-age rule of 23.
The legal minimum age of marriage is not 23. Under current law it is 18 for women and 21 for men.
Exam age limits are set paper by paper in NTA, UPSC and SSC notifications. They are not a marriage-age rule, and they are not “boys may repeat after the limit, women must marry at 23”.
PIB and the statute book are the official sources for marriage age. Exam information bulletins are the official sources for attempt limits.
A growth or share debate is stated as destruction.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi8 Aug 2026Prayagraj
90% of small and medium businesses do not get bank loans.
Access problems are real; the 90% line is not the official rate.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
90% of MSMEs get no bank loan
Prayagraj rally · 8 August 2026, 8 Aug 2026
What is actually true
RBI and MSME credit data show a large, growing stock of MSME loans. 90% unbanked is not the official stock figure.
RBI publishes outstanding MSME credit as a large and, in recent years, growing stock. That stock cannot exist if 90% of MSMEs officially get no bank loan.
Priority-sector and MSME lending targets are official RBI and government categories.
Many small firms are outside formal credit. That access gap is real. It is not the same as an official 90% “do not get bank loans” rate.
PIB material on MSME credit refers to accounts and amounts sanctioned, not a 90% exclusion rate.
Access problems are real; the 90% line is not the official rate.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi8 Aug 2026Prayagraj
Entrepreneurship has been destroyed.
A verdict word is used where the series still exists.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Entrepreneurship destroyed
Prayagraj rally · 8 August 2026, 8 Aug 2026
What is actually true
New company and LLP registrations continued. Destruction is not an official outcome.
DPIIT and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs continue to publish new company and LLP registrations. Those filings are entrepreneurship in the official legal sense.
Destruction would mean the registration series stopped. It did not.
Closures and stress in some firms are compatible with a living registration series. They are not an official verdict of “destroyed”.
A verdict word is used where the series still exists.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi8 Aug 2026Prayagraj
PSU jobs fell from around 14 lakh to 7 lakh.
A drop is asserted without the named PSU employment table.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
PSU jobs 14 lakh → 7 lakh
Prayagraj rally · 8 August 2026, 8 Aug 2026
What is actually true
Public-enterprise employment has changed with disinvestment and classification. The two endpoints need the same official series and the same unit. The sentence gives neither.
Public-enterprise employment changes with disinvestment, casual-versus-regular mix and which firms are counted as CPSEs.
A drop from “around 14 lakh” to “7 lakh” needs one official table, one definition of PSU, and two dated observations. The sentence gives none of those.
PIB and MOSPI material on CPSEs do not, in this file, supply those two endpoints as a single checked series.
A drop is asserted without the named PSU employment table.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi8 Aug 2026Prayagraj
Public schools, hospitals, BSNL, ports and airports have been privatised.
Some asset cases are not a blanket privatisation of public services.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Schools, hospitals, BSNL, ports and airports privatised
Prayagraj rally · 8 August 2026, 8 Aug 2026
What is actually true
Most public schools and hospitals were not privatised. Listing five systems as already sold is false.
Government and aided schools remain the large majority of school enrolment in UDISE+ and Ministry of Education data. They were not privatised as a system.
Public hospitals under state and Union health departments still operate. They were not sold as a bloc.
BSNL remains a public-sector telecom company. Listing it as already privatised is false.
Some ports and airports have seen private operation or PPP. That is not the same official fact as “ports and airports have been privatised” as a completed national sale, and it does not carry schools and hospitals with them.
A global talking point is stated as a fact about India.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi8 Aug 2026Prayagraj
Indian youth spend 8 hours a day watching Reels.
No official 8-hour Reels average.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
8 hours a day on Reels
Prayagraj rally · 8 August 2026, 8 Aug 2026
What is actually true
Time Use Survey does not record eight hours a day of Reels for Indian youth.
The Time Use Survey records minutes in a day across employment, unpaid work, learning, social life and leisure — including screen and media time in published categories.
It does not publish “8 hours a day watching Reels” as the average for Indian youth.
Platform companies’ own product names are not MOSPI categories.
A mechanism is asserted without an official series.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi8 Aug 2026Prayagraj
There is an RSS pracharak in every institution.
Not a fact-checkable staffing statistic.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
An RSS pracharak in every institution
Prayagraj rally · 8 August 2026, 8 Aug 2026
What is actually true
No official establishment list supports “every institution”.
No official establishment list, payroll or ministry directory supports “an RSS pracharak in every institution”.
Staffing of public institutions is published, where it is published, as sanctioned posts and incumbents — not as a political-cadre census of every institution.
The final conviction rate for paper leaks in India is absolute zero, with not a single major perpetrator convicted or sent to jail.
A real enforcement problem is turned into a claim that nobody has ever been jailed.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Paper-leak conviction rate is absolute zero
Dehradun rally · 17 July 2026, 17 Jul 2026
What is actually true
Courts have convicted people in paper-leak cases. Absolute zero is false.
“Absolute zero” would mean no court has ever convicted anyone in a paper-leak case. That is not true. Courts have convicted accused persons in named leak cases, and the Press Information Bureau has recorded prosecutions.
A low conviction rate, slow trials, or unpunished organisers in some papers is a real enforcement problem. It is not the same official fact as a zero conviction rate.
There is no official NTA or Home Ministry series titled “final conviction rate for paper leaks” that equals zero.
A real enforcement problem is turned into a claim that nobody has ever been jailed.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi17 Jul 2026Dehradun
Manufacturing, entrepreneurship, corporate employment and the public sector are closed; only government jobs remain accessible.
Four sectors are declared closed without an official closed-door series.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Only government jobs remain open
Dehradun rally · 17 July 2026, 17 Jul 2026
What is actually true
PLFS shows employment across agriculture, industry and services. Company registrations and manufacturing GVA did not go to zero.
PLFS shows people employed in agriculture, manufacturing, construction, trade, transport and services — not in government jobs only.
MOSPI national accounts still publish manufacturing and services GVA. Those series did not go to zero.
DPIIT / MCA company and LLP registrations continued. Entrepreneurship as a legal category was not closed.
Central public-sector enterprises still exist and still recruit. “Only government jobs remain accessible” contradicts the same public-sector door the sentence later treats as closed.
Three, four, or five businesses have captured India’s banking money; ordinary entrepreneurs cannot obtain loans.
No official series says ordinary entrepreneurs cannot obtain loans.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
3–5 businesses captured all bank credit
Dehradun rally · 17 July 2026, 17 Jul 2026
What is actually true
RBI bank-credit data show lending across households, industry, MSMEs and services, not five firms.
RBI sectoral bank-credit data split outstanding credit across households, industry, services, agriculture and MSMEs. The stock is not five firms.
MSME and priority-sector lending are published RBI and government categories. They would not exist if “ordinary entrepreneurs cannot obtain loans” were the official rule.
Concentration of large-borrower exposure is a supervisory topic. It is not the same as “three, four or five businesses have captured India’s banking money”.
A forecast about AI is stated as a present shutdown.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi17 Jul 2026Dehradun
Privatisation has closed the public-sector route for young people.
Closed and reduced are not the same official fact.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
PSU route closed
Dehradun rally · 17 July 2026, 17 Jul 2026
What is actually true
Central public-sector enterprises still employ people and still recruit. The route shrank in some years; it was not closed.
Central public-sector enterprises still employ people. Department of Public Enterprises and PIB material still describe operating CPSEs and recruitment.
Disinvestment and strategic sales have reduced the list of CPSEs in some years. A smaller list is not a closed route.
Public-sector banks, railways, defence and other government employers still notify vacancies. “The public-sector route” is not one switch that was turned off.
Closed and reduced are not the same official fact.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi17 Jul 2026Dehradun
Coaching centres, translators, printers, transporters, vendors, NTA and ministry officials form a single paper-leak structure.
Separate cases are collapsed into one conspiracy.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
One organised leak structure including NTA and the ministry
Dehradun rally · 17 July 2026, 17 Jul 2026
What is actually true
Investigations have named specific actors in specific papers. There is no official finding that NTA and the ministry are one leak syndicate.
Investigating agencies have named specific people and vendors in specific leaked papers. Those charge-sheets are case files, not a finding that NTA and the ministry are one syndicate.
NTA and the Ministry of Education are the bodies that conduct and notify the exams. An official conspiracy finding against both as a single leak structure has not been published.
Coaching centres, printers and transporters appear in some case narratives. That does not make every listed trade plus the exam body one organisation.
The percent is not a published MOSPI or exam-body statistic.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi17 Jul 2026Dehradun
Nine crore aspirants pursue government examinations, but only six lakh succeed, one successful candidate for every 150 aspirants.
A ratio is built from unmatched universes.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
9 crore aspirants, 6 lakh selected, 1 in 150
Dehradun rally · 17 July 2026, 17 Jul 2026
What is actually true
Those three numbers mix different exams and years. There is no single official 9-crore / 6-lakh / 1-in-150 series.
“Nine crore aspirants” is not a single official register of people sitting government exams in one year. Different papers, repeats and years are being added together.
“Six lakh selected” is not a single official all-government selection total that matches that nine-crore universe.
“One in 150” only exists if those two unmatched totals are divided. SSC, NTA and department vacancy lists are paper-by-paper, not one national ratio.
The same 1-in-150 line is reused in Prayagraj without the 9-crore / 6-lakh pair. That is a sign of a slogan, not a series.
Paper leaks harmed 7.5 crore students during the past decade.
Affected-candidate counts from separate papers cannot be added into that total.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
7.5 crore students harmed by paper leaks in 10 years
Dehradun rally · 17 July 2026, 17 Jul 2026
What is actually true
No official decade total of 7.5 crore leak victims exists.
NTA and state exam bodies publish affected-candidate counts for named leaked or cancelled papers. Those counts are not an official decade total of 7.5 crore.
Adding every candidate on every cancelled paper, including people who sat more than one exam, would double-count. No official series does that addition into 7.5 crore.
PIB statements on individual papers do not sum to a 10-year 7.5-crore victim stock.
Affected-candidate counts from separate papers cannot be added into that total.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi17 Jun 2026Kota
In this system, if 1000 children enter, only about 36 people will get permanent jobs. Roughly 300 will remain unemployed. About 700 will become gig workers.
The 1,000-child pipeline is not an official labour statistic.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
700 of 1,000 become gig workers (70%)
Kota rally · 17 June 2026, 17 Jun 2026
What is actually true
NITI Aayog estimated gig and platform work at about 1.5% of the workforce in 2020–21, not 70% of every cohort.
There is no official MOSPI, NITI Aayog or PLFS table that follows “1,000 children” into 36 permanent jobs, 300 unemployed people and 700 gig workers.
NITI Aayog’s gig-and-platform paper estimated platform and gig work at about 1.5% of the workforce in 2020–21. That is not 70% of every school cohort.
PLFS publishes employment by usual status across agriculture, industry and services, and a national unemployment rate. It does not show 30% of a cohort unemployed and 70% in gig work as a pipeline.
“Permanent job” is not a PLFS category that can be set at 36 out of 1,000. Regular wage/salary work, casual work and self-employment are separate published statuses.
The 1,000-child pipeline is not an official labour statistic.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi17 Jun 2026Kota
22 lakh students take the NEET exam. From their families, Rs. 1.32 lakh crore is taken every year. The amount these 22 lakh people pay in one year for one exam equals the Government of India's entire education budget.
A projection is presented as this year's extraction from 22 lakh families.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
₹1.32 lakh crore taken from NEET families this year, equal to the education budget
Kota rally · 17 June 2026, 17 Jun 2026
What is actually true
₹1.32 lakh crore is a cited future coaching-industry size, not a current annual NEET fee bill. It is not the Union education budget.
NTA publishes NEET candidate counts. A figure on the order of 20-plus lakh candidates in a recent cycle is in that official range. That is the only part of the sentence that sits near a real series.
₹1.32 lakh crore is not an official annual bill paid by 22 lakh NEET families for one exam. It is a figure that has been used for a future coaching-industry size, not for this year’s NEET fees.
The Union education budget is a Budget document line. It is not defined as “what 22 lakh NEET families pay in one year”. Those two numbers are not the same official series.
NTA’s published exam fee is a per-candidate charge, not a ₹1.32 lakh crore extraction from one paper.
The 80% figure is not an official engineering-graduate rate.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi15 Apr 2019
“Supreme Court has made it clear that 'chowkidarji chor hai'”
The claim asserts that the Supreme Court had made it clear that 'chowkidarji chor hai'. The available record shows the opposite: the Supreme Court clarified that its Rafale verdict made no such observation, and Rahul Gandhi apologised for wrongly attributing the remark to the court. The 10 April 2019 order itself deals with review petitions and document admissibility, not any finding of theft. The claim is therefore directly contradicted by the sources.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
In Amethi on 10 April 2019, Rahul Gandhi said the Supreme Court had made it clear that Prime Minister Narendra Modi ('chowkidar') was a thief, in the context of the Rafale case.
deccanherald.com · reported, 15 Apr 2019
What is actually true
On 15 April 2019, the Supreme Court gave a categorical clarification that in its Rafale verdict there was no occasion for it to make a mention of the observation 'chowkidar Narendra Modi chor hain' as attributed to it by Rahul Gandhi. Rahul Gandhi subsequently tendered an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court for wrongly attributing the remark to the apex court.
The Supreme Court on 15 April 2019 gave a categorical clarification that its Rafale verdict contained no mention of the observation 'chowkidar Narendra Modi chor hain' attributed to it by Rahul Gandhi. [8]
Rahul Gandhi later tendered an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court for wrongly attributing the 'chowkidar chor hai' remark to the apex court. [8]
The Supreme Court's 10 April 2019 order in Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi concerned review petitions and the admissibility of documents, and contains no finding that the Prime Minister was a thief. [2]
The claim asserts that the Supreme Court had made it clear that 'chowkidarji chor hai'. The available record shows the opposite: the Supreme Court clarified that its Rafale verdict made no such observation, and Rahul Gandhi apologised for wrongly attributing the remark to the court. The 10 April 2019 order itself deals with review petitions and document admissibility, not any finding of theft. The claim is therefore directly contradicted by the sources.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proof
188 claims
A serious accusation with nothing behind it: no court, no inquiry and no official figure supports it, and the speaker gave none.
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“demanding an end to “vote chori,””
Rahul Gandhi's memorandum describes the Special Intensive Revision as 'vote chori' (vote theft). The official record does not support that accusation. The Supreme Court has upheld the revision as lawful, and the Election Commission and a parliamentary answer describe safeguards against wrongful deletion. No court, commission or Parliament has found that votes are being stolen. The allegation rests on the speaker's own assertion and news reports, not on any official finding.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi, in a memorandum to the Chief Justice of India in October 2026, demanded an end to 'vote chori' — an accusation that votes are being stolen in the electoral process.
thehindu.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026, examined the Special Intensive Revision and held it is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate and its constitutional duty to ensure free and fair elections [4][9][11]. The Election Commission has rejected the vote-theft allegation, stating no name can be removed from the final electoral rolls without due process [2]. A Lok Sabha answer lists safeguards: door-to-door visits, recorded reasons, draft rolls, claims and objections, appeals, and party-nominated booth-level agents [9][11].
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment upheld the Special Intensive Revision as within the Election Commission's mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Article 324. [4][9][11]
The Election Commission says no name can be removed from the final electoral rolls without due process. [2]
A Lok Sabha answer of 25 July 2026 lists safeguards including two-three visits by Booth Level Officers, recorded reasons, draft roll publication, claims and objections, appeals, and booth-level agents nominated by political parties. [9][11]
No court, Election Commission or parliamentary document in the retrieved record finds that votes are being stolen. [2][4][9][11]
Rahul Gandhi's memorandum describes the Special Intensive Revision as 'vote chori' (vote theft). The official record does not support that accusation. The Supreme Court has upheld the revision as lawful, and the Election Commission and a parliamentary answer describe safeguards against wrongful deletion. No court, commission or Parliament has found that votes are being stolen. The allegation rests on the speaker's own assertion and news reports, not on any official finding.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“They sought to raise allegations of ‘vote theft’ and irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, and to present their demands to the CJI.”
The claim describes allegations of 'vote theft' and irregularities in the SIR raised in a letter to the Chief Justice of India. The official record contains no court, Election Commission or parliamentary finding that supports these allegations. On the contrary, the Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment upheld the SIR as legitimate and compliant with electoral laws, and the Delhi High Court's September 2026 order dealt only with procedural matters. The allegations are unsupported by the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, in their letter to the Chief Justice of India in October 2026, raised allegations of 'vote theft' and irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
livemint.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026 in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India (2026 INSC 564), upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, finding the exercise legitimate and compliant with electoral laws. The Delhi High Court, in Devender Yadav v. ECI on 3 September 2026, dealt with procedural matters concerning Booth Level Agent undertakings and access to electoral rolls, without any finding of vote theft. No court, Election Commission document or parliamentary answer in the record finds vote theft or irregularities in the SIR.
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment in ADR v. ECI upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct the Special Intensive Revision under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [6]
The Supreme Court found the SIR legitimate, proportionate and compliant with electoral laws, dismissing the 'theft of votes' claims. [1]
The Delhi High Court's 3 September 2026 judgment in Devender Yadav v. ECI dealt with BLA undertakings and electoral roll access, with no finding of vote theft or irregularities. [2]
The Election Commission's press note, cited in a Lok Sabha answer, states deletions during SIR occur only after due verification and fall under categories such as death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries and untraceable electors. [10][11]
The claim describes allegations of 'vote theft' and irregularities in the SIR raised in a letter to the Chief Justice of India. The official record contains no court, Election Commission or parliamentary finding that supports these allegations. On the contrary, the Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment upheld the SIR as legitimate and compliant with electoral laws, and the Delhi High Court's September 2026 order dealt only with procedural matters. The allegations are unsupported by the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipke (Cockroach Janta Party)12 Oct 2026
“it was turned into a war zone by the coward dictator”
The words 'war zone' and 'coward dictator' are the speaker's characterisation, not a factual claim that the record confirms. The official documents show police action and inquiries, but no court, commission or police order describes the site as a war zone or identifies any person as a coward dictator. Because the allegation is unsupported by the record, it is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke alleged that Jantar Mantar was turned into a war zone by the coward dictator.
hindustantimes.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Delhi High Court's 22 July 2026 order records a petition over Sonam Wangchuk's alleged forcible removal from Jantar Mantar on 18 July 2026. The National Human Rights Commission took suo motu cognizance of reported sexual harassment of three journalists by Delhi Police during a Jantar Mantar protest on 3 October 2026 and asked the Delhi Police Commissioner for a report. Delhi Police de-notified Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site on 11 October 2026.
The Delhi High Court's 22 July 2026 order records a petition about Sonam Wangchuk being allegedly forcibly removed from Jantar Mantar on 18 July 2026 and lodged in Safdarjung Hospital. [1]
The National Human Rights Commission took suo motu cognizance of reported sexual harassment of three journalists by Delhi Police personnel during a protest at Jantar Mantar on 3 October 2026 and sought a report from the Delhi Police Commissioner. [9]
Delhi Police de-notified Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site on 11 October 2026 and named Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground as alternative venues. [4]
None of the official records retrieved — the Delhi High Court order, the NHRC notice, or the Delhi Police de-notification — describes Jantar Mantar as a war zone or names a 'coward dictator'. [1][9][4]
The words 'war zone' and 'coward dictator' are the speaker's characterisation, not a factual claim that the record confirms. The official documents show police action and inquiries, but no court, commission or police order describes the site as a war zone or identifies any person as a coward dictator. Because the allegation is unsupported by the record, it is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“You have done a crime, and you are not the main criminal.”
The claim that the CEC has committed a crime is an allegation, and the record contains no court, Election Commission or parliamentary finding that he did. Petitions seeking his prosecution or an inquiry are not proof of a crime; they are requests for a court to examine the matter. The Supreme Court entertaining a petition is not a ruling on the merits. The further suggestion that someone else is the 'main criminal' is also unsupported by the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has committed a crime, though he said Kumar is not the main criminal behind it.
livemint.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The record contains no court order, Election Commission finding or parliamentary record that finds Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar committed a crime. A petition filed in the Supreme Court on 25 September 2026 seeks his criminal prosecution over alleged violations in the Special Intensive Revision, and the Supreme Court has entertained a demand for a high-powered judicial inquiry, but no ruling on guilt is in the record [1][2]. A Telangana High Court order of 30 June 2026 declined to interfere in a voter-list deletion matter, saying the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision provides the forum and procedure for correction [11].
A petition filed in the Supreme Court on 25 September 2026 seeks criminal prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged violations of statutory duties in the Special Intensive Revision [1]. [1]
The Supreme Court has entertained a petition demanding a high-powered judicial inquiry into the CEC's handling of the Special Intensive Revision, but no order finding him guilty of a crime is in the record [2]. [2]
A Telangana High Court order of 30 June 2026 declined to interfere in a voter-list deletion matter, saying the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision provides the forum and procedure for correction [11]. [11]
The claim that the CEC has committed a crime is an allegation, and the record contains no court, Election Commission or parliamentary finding that he did. Petitions seeking his prosecution or an inquiry are not proof of a crime; they are requests for a court to examine the matter. The Supreme Court entertaining a petition is not a ruling on the merits. The further suggestion that someone else is the 'main criminal' is also unsupported by the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“He added that leaders of the INDIA bloc will march to the apex court to file this petition against ‘vote theft’.”
The claim rests on an allegation of vote theft and irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision. The official record contains no finding of either; the Supreme Court examined the SIR and upheld it as lawful. The march and legal pursuit are reported, but the underlying charge is unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said INDIA bloc leaders will march to the Supreme Court to file a petition against 'vote theft' and alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
livemint.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India on 27 May 2026, upheld the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, holding it did not violate the law and advanced free and fair elections [2][4][5]. The Delhi High Court on 3 September 2026 likewise upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the SIR [9]. No court, Election Commission or parliamentary document in the record finds vote theft or irregularities in the SIR.
The Supreme Court on 27 May 2026 upheld the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, saying it did not violate the law and advanced free and fair elections. [2][4][5]
The Delhi High Court on 3 September 2026 upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision. [9]
News reports say the INDIA bloc planned a protest and Rahul Gandhi pursued legal action over the SIR, but they contain no official finding of vote theft or irregularities. [1][6]
The claim rests on an allegation of vote theft and irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision. The official record contains no finding of either; the Supreme Court examined the SIR and upheld it as lawful. The march and legal pursuit are reported, but the underlying charge is unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“"Gyanesh Kumar Unable To Sleep, Cops Unhappy Too": Rahul Gandhi's Big Charge”
50 per cent of police personnel
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
50 per cent of police personnel
Rahul Gandhi said that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is unable to sleep and that police personnel are unhappy too.
ndtv.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Press Information Bureau releases show Gyanesh Kumar functioning as Chief Election Commissioner — in March 2025 he directed all-party meetings across election machinery, and in December 2025 he assumed the chairship of International IDEA's Council of Member States — but no official document in the record addresses whether he is unable to sleep or whether police personnel are unhappy. The 'unable to sleep' claim and the figure that 50 per cent of police told protesters the Opposition was right appear only in media reports of Rahul Gandhi's press conference.
NDTV reported that Rahul Gandhi said of Gyanesh Kumar, 'He is unable to sleep,' and separately alleged that at least '50 per cent' of police personnel had told protesters that what they were doing was right. [13]
India Today reported Rahul Gandhi as saying 'We know you're losing sleep' to Gyanesh Kumar, and that several police personnel and security forces are 'agitated with the government' and questioning the use of force against protesters. [14]
A Press Information Bureau release of 20 March 2025 describes Gyanesh Kumar's work as Chief Election Commissioner, including directing all-party meetings at CEO, DEO and ERO levels; it contains no statement about his sleeplessness or about police sentiment. [10]
A Press Information Bureau release of 3 December 2025 describes Gyanesh Kumar assuming the chairship of International IDEA's Council of Member States; it contains nothing bearing on the claims about his sleep or police unhappiness. [11]
Both parts of the assertion are Rahul Gandhi's own words repeated in news reports. The official record in front of us — government releases on the Election Commissioner's functioning — contains no finding, statement or document that he is unable to sleep, and no survey, police statement or official figure showing that police personnel are unhappy. The specific claim that 50 per cent of police told protesters they were right has no independent source behind it. Because no independent document supports either claim, the charge is unproved.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“The goons of the BJP and RSS are attacking women and the youth, says Rahul Gandhi.”
The claim is an allegation against named organisations, and the record contains no court, commission, or police finding that goons of the BJP and RSS attacked women and the youth. What the record does show is separate: Delhi Police personnel are facing a preliminary NHRC inquiry over alleged sexual harassment of three journalists, and the Supreme Court has flagged wider safety failures, but neither points to BJP/RSS goons.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said goons of the BJP and RSS are attacking women and the youth.
thehindu.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which looks into human rights complaints, has taken up reports that three women journalists were sexually harassed by Delhi Police personnel during a protest at Jantar Mantar on 3 October 2026, and asked the Delhi Police Commissioner for a report. The Supreme Court, in an order on 28 September 2026, noted serious crimes against women in Delhi-NCR and systemic failures in public safety, but it did not say any political or ideological group's 'goons' committed them. No document in the record shows BJP or RSS goons attacking women and the youth.
The NHRC has issued a notice to the Delhi Police Commissioner calling for a detailed report on the alleged sexual harassment of three women journalists by Delhi Police personnel during a protest at Jantar Mantar on 3 October 2026. [6]
The Supreme Court's suo motu order of 28 September 2026 took note of egregious crimes against women in Delhi-NCR and systemic failures of law enforcement, but did not attribute such crimes to BJP or RSS goons. [3]
The claim is an allegation against named organisations, and the record contains no court, commission, or police finding that goons of the BJP and RSS attacked women and the youth. What the record does show is separate: Delhi Police personnel are facing a preliminary NHRC inquiry over alleged sexual harassment of three journalists, and the Supreme Court has flagged wider safety failures, but neither points to BJP/RSS goons.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“Gyanesh Kumar has made a mistake, but he is the mind behind the mistake, Rahul Gandhi says.”
The claim is an allegation against the Chief Election Commissioner, not a statement of fact established by any official document. The Election Commission's own press note says the Special Intensive Revision orders were issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission, and a court order describes the revision as a lawful process to ensure no eligible voter is left out. No official record supports the assertion that Gyanesh Kumar made a mistake or was the mind behind a mistake, so the claim is unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has made a mistake and is the mind behind the mistake.
thehindu.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 states that the Special Intensive Revision order issued on 24 June 2025, and the schedules issued on 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026, were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. A Telangana High Court order of 30 June 2026 describes the Special Intensive Revision as a process initiated by the Election Commission to ensure no eligible voter is left out, and the court declined to interfere. No court, Election Commission or parliamentary document in the record finds that the Chief Election Commissioner made a mistake or was the mind behind a mistake.
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision order of 24 June 2025 and the schedules issued on 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. [12]
A Telangana High Court order of 30 June 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision was initiated by the Election Commission to ensure no eligible voter is left out, and the court declined to interfere in the process. [9]
No court, Election Commission or parliamentary document in the retrieved record finds that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar made a mistake or was the mind behind a mistake. [9][12]
The claim is an allegation against the Chief Election Commissioner, not a statement of fact established by any official document. The Election Commission's own press note says the Special Intensive Revision orders were issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission, and a court order describes the revision as a lawful process to ensure no eligible voter is left out. No official record supports the assertion that Gyanesh Kumar made a mistake or was the mind behind a mistake, so the claim is unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“Even the two Election Commissioners have asked why Gyanesh Kumar has not resigned, says Rahul Gandhi.”
The claim is a specific assertion about what the two Election Commissioners said. The official Election Commission press note records their objections on work re-distribution and the unanimous approval of SIR orders, but it contains no statement by them asking why the CEC has not resigned. Reporting shows the opposition demanded the CEC's resignation, not that the two Commissioners made that demand. No document or report in the retrieved record supports the claim.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said the two Election Commissioners have asked why Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has not resigned.
thehindu.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision order of 24 June 2025 and later schedules were issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission, and that all directions issued by the Commissioners shall be complied with. It records that work re-distribution orders were not actually implemented after the orders of the two Commissioners, but it does not say the two Commissioners asked why the CEC has not resigned. Reporting says the two Election Commissioners recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months, and the opposition demanded the CEC's resignation, but no source shows the Commissioners themselves made that demand.
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision order of 24 June 2025 and the schedules for 12 States/UTs on 27 October 2025 and 19 States/UTs on 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. [9]
The same press note says work re-distribution orders were not actually implemented after the orders of the two Commissioners, and oversight over the IT division by the Deputy Election Commissioner was never actually withdrawn. [9]
The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months, but no source in the record shows they asked why Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has not resigned. [1]
The claim is a specific assertion about what the two Election Commissioners said. The official Election Commission press note records their objections on work re-distribution and the unanimous approval of SIR orders, but it contains no statement by them asking why the CEC has not resigned. Reporting shows the opposition demanded the CEC's resignation, not that the two Commissioners made that demand. No document or report in the retrieved record supports the claim.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“Rahul Gandhi says the PM Narendra Modi is blocking the protest with thousands of police personnel just because the Opposition is asking to prove that he hasn’t cheated in elections.”
thousands of police personnel
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
thousands of police personnel
Rahul Gandhi said Prime Minister Narendra Modi is blocking the Opposition's protest with thousands of police personnel because the Opposition is asking him to prove he has not cheated in elections.
thehindu.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
No official document among the retrieved sources shows that Prime Minister Narendra Modi directed the police deployment or that the deployment was meant to stop the Opposition from proving he cheated in elections. Media reports describe heavy police and paramilitary deployment ahead of the CJP protest on 10 October 2026, but they do not attribute the order or the motive to the Prime Minister. The Supreme Court judgment in the retrieved record concerns the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners and contains no finding of election cheating.
Business Standard reported that around 20,000 Delhi Police personnel and 110 additional CAPF companies were deployed ahead of the October 10 CJP protest. [1]
The Telegraph reported that more than 26,000 central paramilitary personnel, along with Delhi Police, were deployed to stop protesters from reaching Jantar Mantar. [3]
The protest was called by the CJP and student organisations over concerns about the Election Commission and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. [2]
The media reports describe the deployment but do not state that Prime Minister Modi personally ordered it or that it was to prevent proof of election cheating. [1][2][3][4]
The Supreme Court judgment in the retrieved record deals with the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, not with any allegation that the Prime Minister cheated in elections. [11]
The claim asserts two things: that Prime Minister Modi personally blocked the protest and that he did so to avoid proving he cheated in elections. The retrieved record supports only that a large police deployment occurred. It does not show who ordered the deployment or why. No court, Election Commission or parliamentary document in the sources finds election cheating, so the allegation is unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipke12 Oct 2026
“Youth are being assaulted, journalists are being assaulted, even MPs are being assaulted by Delhi Police. What makes Gyanesh Kumar so indispensable to Modi that he is willing to wage war against everyone just to protect him?”
The claim is an allegation, not an established fact. The NHRC notice concerns reported sexual harassment of three journalists and asks for a report; it is not a finding that the harassment or any assault happened. No official document in the record confirms assaults on youth or MPs, and the question about the Modi government waging war to protect Gyanesh Kumar is unsupported. The speaker has not produced any document answering the police's statement that the complaints were sent to the Crime Branch.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
In a post on X, Abhijeet Dipke alleged that Delhi Police are assaulting youth, journalists and MPs, and asked why Gyanesh Kumar is so indispensable to Modi that he would wage war against everyone to protect him.
thehindu.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), India's official human-rights body, acted on its own on a media report that three women journalists were sexually harassed by Delhi Police personnel during a 3 October 2026 protest at Jantar Mantar, and asked the Delhi Police Commissioner for a detailed report within two weeks [1]. Delhi Police said the complaints were transferred to the Crime Branch for a fair and impartial enquiry [3]. No official document in the retrieved record confirms that youth, journalists or MPs were assaulted, or that the Modi government is waging war to protect Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The NHRC acted on its own on a media report that three women journalists were sexually harassed by Delhi Police personnel during a 3 October 2026 protest at Jantar Mantar, and asked the Delhi Police Commissioner for a detailed report within two weeks [1]. [1]
Delhi Police said complaints of sexual harassment by three female journalists were transferred to the Crime Branch for a fair and impartial enquiry [3]. [3]
Press reports describe detentions of protesters and journalists and allegations of manhandling, but no official finding confirms that youth, journalists or MPs were assaulted [4][5][8]. [4][5][8]
The claim is an allegation, not an established fact. The NHRC notice concerns reported sexual harassment of three journalists and asks for a report; it is not a finding that the harassment or any assault happened. No official document in the record confirms assaults on youth or MPs, and the question about the Modi government waging war to protect Gyanesh Kumar is unsupported. The speaker has not produced any document answering the police's statement that the complaints were sent to the Crime Branch.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipke12 Oct 2026
“Youth are being assaulted, journalists are being assaulted, even MPs are being assaulted by Delhi Police.”
The claim asserts that youth, journalists and MPs were being assaulted by Delhi Police. The only official record is an NHRC notice about reported sexual harassment of three women journalists, which is an inquiry, not a finding. Delhi Police denies the allegations. No source shows that youth or MPs were assaulted. The claim is therefore an unproven allegation.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Cockroach Janta Party convenor Abhijeet Dipke said on October 12, 2026 that youth, journalists and even MPs were being assaulted by the Delhi Police.
thehindu.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), India's official human rights body, said it took suo motu cognizance of a media report that three women journalists were sexually harassed by Delhi Police personnel during a protest at Jantar Mantar on 3 October 2026, and asked the Delhi Police Commissioner for a detailed report within two weeks [1]. Delhi Police rejected the assault claims and said female protesters were treated with dignity [4]. No official document in the record shows that youth or MPs were assaulted by Delhi Police.
The NHRC took suo motu cognizance of a media report that three women journalists were sexually harassed by Delhi Police personnel during a protest at Jantar Mantar on 3 October 2026, and sought a detailed report from the Delhi Police Commissioner within two weeks. [1]
Delhi Police rejected the assault claims and said female protesters were treated with dignity. [4]
The NHRC notice concerns only three women journalists, not youth or MPs. [1]
The claim asserts that youth, journalists and MPs were being assaulted by Delhi Police. The only official record is an NHRC notice about reported sexual harassment of three women journalists, which is an inquiry, not a finding. Delhi Police denies the allegations. No source shows that youth or MPs were assaulted. The claim is therefore an unproven allegation.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipke12 Oct 2026
“What makes Gyanesh Kumar so indispensable to Modi that he is willing to wage war against everyone just to protect him?”
The claim is an allegation that the government is waging a war against citizens to protect the CEC. The sources show protests, demands for Kumar's resignation, and a police operation at the October 10 protest, but they do not show that the government is waging a war against citizens or that any action was taken to protect Kumar. No court, parliamentary answer or official document in the record supports that motive. The phrase 'waging a war against citizens' is the speaker's characterisation, not something the record confirms.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke said the Narendra Modi government is waging a war against citizens in order to protect Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, who faces demands for his resignation.
thehindu.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
A Telangana High Court order dated 30 June 2026 describes the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision as a process to include eligible voters and delete unqualified electors, and says the Commission initiated it to ensure no eligible citizen is left out. No court or official body in the record has found that the government is waging a war against citizens to protect CEC Gyanesh Kumar; a legal summary notes the Supreme Court has not accepted the allegations against him as established facts. Media reports show the Cockroach Janta Party and opposition parties have demanded Kumar's resignation over alleged electoral-roll irregularities.
Cockroach Janta Party founder Abhijit Dipke called for a protest demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's resignation over alleged electoral-roll irregularities. [2]
Delhi Police barricaded streets and detained protesters during the CJP demonstration on 10 October 2026. [1]
A Telangana High Court order dated 30 June 2026 said the Special Intensive Revision is meant to include eligible voters and delete unqualified electors, and that the Election Commission initiated it to ensure no eligible citizen is left out. [12]
No judicial finding has established that CEC Gyanesh Kumar committed an offence, and the Supreme Court has not accepted the allegations against him as established facts. [5]
The claim is an allegation that the government is waging a war against citizens to protect the CEC. The sources show protests, demands for Kumar's resignation, and a police operation at the October 10 protest, but they do not show that the government is waging a war against citizens or that any action was taken to protect Kumar. No court, parliamentary answer or official document in the record supports that motive. The phrase 'waging a war against citizens' is the speaker's characterisation, not something the record confirms.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
““Exactly 50% of the police personnel are telling us that what we are doing is right and we should continue. Police, ITBP, CRPF, the people of India are on one side and Narendra Modi, Amit Shah , Ajit Doval, Gyanesh Kumar, and 4-5 members of the Election Commission who are facilitating ‘vote chori’ and hijacking the country are on the other side.”
exactly 50% of police personnel; 4-5 members of the Election
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
exactly 50% of police personnel; 4-5 members of the Election
Rahul Gandhi said that exactly 50 per cent of police personnel have told the Opposition that what it is doing is right and it should continue, and that 4-5 members of the Election Commission are facilitating 'vote chori' and hijacking the country.
indianexpress.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 23 September 2026 judgment in the writ petitions on the Election Commission upheld the constitutional scheme for the Commission and traced the need to insulate it from executive control, but it contains no finding that any Election Commissioner facilitated vote theft or hijacked the country. The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision was earlier upheld by the Supreme Court, and the Commission has said the revision was issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. No source in the record contains a survey, police statement or official document showing that exactly 50 per cent of police personnel told the Opposition that its protest was right and should continue.
The Supreme Court's 23 September 2026 judgment in the writ petitions on the Election Commission contains no finding that any Election Commissioner facilitated vote theft or hijacked the country; it addresses the constitutional scheme for appointments and insulation of the Commission. [11]
The Election Commission has said the Special Intensive Revision was issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission, and the Supreme Court upheld the Commission's Special Intensive Revision. [11]
No source in the record contains a survey, police statement or official document showing that exactly 50 per cent of police personnel told the Opposition that what it was doing was right and should continue. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
The sources describe the Opposition's allegations of 'vote chori' and protests demanding the Chief Election Commissioner's resignation, but they contain no official finding of vote theft by Election Commission members. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
The claim has two parts. The first part — that exactly 50 per cent of police personnel told the Opposition its protest was right — is a specific statistical assertion, but no survey, police statement or official document in the record supports it. The second part — that 4-5 Election Commission members are facilitating vote theft and hijacking the country — is an allegation of institutional wrongdoing. The official record before us, including the Supreme Court's September 2026 judgment on the Election Commission, contains no finding that any Election Commissioner facilitated vote theft or hijacked the country; the Court upheld the Commission's authority and the Commission has said the Special Intensive Revision was unanimously approved. Because the speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure for either part, and the record contains nothing that supports them, the claim is not proven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“Police, ITBP, CRPF, the people of India are on one side and Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, Ajit Doval, Gyanesh Kumar, and 4-5 members of the Election Commission who are facilitating 'vote chori' and hijacking the country are on the other side.”
The claim is an allegation of vote theft and hijacking of the country by named officials, not a statement of fact that can be confirmed by the record. The official record before us — the Supreme Court's 2026 SIR judgment and the Election Commission's statements — upholds the Commission's authority and denies that the revision amounts to vote theft. No court, commission or parliamentary document in the sources finds that the named individuals facilitated vote theft or hijacked the country, so the allegation is unsupported by the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, Ajit Doval, CEC Gyanesh Kumar and 4-5 members of the Election Commission are facilitating 'vote chori' (vote theft) and hijacking the country, while the police, ITBP, CRPF and the people of India are on the other side.
hindustantimes.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, in its 2026 judgment on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls (2026 INSC 564), upheld the Election Commission of India's authority to conduct the revision under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Election Commission has stated that the revision is a routine, legally mandated process aimed at maintaining accurate voter lists, and has rejected allegations that it amounts to vote theft. No court order, Election Commission document or parliamentary record in the retrieved sources finds that the named individuals facilitated vote theft or hijacked the country.
The Supreme Court's 2026 judgment in the SIR matter upheld the Election Commission of India's authority to conduct the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [5]
The Election Commission has rejected allegations that the Special Intensive Revision amounts to 'vote theft', stating that the revision is a routine and legally mandated process for maintaining accurate and updated electoral rolls under the Representation of the People Act and established election rules. [4]
The Delhi High Court, in Devender Yadav & Anr vs Election Commission of India & Anr (3 September 2026), recorded that the Supreme Court had upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the SIR exercise under Section 21(3) of the RP Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution. [11]
The retrieved record contains no court finding, Election Commission order or parliamentary document showing that Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, Ajit Doval, CEC Gyanesh Kumar or other Election Commission members facilitated vote theft or hijacked the country. [3][4][5][11][12]
The claim is an allegation of vote theft and hijacking of the country by named officials, not a statement of fact that can be confirmed by the record. The official record before us — the Supreme Court's 2026 SIR judgment and the Election Commission's statements — upholds the Commission's authority and denies that the revision amounts to vote theft. No court, commission or parliamentary document in the sources finds that the named individuals facilitated vote theft or hijacked the country, so the allegation is unsupported by the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“Rahul Gandhi also said that female protesters are being beaten and thrashed by the police so that parents stop their children from attending the protest.”
The claim is an allegation of police violence against female protesters with a specific motive. The official record contains no court, police or NHRC finding that female protesters were beaten or thrashed by police, or that police did so to stop parents from sending children to the protest. The NHRC has only taken cognizance of reported sexual harassment of three women journalists and asked for a report; that is a preliminary step, not proof. Media reports describe allegations and police arrangements, but no source establishes the claim as fact.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said female protesters are being beaten and thrashed by police so that parents stop their children from attending the protest.
indianexpress.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), India's human rights body, took suo motu cognizance of a media report that three women journalists were sexually harassed by Delhi Police personnel during a protest at Jantar Mantar on 3 October 2026, and issued a notice to the Delhi Police Commissioner seeking a detailed report within two weeks. The NHRC did not record any finding that female protesters were beaten or thrashed, or that police acted to stop parents from sending children to the protest. Delhi Police said the complaints were transferred to the Crime Branch for an inquiry.
The NHRC took suo motu cognizance of a media report that three women journalists were sexually harassed by Delhi Police personnel during a protest at Jantar Mantar on 3 October 2026, and issued a notice to the Delhi Police Commissioner for a detailed report within two weeks. [1]
The NHRC's notice is based on reported allegations, not a finding that female protesters were beaten or thrashed by police. [1]
Delhi Police said complaints by three women journalists alleging sexual harassment were transferred to the Crime Branch for an impartial inquiry. [2][4]
A report said Delhi Police planned to inform students that any assembly on 10 October in the New Delhi district would be unlawful, and to deploy additional women personnel, but it did not state that police beat female protesters to stop parents from sending children. [5]
The claim is an allegation of police violence against female protesters with a specific motive. The official record contains no court, police or NHRC finding that female protesters were beaten or thrashed by police, or that police did so to stop parents from sending children to the protest. The NHRC has only taken cognizance of reported sexual harassment of three women journalists and asked for a report; that is a preliminary step, not proof. Media reports describe allegations and police arrangements, but no source establishes the claim as fact.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“Gandhi also highlighted instances of women and girls being targeted by the police and other security personnel, and played videos of such assaults.”
The assertion that women and girls are being targeted by police and other security personnel is an allegation. The record shows only complaints by three women journalists, which the Delhi Police deny; no court, commission or official inquiry has upheld them. The claim that Rahul Gandhi played videos is a description of his speech, not a checkable assertion.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi highlighted instances of women and girls being targeted by police and other security personnel, and played videos of such assaults.
indianexpress.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Three women journalists alleged sexual harassment by Delhi Police personnel during an October 3, 2026 protest at Jantar Mantar; the Delhi Police transferred the complaints to the Crime Branch and later called the allegations 'baseless and misleading', saying female protesters were handled by female staff. No court or official body has found that women and girls were targeted by police or other security personnel.
Three women journalists alleged sexual harassment by police personnel during the October 3, 2026 protest at Jantar Mantar. [2][5][7]
The Delhi Police transferred the complaints to the Crime Branch for an impartial inquiry. [2][5]
The Delhi Police called the allegations 'baseless and misleading' and said female protesters were handled by female staff and treated with dignity. [8]
The Supreme Court's September 28, 2026 order concerns crimes against women and girls in Delhi-NCR but does not find that police or security personnel targeted women and girls. [3]
The assertion that women and girls are being targeted by police and other security personnel is an allegation. The record shows only complaints by three women journalists, which the Delhi Police deny; no court, commission or official inquiry has upheld them. The claim that Rahul Gandhi played videos is a description of his speech, not a checkable assertion.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipkechecked 12 Oct 2026
“the centralisation of electoral-roll functions had created a system in which a voter may be found eligible by a constituency-level Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), but still remain excluded from the final electoral roll because the decision cannot be recorded through the software.”
The claim describes a specific mechanism: a voter found eligible by a constituency-level ERO is excluded from the final roll because the software cannot record that decision. The sources contain reported internal concerns about centralisation and ERO access, but no official record confirms that this mechanism exists. Because the claim is an allegation about how the system works, and the official record does not support it, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke alleged that centralisation of electoral-roll functions created a system where a voter found eligible by a constituency-level ERO could still be excluded from the final electoral roll because the decision cannot be recorded through the software.
tribuneindia.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's published process for the Bihar Special Intensive Revision says Electoral Registration Officers scrutinise eligibility and the final roll is published after claims and objections, with appeals to the District Magistrate and Chief Electoral Officer. Media reports say two Election Commissioners raised concerns about the 'gradual centralisation' of the electoral roll database and whether EROs had adequate access, but no official document, court order or Commission statement confirms that an ERO's eligibility decision cannot be recorded through the software.
Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Electoral Registration Officer is responsible for preparing and revising the electoral roll of an Assembly constituency, and appeals against an ERO's order can go to the District Magistrate and then the Chief Electoral Officer. [1][10]
Media reports say Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised concerns about the 'gradual centralisation' of the electoral roll database and whether EROs were being given adequate access to it. [1][5][7]
The Supreme Court's order on the Bihar Special Intensive Revision describes EROs and Assistant EROs scrutinising eligibility and a final roll published after claims and objections, but it does not record any finding that the software prevented an ERO's decision from being recorded. [9]
The claim describes a specific mechanism: a voter found eligible by a constituency-level ERO is excluded from the final roll because the software cannot record that decision. The sources contain reported internal concerns about centralisation and ERO access, but no official record confirms that this mechanism exists. Because the claim is an allegation about how the system works, and the official record does not support it, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 12 Oct 2026
“वे ऐसे डिप्टी सीएम हैं जिन्होंने अस्पतालों को ही बीमार कर दिया है, अस्पतालों को इलाज की जरूरत है।”
The statement is an allegation about the condition of hospitals under Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak. The retrieved record contains no official document, data or finding that supports or contradicts it. Without such a record, the allegation cannot be verified.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak has made hospitals themselves sick and that hospitals now need treatment.
patrika.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The retrieved record contains no health department data, audit report, court order or parliamentary answer on the condition of Uttar Pradesh hospitals under Brajesh Pathak. The documents are unrelated court cases: a 1994 Punjab High Court order on industrial plots for 1984 riot victims, a 1960 Supreme Court case on a criminal investigation in Punjab, a Kerala education case, and a 2018 Delhi court judgment on a urea import case.
The retrieved court records concern unrelated matters: 1984 riot victims' industrial plots in Punjab, a 1960 criminal investigation in Punjab, Kerala education law, and a 1990s urea import case. [1][2][3][4]
The statement is an allegation about the condition of hospitals under Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak. The retrieved record contains no official document, data or finding that supports or contradicts it. Without such a record, the allegation cannot be verified.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofपवन पांडेय (Samajwadi Party)checked 12 Oct 2026
“कैंटोनमेंट बोर्ड में भ्रष्टाचार हो रहा है. यह बोर्ड केंद्र सरकार और रक्षा मंत्रालय के तहत आता है.”
The claim has two parts. The part that Cantonment Boards come under the central government and the Ministry of Defence is supported by the official Ministry of Defence page. The part that corruption is happening is an allegation; the record shows CBI investigations but no court finding or official figure establishing corruption. Therefore the corruption allegation is not proven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
पवन पांडेय ने आरोप लगाया कि कैंटोनमेंट बोर्ड में भ्रष्टाचार हो रहा है और यह बोर्ड केंद्र सरकार तथा रक्षा मंत्रालय के तहत आता है।
abplive.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Defence's Department of Defence states that it has administrative control over Cantonment Boards and the Indian Defence Estates Service. A Rajya Sabha answer of 6 December 2021 about Agra Cantonment Board describes unauthorised occupation of quarters and eviction proceedings, not corruption. Media reports say the CBI has registered cases against a former CEO of Deolali Cantonment Board under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but these are investigations, not findings of corruption.
The Ministry of Defence's Department of Defence page says it has administrative control over Cantonment Boards and the Indian Defence Estates Service. [3]
Media reports say the CBI has registered cases against a former CEO of Deolali Cantonment Board under the Prevention of Corruption Act, based on a complaint from the Ministry of Defence, but these are investigations, not findings of corruption. [1][2][5]
A Rajya Sabha answer of 6 December 2021 about Agra Cantonment Board describes unauthorised occupation of quarters and eviction proceedings, not corruption. [6]
The claim has two parts. The part that Cantonment Boards come under the central government and the Ministry of Defence is supported by the official Ministry of Defence page. The part that corruption is happening is an allegation; the record shows CBI investigations but no court finding or official figure establishing corruption. Therefore the corruption allegation is not proven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 12 Oct 2026
“उनको भी एक ई रिक्शा बुक कर लेना चाहिए, ये वो डिप्टी सीएम है जिन्होंने अस्पतालों को ही बीमार कर दिया।”
The claim rests on a political allegation against a minister. No official document, court order, commission finding or data in the retrieved record supports or contradicts the accusation that Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak made hospitals sick. The first part of the statement, suggesting he should book an e-rickshaw, is a suggestion rather than a checkable factual claim. Therefore the allegation remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said that Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak should also book an e-rickshaw and accused him of having made the hospitals themselves sick.
jagran.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The retrieved sources are unrelated court decisions from other states and periods: the Supreme Court on the Bihar animal husbandry scam, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 1984 riot victims, and the Supreme Court on Punjab election and criminal investigation matters. None of them mentions Uttar Pradesh hospitals, Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak, or any condition of hospitals under his charge.
None of the retrieved sources mentions Uttar Pradesh hospitals, Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak, or any finding that hospitals have been made sick. [1][2][3][4]
The claim rests on a political allegation against a minister. No official document, court order, commission finding or data in the retrieved record supports or contradicts the accusation that Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak made hospitals sick. The first part of the statement, suggesting he should book an e-rickshaw, is a suggestion rather than a checkable factual claim. Therefore the allegation remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipke12 Oct 2026
“alleged the police pressured him to sign his arrest papers, warning him that he would remain in jail for a long time”
This is an allegation, not a statement of fact that can be checked against the record. The sources contain no police record, court order or inquiry finding about Dipke's arrest papers. The NHRC notice concerns reported sexual harassment of three women journalists, not Dipke. A media report says a Delhi court set Dipke and his team free, but no court order in the sources confirms the specific pressure or warning.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke alleged that Delhi Police pressured him to sign his arrest papers and warned him he would remain in jail for a long time.
hindustantimes.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The official record contains no police record, court order or inquiry finding about Abhijeet Dipke's arrest papers or the alleged pressure to sign them. The National Human Rights Commission has asked the Delhi Police Commissioner for a report on reported sexual harassment of three women journalists during a Jantar Mantar protest on 3 October 2026, but that is a separate matter. Media reports say Dipke was detained ahead of the October 10 protest and later set free by a Delhi court, but no court order in the sources confirms the specific pressure or warning.
The National Human Rights Commission, a statutory rights body, has asked the Delhi Police Commissioner for a report on reported sexual harassment of three women journalists during a Jantar Mantar protest on 3 October 2026. [1]
Media reports say Delhi Police detained Abhijeet Dipke and other CJP leaders ahead of the October 10 protest, and a Delhi court later set Dipke and his team free. [4][5]
No source contains an official document confirming that Delhi Police pressured Dipke to sign arrest papers or warned him he would remain in jail for a long time. [1][5]
This is an allegation, not a statement of fact that can be checked against the record. The sources contain no police record, court order or inquiry finding about Dipke's arrest papers. The NHRC notice concerns reported sexual harassment of three women journalists, not Dipke. A media report says a Delhi court set Dipke and his team free, but no court order in the sources confirms the specific pressure or warning.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipke12 Oct 2026
““They wanted to cause further distress to my parents, who were already grieving my grandmother’s death. The Delhi Police were trying to mentally torture me and my family,””
This is an allegation by Dipke, not a fact established by any official record. The sources provide his own statements and Delhi Police's own rebuttal video, but no independent authority has examined or upheld the mental-torture claim. A denial by the accused body is its position, not proof, but the media reports also do not verify the alleged torture. The general Law Commission report on custodial crimes does not address this incident.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke alleged that Delhi Police tried to mentally torture him and his family and to cause further distress to his parents, who were already grieving his grandmother's death.
hindustantimes.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The available record shows only the two sides' accounts. Abhijeet Dipke told reporters that Delhi Police mentally tortured him and his family, and that a late-night request to call his parents was meant to cause them distress while they were grieving his grandmother's death. Delhi Police contested this, releasing a video in which officers are shown telling him of the death and offering to arrange travel and a call to a family member, which he declined.
Abhijeet Dipke accused Delhi Police of mentally torturing him and his family during his preventive detention, and said the late-night request to call his parents was intended to distress them after his grandmother's death. [4][5]
Delhi Police released a video showing officers informing Dipke of his grandmother's death and offering to arrange travel and a phone call to a family member; he declined the offers, according to media reports. [2][8]
The sources contain no court order, judicial inquiry or police-department finding that establishes that Delhi Police mentally tortured Dipke or his family. [1][2][4][5][8]
A 1994 Law Commission report discusses custodial torture in general terms but says nothing about this detention. [9]
This is an allegation by Dipke, not a fact established by any official record. The sources provide his own statements and Delhi Police's own rebuttal video, but no independent authority has examined or upheld the mental-torture claim. A denial by the accused body is its position, not proof, but the media reports also do not verify the alleged torture. The general Law Commission report on custodial crimes does not address this incident.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipke12 Oct 2026
“At 3.30am, they woke me up and asked me to sign the papers, saying I was going to jail for a very long time and should sign them immediately. I told them again that I would not sign anything until I was allowed to meet my lawyer”
This is an allegation about police conduct during Dipke's own arrest. The speaker has not provided an arrest memo, complaint, or court order, and the record contains no such document. The court judgments in the sources discuss the legal requirement to inform arrestees of grounds of arrest but do not examine Dipke's case. Therefore the allegation is not proven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke alleged that Delhi Police woke him at 3.30am and pressured him to sign his arrest papers, warning him he would remain in jail for a very long time, which he refused until allowed to meet his lawyer.
hindustantimes.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The sources include Delhi High Court judgments on arrest procedure, such as Karan Singh v State NCT of Delhi (23 January 2026), which held that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in a language he understands. But that case concerns a different accused and does not mention Abhijeet Dipke. No arrest memo, FIR, remand order, or court record about Dipke is provided.
The Delhi High Court in Karan Singh v State NCT of Delhi held that the constitutional mandate of informing an arrestee of the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences, and the grounds must be communicated in writing in a language the person understands. [1]
None of the provided court records or official documents mention Abhijeet Dipke or an arrest at 3.30am with pressure to sign papers. [1][2][3][4][5]
This is an allegation about police conduct during Dipke's own arrest. The speaker has not provided an arrest memo, complaint, or court order, and the record contains no such document. The court judgments in the sources discuss the legal requirement to inform arrestees of grounds of arrest but do not examine Dipke's case. Therefore the allegation is not proven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“had written to the CJI seeking a meeting with him between 4 and 5 pm on Monday to hand over a memorandum demanding an end to "vote chori", Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar's resignation, halting of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls”
The text describes a demand, and the underlying allegation is vote theft. The record contains no court, Election Commission or parliamentary finding that votes were stolen; the Supreme Court upheld the Special Intensive Revision process. Therefore the allegation is unproven, even though the leaders' demand is reported.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge alleged vote theft ("vote chori") and sought a halt to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, in a memorandum to the Chief Justice of India.
hindustantimes.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 27 May 2026 in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, held that the Special Intensive Revision is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and consistent with Article 324. The Delhi High Court, on 3 September 2026, noted this ruling. A Press Information Bureau note of 25 July 2026 says the revision aims to make rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries, with safeguards such as door-to-door verification and claims and objections periods. No court, Election Commission or parliamentary document in the record finds vote theft.
Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge wrote to the Chief Justice of India seeking a meeting to hand over a memorandum demanding an end to 'vote chori', the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and a halt to the Special Intensive Revision. [12][13][14][15][16]
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct the Special Intensive Revision and dismissed the 'theft of votes' claims. [2][9][10]
The Election Commission's press note, as carried by PIB on 25 July 2026, states deletions are made only after verification and lists safeguards; it contains no finding of vote theft. [10][11]
The text describes a demand, and the underlying allegation is vote theft. The record contains no court, Election Commission or parliamentary finding that votes were stolen; the Supreme Court upheld the Special Intensive Revision process. Therefore the allegation is unproven, even though the leaders' demand is reported.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“Those who steal votes are traitors. The 'vote thief' Gyanesh will have to go”
The claim calls the Chief Election Commissioner a 'vote thief' — an allegation of vote theft. The record contains no court order, Election Commission finding or parliamentary document that supports this allegation. The Election Commission's own press note says the Special Intensive Revision was issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. Demands for resignation and resolutions by political parties are positions, not proof of vote theft.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said that those who steal votes are traitors and that the 'vote thief' Gyanesh Kumar, the Chief Election Commissioner, will have to go.
livemint.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, said in a press note dated 26 September 2026 that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) order of 24 June 2025 was issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission, and that the schedules for 12 States and 19 States/UTs were also issued with unanimous approval. No court order, Election Commission document or parliamentary answer in the record finds that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar stole votes.
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 states the SIR order of 24 June 2025 was issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission, and the schedules for 12 States and 19 States/UTs were also issued with unanimous approval. [10]
Rahul Gandhi and the INDIA bloc have demanded CEC Gyanesh Kumar's resignation and described the electoral roll exercise as 'vote chori' (vote theft), and said they would file a petition and submit a memorandum to the Chief Justice of India. [3][6]
The Kerala Assembly passed a resolution seeking the CEC's removal over allegations of 'vote chori'. [4]
The claim calls the Chief Election Commissioner a 'vote thief' — an allegation of vote theft. The record contains no court order, Election Commission finding or parliamentary document that supports this allegation. The Election Commission's own press note says the Special Intensive Revision was issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. Demands for resignation and resolutions by political parties are positions, not proof of vote theft.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipke12 Oct 2026
“I had also asked for a call with a lawyer which was again denied.”
The claim is an allegation about what happened to Abhijeet Dipke personally during detention. The record contains no official document — no police record, court order, or government statement — confirming that Dipke was detained, that he asked for a lawyer, or that the request was denied. What the record does show is a general legal principle from the Delhi High Court that arrestees have a right to a lawyer, and similar allegations from Dipke's party colleagues, but those do not establish what happened in Dipke's own case.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke alleged that Delhi Police denied him a call with a lawyer while he was detained.
indianexpress.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
No official document in the record — no police report, court order, or parliamentary answer — states that Abhijeet Dipke was detained or that he asked for a lawyer and was refused. The Delhi High Court in Amit Chakraborty vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 13 October 2023 affirmed that every arrested person has a right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of their choice, but that ruling does not address Dipke's detention.
The Delhi High Court in Amit Chakraborty vs State (NCT of Delhi), decided on 13 October 2023, held that every arrestee has an 'indelible right' to consult and be defended by an advocate of their choice, and that this right cannot be diluted for any reason. [2]
Cockroach Janta Party leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka alleged that Delhi Police denied them access to legal assistance during their detention, with Das saying police told them 'under detention, we have no rights'. [3]
Lawyers clashed with police outside Mahendra Park police station in Delhi on 10 October 2026 while seeking access to detained protesters, and senior advocate Sanjay Hegde argued before the Supreme Court that access to lawyers was also access to justice. [1][5]
The claim is an allegation about what happened to Abhijeet Dipke personally during detention. The record contains no official document — no police record, court order, or government statement — confirming that Dipke was detained, that he asked for a lawyer, or that the request was denied. What the record does show is a general legal principle from the Delhi High Court that arrestees have a right to a lawyer, and similar allegations from Dipke's party colleagues, but those do not establish what happened in Dipke's own case.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“Gandhi said earlier that he would file a petition at 3pm in the top court against “vote chori”.”
The claim's substance is the allegation of 'vote chori' (vote theft). The official record does not support it: the Supreme Court upheld the Special Intensive Revision as lawful, and the Election Commission describes safeguards to prevent wrongful deletion. Rahul Gandhi's announced petition and march are actions, not evidence of theft. No court or commission has found votes were stolen, so the allegation is unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said he would file a petition in the Supreme Court at 3pm against 'vote chori' (vote theft), and led an INDIA bloc march to the court to raise the issue.
hindustantimes.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision, as the Delhi High Court recorded on 3 September 2026 [7]. The Election Commission's 25 July 2026 press note says the revision is carried out with safeguards so that no eligible elector is left out and deletions follow due process [2]. No court, Election Commission or parliamentary record in the sources finds that votes were stolen.
The Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision powers in its 27 May 2026 judgment, as recorded by the Delhi High Court on 3 September 2026. [7]
The Election Commission's 25 July 2026 press note states the revision has safeguards including prior intimation, reasons for deletion, draft roll publication, and appeals, to prevent wrongful deletion of eligible electors. [2]
The claim's substance is the allegation of 'vote chori' (vote theft). The official record does not support it: the Supreme Court upheld the Special Intensive Revision as lawful, and the Election Commission describes safeguards to prevent wrongful deletion. Rahul Gandhi's announced petition and march are actions, not evidence of theft. No court or commission has found votes were stolen, so the allegation is unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“Rahul Gandhi alleged that the government is protecting CEC Gyanesh Kumar”
The claim is an allegation that the government is protecting the Chief Election Commissioner. No court order, parliamentary answer or Election Commission document in the retrieved record supports that allegation. The Supreme Court is examining related allegations about the CEC's functioning, but it has not ruled that he is being protected by the government, and the Election Commission has called Rahul Gandhi's Form 6 allegations misleading.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged that the government is protecting Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, ahead of the INDIA bloc march to the Supreme Court.
hindustantimes.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Election Commission, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the other two Election Commissioners, and is examining allegations about his functioning in connection with the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. As of 8 October 2026, the court had not found him criminally liable, ordered his prosecution or removed him from office. The Election Commission has separately called Rahul Gandhi's Form 6 allegations against the CEC 'misleading'.
The Supreme Court on 5 October 2026 took up petitions challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in connection with the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, but as of 8 October 2026 it had not found him criminally liable, ordered an SIT, directed his prosecution or removed him from office. [2]
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the other two Election Commissioners. [1]
The Election Commission of India termed Rahul Gandhi's allegations that the CEC illegally and unilaterally changed Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision as 'misleading', and stated that the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Supreme Court. [6]
The Delhi High Court noted on 3 September 2026 that the Supreme Court had upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 read with Article 324 of the Constitution. [12]
The claim is an allegation that the government is protecting the Chief Election Commissioner. No court order, parliamentary answer or Election Commission document in the retrieved record supports that allegation. The Supreme Court is examining related allegations about the CEC's functioning, but it has not ruled that he is being protected by the government, and the Election Commission has called Rahul Gandhi's Form 6 allegations misleading.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“he said that he will file a petition at 3pm in the top court against “vote chori””
The claim rests on an allegation of vote theft and a statement of intent to file a petition. The official record contains no finding of vote theft; the Delhi High Court record shows the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision. The sources also show Rahul Gandhi announced a march and memorandum, not a petition at 3pm. So the vote-theft allegation is unsupported and the 3pm petition detail is not confirmed.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged "vote chori" (vote theft) in the electoral rolls and said he would file a petition in the Supreme Court at 3pm on 12 October 2026 against it.
hindustantimes.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Delhi High Court's judgment of 3 September 2026 in Devender Yadav v. Election Commission of India records that the Supreme Court, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India on 27 May 2026, upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 read with Article 324, and held there is wide procedural latitude. No court or Election Commission document in the retrieved sources finds vote theft. The Indian Express reports that Rahul Gandhi announced a march to the Supreme Court and submission of a memorandum, not a petition at 3pm.
The Delhi High Court judgment of 3 September 2026 records that the Supreme Court on 27 May 2026 upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision and gave it wide procedural latitude. [9]
The Indian Express reports that Rahul Gandhi announced a march to the Supreme Court and said participants would submit a memorandum to the Chief Justice of India, not that he would file a petition at 3pm. [3]
No source shows a petition filed in the Supreme Court at 3pm on 12 October 2026 against vote theft; the sources show a march and memorandum instead. [3]
The claim rests on an allegation of vote theft and a statement of intent to file a petition. The official record contains no finding of vote theft; the Delhi High Court record shows the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision. The sources also show Rahul Gandhi announced a march and memorandum, not a petition at 3pm. So the vote-theft allegation is unsupported and the 3pm petition detail is not confirmed.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“Won't let PM Modi attack Tamil language, history, culture”
The statement is an allegation that Prime Minister Modi is attacking Tamil language, history and culture. Rahul Gandhi offered no document, court finding or official figure for it. The only official document among the sources on Tamil language shows the government promoting Tamil, not attacking it. Media reports carry the claim and the BJP's denial, but no independent record supports the allegation, so it is unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said in Chennai that he will not let Prime Minister Narendra Modi attack the Tamil language, history and culture.
hindustantimes.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The official record contains no court, parliamentary or government document showing Prime Minister Modi attacked Tamil language, history or culture. The Press Information Bureau's 7 November 2025 release describes Kashi Tamil Sangamam 4.0, a Ministry of Education initiative envisioned by Prime Minister Modi, as celebrating the Tamil Nadu–Kashi bond and launching a 'Tamil Karpom' programme to help North Indian students learn Tamil [8]. Media reports carry Rahul Gandhi's statement and the BJP's denial, but no independent record supports the allegation [1][7].
Rahul Gandhi told a Chennai gathering on 10 October 2026: 'We are not going to let Narendra Modi attack Tamil language, Tamil history, Tamil culture.' [1]
The Press Information Bureau's 7 November 2025 release on Kashi Tamil Sangamam 4.0 describes it as a Ministry of Education initiative envisioned by Prime Minister Modi to celebrate the bond between Tamil Nadu and Kashi, with a 'Tamil Karpom' programme for North Indian students to learn Tamil. [8]
BJP spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi rejected the claim as baseless and said Tamil has received 'immense respect' during Prime Minister Modi's tenure. [7]
The statement is an allegation that Prime Minister Modi is attacking Tamil language, history and culture. Rahul Gandhi offered no document, court finding or official figure for it. The only official document among the sources on Tamil language shows the government promoting Tamil, not attacking it. Media reports carry the claim and the BJP's denial, but no independent record supports the allegation, so it is unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav12 Oct 2026
“Yadav also accused the Election Commission of working in collusion with the BJP, and demanded the immediate release of all those detained in the ongoing agitation by the Cockroach Janta Party in Delhi.”
The claim is an allegation that the Election Commission worked in collusion with the BJP. The available official record contains no court finding, Election Commission document or parliamentary answer supporting that allegation. The Supreme Court examined the SIR process and upheld it as within the Election Commission's mandate, and the published safeguards describe a statutory process rather than collusion. The allegation therefore remains unsupported by the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav accused the Election Commission of working in collusion with the BJP.
hindustantimes.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 27 May 2026, examined the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and held that the exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and consistent with its constitutional duty under Article 324. The Election Commission's published process describes house-to-house enumeration, draft roll publication, claims and objections, appeals and Booth Level Agents, with no mention of collusion with the BJP. The Delhi High Court on 3 September 2026 recorded that the Supreme Court had upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the SIR.
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment examined the Special Intensive Revision and held it to be within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and its constitutional obligation under Article 324. [3][10]
The Election Commission's stated SIR process includes door-to-door visits, publication of draft rolls, a claims and objections period, appeals, and Booth Level Agents; it does not state any collusion with the BJP. [10][11]
The Delhi High Court on 3 September 2026 recorded that the Supreme Court had upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the SIR exercise. [9]
The claim is an allegation that the Election Commission worked in collusion with the BJP. The available official record contains no court finding, Election Commission document or parliamentary answer supporting that allegation. The Supreme Court examined the SIR process and upheld it as within the Election Commission's mandate, and the published safeguards describe a statutory process rather than collusion. The allegation therefore remains unsupported by the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi12 Oct 2026
“The party also attacked the Congress MP over his claim that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had launched a “full-scale attack” on Tamil language and culture.”
The statement is an allegation of a full-scale attack by the Prime Minister. Nothing in the retrieved official record supports it: no government order, parliamentary answer or court finding records such an attack. The only material on the claim is media coverage of the speech and the BJP's denial, and a denial by the accused party is not independent proof. Therefore the claim is unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi claimed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had launched a "full-scale attack" on Tamil language and culture.
indianexpress.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
No official document among the retrieved sources records a 'full-scale attack' on Tamil language and culture. The claim appears only in media reports of Rahul Gandhi's Chennai speech and in the BJP's rebuttal; those reports cite initiatives such as the Sengol in Parliament and Kashi Tamil Sangamam but no official record is provided.
The retrieved official sources — PIB releases on the February 2025 US visit, the Lokmanya Tilak National Award to the National Security Adviser, and the Union Budget 2023-24 for education — contain no document about an attack on Tamil language or culture. [9][10][12]
Media reports of the October 2026 Chennai event quote Rahul Gandhi alleging a 'full-scale attack' on Tamil language, culture and history, and quote BJP spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi denying the charge with examples such as the Sengol in the new Parliament building and the Kashi Tamil Sangamam. [1][4]
The statement is an allegation of a full-scale attack by the Prime Minister. Nothing in the retrieved official record supports it: no government order, parliamentary answer or court finding records such an attack. The only material on the claim is media coverage of the speech and the BJP's denial, and a denial by the accused party is not independent proof. Therefore the claim is unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofSaurav Das12 Oct 2026
“We suspect that, as alleged in similar cases involving activists in the past, phones could have been hacked or cloned to plant documents or other material that might later be used as evidence against us,”
This is an allegation or suspicion, not a statement of fact confirmed by any official record. The only support in the retrieved sources is Das's own statement carried by news outlets. Because no police response, forensic examination or court finding is present, the claim cannot be verified and is rated NO_PROOF. The reference to 'past cases involving activists' is also not tied to any specific case in the retrieved record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Saurav Das said he suspects the phones taken from detained CJP leaders could have been hacked or cloned to plant documents or material for later use as evidence against them, as alleged in past cases involving activists.
thehindu.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The retrieved sources are news reports that quote Saurav Das as saying he suspects the phones were hacked or cloned and that documents or material could be planted as evidence. No police response, seizure memo, forensic report, court order or other official document in the retrieved record confirms that any phone was hacked, cloned or tampered with. The court judgments retrieved concern unrelated matters and contain no finding about activists' phones.
News reports quote Saurav Das as saying he suspects the phones were hacked or cloned and that documents or material could be planted as evidence. [1][2]
The retrieved sources are news reports and do not include any police statement, seizure memo, forensic report or court order confirming that a phone was hacked, cloned or tampered with. [1][2]
The court judgments in the retrieved record concern unrelated matters — a bank service dispute, an Arms Act prosecution, the Bhopal gas case and a Delhi Excise case — and contain no finding about phone hacking or cloning of activists' devices. [3][4][5][6]
This is an allegation or suspicion, not a statement of fact confirmed by any official record. The only support in the retrieved sources is Das's own statement carried by news outlets. Because no police response, forensic examination or court finding is present, the claim cannot be verified and is rated NO_PROOF. The reference to 'past cases involving activists' is also not tied to any specific case in the retrieved record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofSaurav Das12 Oct 2026
“Delhi Police officials had taken away their phones during their detention without issuing any seizure memo, Mr. Das claimed, raising concerns that the devices might have been hacked or cloned.”
The claim is an allegation of police misconduct. Das offered no document, court finding or official figure for it, and the retrieved material contains no independent record that supports it. Delhi Police had not responded to the specific claims. The court records retrieved are from unrelated cases and do not bear on this incident.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
CJP co-convener Saurav Das said Delhi Police officials took away their phones during their detention without issuing any seizure memo, and raised the concern that the devices might have been hacked or cloned.
thehindu.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
No court order, police document or other official record in the retrieved material confirms that Delhi Police took the phones without a seizure memo or that the devices were hacked or cloned. The reports quote Das making the allegation, and one report notes Delhi Police had not publicly responded to the specific claims.
Saurav Das alleged at a press conference that Delhi Police seized phones without a seizure memo and that the devices may have been hacked or cloned. [2][6]
Delhi Police had not publicly responded to the specific allegations regarding the seizure of phones, the absence of a seizure memo, or claims that the devices may have been compromised. [1]
The retrieved court records concern unrelated criminal cases and do not mention this detention or any seizure of phones from CJP leaders. [7][8][9][10][11]
The claim is an allegation of police misconduct. Das offered no document, court finding or official figure for it, and the retrieved material contains no independent record that supports it. Delhi Police had not responded to the specific claims. The court records retrieved are from unrelated cases and do not bear on this incident.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi11 Oct 2026
“They were beaten, both by cops and BJP goons.”
The claim is an allegation of violence by two named groups. No court, police or commission document in the record establishes that protesters were beaten by police personnel or BJP workers. The NHRC notice concerns reported sexual harassment of three journalists, not beating of protesters, and is a request for a report, not a finding. The BJP's own statement alleges the opposite—that Congress workers assaulted a Kashmiri youth. So the claim is unsupported.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said that protesters in Delhi were beaten by both police personnel and BJP workers.
indianexpress.com, 11 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The National Human Rights Commission, which examines rights complaints, has taken cognizance of a media report that three women journalists were sexually harassed by Delhi Police personnel during a Jantar Mantar protest on 3 October 2026 and asked the Delhi Police Commissioner for a report, but it has not found that protesters were beaten. Delhi Police had not granted permission for the October 10 gathering and tightened security; media reported clashes and detentions. The BJP, for its part, alleged that Congress workers assaulted a Kashmiri youth during the protest.
The National Human Rights Commission took cognizance of a media report that three women journalists were sexually harassed by Delhi Police personnel during a Jantar Mantar protest on 3 October 2026 and issued a notice to the Delhi Police Commissioner for a report, but it has not found that protesters were beaten. [11]
Delhi Police had not granted permission for the proposed October 2026 gathering and had tightened security; media reported clashes between protesters and police and detentions. [3][6]
The J&K BJP alleged that Congress workers assaulted a Kashmiri Muslim youth during the protest, while Congress workers alleged that Delhi Police manhandled Rahul Gandhi and other Congress leaders. [5]
The claim is an allegation of violence by two named groups. No court, police or commission document in the record establishes that protesters were beaten by police personnel or BJP workers. The NHRC notice concerns reported sexual harassment of three journalists, not beating of protesters, and is a request for a report, not a finding. The BJP's own statement alleges the opposite—that Congress workers assaulted a Kashmiri youth. So the claim is unsupported.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofDhruv Rathee11 Oct 2026
“Further in the video, he claimed that the police misbehaved with his parents and manhandled him.”
The claim is an allegation of police misconduct. No police report, court order, or NHRC notice in the sources confirms that police misbehaved with his parents or manhandled him. His own description of being 'kidnapped' is his position, not proof. The NHRC notice concerns different people and a different date, so it does not support this claim.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee claimed that Gurugram Police misbehaved with his parents and manhandled him during his detention.
hindustantimes.com, 11 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The available record shows Dhruv Rathee was detained at his Gurugram residence on 10 October 2026 and released after about 18 hours; he described the detention as a 'kidnapping'. The National Human Rights Commission took cognizance of reported sexual harassment of three journalists by Delhi Police at Jantar Mantar on 3 October 2026, but that notice does not concern Rathee or his parents.
Dhruv Rathee was arrested on 10 October 2026 from his home in Gurgaon, where he was staying with his parents. [1]
Gurugram Police released him after nearly 18 hours of detention, and he said he was 'kidnapped'. [4]
The National Human Rights Commission took cognizance of reported sexual harassment of three journalists by Delhi Police at Jantar Mantar on 3 October 2026, but this is a separate matter and does not mention Rathee or his parents. [3]
The claim is an allegation of police misconduct. No police report, court order, or NHRC notice in the sources confirms that police misbehaved with his parents or manhandled him. His own description of being 'kidnapped' is his position, not proof. The NHRC notice concerns different people and a different date, so it does not support this claim.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofDhruv Rathee11 Oct 2026
“He said the situation was an “unofficial emergency” and accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of “turning the country into a dictatorship”.”
The claim is an allegation and a political characterisation, not a factual assertion that can be checked against a single official figure. The official record — Supreme Court judgments on the electoral roll revision and election commissioner appointments — contains no finding that India is under an unofficial emergency or that Prime Minister Modi is turning the country into a dictatorship. The courts instead affirm constitutional rule of law. Opposition leaders' statements and media reports repeat the allegation but do not establish it. Therefore the verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee called the situation an 'unofficial emergency' and accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of turning the country into a dictatorship.
hindustantimes.com, 11 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment on the Bihar Special Intensive Revision examined the Election Commission's exercise and held that determining citizenship is exclusively the Ministry of Home Affairs' domain, but it did not find that India is a dictatorship [4]. In a separate 23 September 2026 judgment on election commissioner appointments, the Court reiterated that India is a government of laws, not of men, and that rulers are bound by law [12]. Media reports describe protests and opposition leaders' allegations of dictatorship, but these are not official findings [1][5][7].
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India examined the Bihar Special Intensive Revision and held that determining citizenship is exclusively the Ministry of Home Affairs' domain, not the Election Commission's [4]. [4]
The Supreme Court's 23 September 2026 judgment states that India's constitutional scheme is a government of laws, not of men, where rulers are bound by law and can never be above the law [12]. [12]
Opposition leaders, including Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Rahul Gandhi, have called India a dictatorship, but these are political statements, not official findings [5][7]. [5][7]
Media reports describe protests over the Election Commission's voter roll revision and allegations of bias, but no court or commission has found that Prime Minister Modi is turning India into a dictatorship [1][2]. [1][2]
The claim is an allegation and a political characterisation, not a factual assertion that can be checked against a single official figure. The official record — Supreme Court judgments on the electoral roll revision and election commissioner appointments — contains no finding that India is under an unofficial emergency or that Prime Minister Modi is turning the country into a dictatorship. The courts instead affirm constitutional rule of law. Opposition leaders' statements and media reports repeat the allegation but do not establish it. Therefore the verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi1 Oct 2026
“‘15,000 voters targeted’: Rahul Gandhi’s fresh attack on EC over Karnataka rolls”
15,000 voters
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
15,000 voters
Rahul Gandhi said that 15,000 voters were targeted in the Karnataka electoral rolls, in an attack on the Election Commission over the state's roll revision.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's 25 July 2026 press note, carried by the Press Information Bureau, describes the Special Intensive Revision as a phased exercise to make electoral rolls accurate and says safeguards prevent wrongful deletion of eligible voters. The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India upheld the Special Intensive Revision as within the Commission's statutory mandate. Neither document mentions 15,000 voters in Karnataka.
The Election Commission's press note says the Special Intensive Revision is carried out in phases with safeguards such as prior intimation, reasons for deletion, publication of draft rolls, and appeals, to prevent wrongful deletion of eligible voters. [2]
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment held that the Special Intensive Revision exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate and consistent with its constitutional obligation to ensure free and fair elections. [4]
No source in the retrieved record states that 15,000 voters were targeted in Karnataka's electoral rolls. [2][4]
The claim rests on a specific number and an allegation of targeting, but no official document, court order or Election Commission press note in the record mentions 15,000 voters in Karnataka. The Supreme Court examined the Special Intensive Revision and upheld it as lawful, with safeguards, and did not find that voters were targeted. The claim is therefore not proven on the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“अखिलेश यादव ने बृहस्पतिवार को आरोप लगाया कि भारत में सामाजिक न्याय “भाजपाई आपातकाल” के दौर से गुजर रहा है, जिसमें ‘पीडीए’ (पिछड़ों, दलितों, अल्पसंख्यकों) को अत्याचार का सामना करना पड़ रहा है।”
The claim is a broad allegation that social justice is in a 'BJP emergency' with atrocities against backward classes, Dalits and minorities. No document, court order or official statistic in the available record supports that. The record contains only unrelated statutes and a court case, so the allegation has no proof in the material available.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that social justice in India is going through a 'BJP emergency' in which PDA (backward classes, Dalits, minorities) are facing atrocities.
prabhasakshi.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 defines human rights and sets up the National Human Rights Commission but does not record any incident of atrocities. The other documents in the record concern broadcasting rules, a Kerala education law case, and a Rajasthan reservation statute; none provides data or a finding that PDA groups are facing atrocities under a 'BJP emergency'.
The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 defines human rights and creates the National Human Rights Commission but contains no incident data about atrocities against backward classes, Dalits or minorities. [3]
The remaining documents concern broadcasting objectives, minority educational institutions, and Rajasthan's reservation law, not verified atrocities against PDA groups. [1][2][4]
The claim is a broad allegation that social justice is in a 'BJP emergency' with atrocities against backward classes, Dalits and minorities. No document, court order or official statistic in the available record supports that. The record contains only unrelated statutes and a court case, so the allegation has no proof in the material available.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofJairam Ramesh (Rahul Gandhi)1 Oct 2026
“Form 6 changes were introduced by the CEC unconstitutionally in mid-July 2026 to remove Gen Z voters from the electoral roll. Clearly, the move was orchestrated by the PM-HM (Narendra Modi-Amit Shah) duo.”
Jairam Ramesh's statement is an allegation of unconstitutional action and of a motive and hand behind it. The record includes the Congress's own allegations and the Election Commission's denial, but no order, judgment or other official document proves that the Form 6 changes were unconstitutional, that their purpose was to remove Gen Z voters, or that Narendra Modi and Amit Shah orchestrated them. The Supreme Court judgment cited in the record upheld the Special Intensive Revision framework but does not itself settle the July 2026 Form 6 issue, so the claim remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Jairam Ramesh said that Form 6 changes were introduced by the Chief Election Commissioner unconstitutionally in mid-July 2026 to remove Gen Z voters from the electoral roll, and that the move was orchestrated by the PM-HM (Narendra Modi-Amit Shah) duo.
thehindu.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, has maintained that there was no change to the statutory Form 6 and that an additional declaration was added under the Special Intensive Revision process. The Delhi High Court order of 3 September 2026 records that the Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment, upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, read with Article 324 of the Constitution. No official or court document in the record finds the July 2026 change unconstitutional, aimed at removing Gen Z voters, or linked to the Prime Minister and Union Home Minister.
The Election Commission has said there was no change to the statutory Form 6 and that an additional declaration was added under the Special Intensive Revision process. [2]
The Delhi High Court's 3 September 2026 order records that the Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment, upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, read with Article 324 of the Constitution. [9]
The reports contain Congress's charges of illegal and unconstitutional changes, but no official or court record shows that the changes were introduced to remove Gen Z voters or orchestrated by Narendra Modi and Amit Shah. [2][7]
Jairam Ramesh's statement is an allegation of unconstitutional action and of a motive and hand behind it. The record includes the Congress's own allegations and the Election Commission's denial, but no order, judgment or other official document proves that the Form 6 changes were unconstitutional, that their purpose was to remove Gen Z voters, or that Narendra Modi and Amit Shah orchestrated them. The Supreme Court judgment cited in the record upheld the Special Intensive Revision framework but does not itself settle the July 2026 Form 6 issue, so the claim remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofJairam Ramesh (Rahul Gandhi)1 Oct 2026
“Congress general secretary (communications) Jairam Ramesh claimed that the change in Form 6 was orchestrated by “the PM-HM duo” to remove Gen Z voters from the voter list.”
The claim is an allegation about who ordered the Form 6 change and why. The official material retrieved gives an administrative explanation—approval by the full Commission and an IT change over e-signing—and does not show Prime Minister or Home Minister involvement or a plan to remove Gen Z voters. Because no court, commission or official document in the record supports the allegation, it remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Jairam Ramesh claimed that the change in Form 6 was orchestrated by the PM-HM duo to remove Gen Z voters from the voter list.
thehindu.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
No official record in the sources states that the Prime Minister or Home Minister directed the Form 6 change. Election Commission officials maintain that the declaration attached to Form 6 was approved by the full Commission when the Special Intensive Revision began in Bihar and later ratified, and that the online submission problem came from an IT change to avoid double e-signing. The Election Commission's press note on the Bihar revision describes it as a statutory exercise under Article 326 with the stated aim that no eligible voter be left out.
Jairam Ramesh said the Form 6 changes were introduced by the Chief Election Commissioner 'unconstitutionally' in mid-July 2026 to remove Gen Z voters from the electoral roll. [1][2]
Election Commission officials maintain the separate declaration with Form 6 was approved by the full Commission when the Special Intensive Revision began in Bihar and was ratified in later phases. [2]
According to those officials, the online submission issue arose because the IT department changed the form so a person did not have to e-sign twice, and the declaration then had to be filled for submission. [2]
The Election Commission's press note on the Bihar Special Intensive Revision describes it as a statutory revision under Article 326, aimed at including eligible voters and removing ineligible ones, with political parties and booth-level agents involved. [7]
The claim is an allegation about who ordered the Form 6 change and why. The official material retrieved gives an administrative explanation—approval by the full Commission and an IT change over e-signing—and does not show Prime Minister or Home Minister involvement or a plan to remove Gen Z voters. Because no court, commission or official document in the record supports the allegation, it remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipke (Cockroach Janta Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“He called for freezing the 2025 voter list, saying it should not be “tampered with further”.”
The demand to freeze the rolls and restore the January 2025 list is reported and not disputed. But the phrase 'tampered with further' treats tampering as an established fact. The official record does not support that: the Supreme Court order documents the roll changes without a tampering finding, and the Election Commission says the process was a legal revision, not tampering. Since no court or commission has upheld the tampering allegation, that part remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Cockroach Janta Party founder Abhijeet Dipke called for freezing the 2025 voter list, saying it should not be tampered with further.
telanganatoday.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 order in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India records that Bihar's electoral roll fell from about 7.89 crore electors on 24 June 2025 to a final 7.42 crore on 30 September 2025 after the Special Intensive Revision, and directed that the excluded names be published. The court raised questions about the exercise's authority, procedure and timing but did not find tampering. The Election Commission has said the decisions on the revision were unanimous and that changes at different stages cannot by themselves show a deletion was wrongful or mala fide.
The Cockroach Janata Party demanded a freeze on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and that rolls be restored to the January 2025 voter list. [2]
The Election Commission said decisions taken by the three-member panel, including those relating to the SIR, were unanimous. [2]
The Supreme Court's order records the final Bihar electoral roll at 7.42 crore electors, down from about 7.89 crore before the Special Intensive Revision. [8]
The Supreme Court's order did not find that the electoral roll was tampered with; it listed substantial questions about the authority, procedure and timing of the revision. [8]
The Election Commission has said that figures from different stages of electoral-roll revision cannot by themselves establish that any deletion or non-inclusion was wrongful or mala fide. [6]
The demand to freeze the rolls and restore the January 2025 list is reported and not disputed. But the phrase 'tampered with further' treats tampering as an established fact. The official record does not support that: the Supreme Court order documents the roll changes without a tampering finding, and the Election Commission says the process was a legal revision, not tampering. Since no court or commission has upheld the tampering allegation, that part remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofLoton Ram Nishad (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“उन्होंने आरोप लगाया कि भाजपा सरकार पीडीए समाज के हक व अधिकारों को छीनना चाहती है।”
The claim is an accusation about the BJP government's intent and conduct towards the PDA community. The retrieved sources contain only allegations by political leaders and a party-made audit report, not an official finding or data supporting the assertion. Because there is no independent official record, court ruling or parliamentary answer in the retrieved material that establishes the claim, and no retrieved source disproves it, the appropriate verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party leader Loton Ram Nishad accused the BJP government of wanting to snatch the rights of the PDA community.
livehindustan.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
No official document, court order, Election Commission figure or parliamentary answer in the retrieved record shows that the BJP government has taken or intends to take away the rights of the PDA community. The record contains only party leaders' claims: The Hindu reported Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav's allegation that the BJP government is snatching reservation of PDA and left 1,133 Scheduled Tribe-reserved posts unfilled, based on a 'Samajwadi Audit Report'. A separate report quotes Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party leader Om Prakash Rajbhar making counter-claims about Dalit-related incidents during the Samajwadi Party government.
The Hindu reported Akhilesh Yadav's allegation that the BJP government is snatching reservation of PDA and that it left 1,133 posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes unfilled. [1]
The 1,133 figure in that report is attributed to a 'Samajwadi Audit Report', not to any official or judicial source. [1]
A report quotes Om Prakash Rajbhar claiming that atrocities against Dalits increased during the Samajwadi Party government and that many statues of B.R. Ambedkar were broken then. [5]
None of the retrieved court records concerns PDA rights or reservation implementation in Uttar Pradesh. [7][8][9][10]
The claim is an accusation about the BJP government's intent and conduct towards the PDA community. The retrieved sources contain only allegations by political leaders and a party-made audit report, not an official finding or data supporting the assertion. Because there is no independent official record, court ruling or parliamentary answer in the retrieved material that establishes the claim, and no retrieved source disproves it, the appropriate verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofLoton Ram Nishad (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“इसमें लोटन राम निषाद ने सपा के साथ एकजुटता का आह्वान किया एवं भाजपा सरकार पर आरोप लगाया कि वह पिछड़ा वर्ग के अधिकारों का हनन कर रही है।”
The claim is an allegation by a political leader. The retrieved sources include similar allegations by other opposition leaders, but none supplies an official document, court order or data establishing that the BJP government has actually violated the rights of backward classes. Without such a record the allegation is unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party leader Loton Ram Nishad accused the BJP government of violating the rights of backward classes.
livehindustan.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The official record in the retrieved sources contains no court order, parliamentary answer, or commission finding that the BJP government has violated the rights of backward classes. The documents that do define safeguards — Article 15 of the Constitution, the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, and a 1986 Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment on backward-class reservations — describe legal protections, not any violation by the BJP.
Article 15 of the Constitution bars the State from discriminating on grounds of caste and permits special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. [5]
The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 defines human rights and sets up commissions, but contains no finding about any violation of backward-class rights by the BJP government. [7]
Media reports quote Congress leaders accusing the BJP in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana of curbing rights of Dalits and backward classes, but these are political allegations, not official findings. [2][3][4]
The claim is an allegation by a political leader. The retrieved sources include similar allegations by other opposition leaders, but none supplies an official document, court order or data establishing that the BJP government has actually violated the rights of backward classes. Without such a record the allegation is unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofVidyasagar Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“जिलाध्यक्ष विद्यासागर यादव ने आरोप लगाया कि भाजपा सरकार संविधान व आरक्षण व्यवस्था को कमजोर कर पीडीए समाज को नौकरियों से वंचित करना चाहती है।”
This is a political allegation. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure. The court and Constituent Assembly records discuss constitutional and reservation provisions but do not show the BJP government weakening them or depriving the PDA community of jobs. Therefore the allegation is not proved by the retrieved record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party district president Vidyasagar Yadav accused the BJP government of weakening the Constitution and the reservation system and of wanting to deprive the PDA community of jobs.
livehindustan.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The retrieved record contains no document, court order or official figure that supports the allegation. The Constituent Assembly debates discuss reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes in services and legislatures, but they are historical debates, not findings about the present BJP government [2]. A 2026 Supreme Court judgment on appointment of Election Commissioners restates constitutional principles, but it does not find that the BJP government weakened the Constitution or reservation or deprived the PDA community of jobs [4].
The Constituent Assembly debates of 14 October 1949 record discussion of claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts, and of reservation for backward classes, but contain no finding about the present BJP government [2]. [2]
The Supreme Court's 2026 judgment on Election Commission appointments says India is a government of laws and discusses constitutional safeguards, but it does not hold that the BJP government weakened the Constitution or reservation or deprived the PDA community of jobs [4]. [4]
The Delhi High Court bail order concerns the Delhi excise policy and does not bear on reservation or jobs for the PDA community [3]. [3]
This is a political allegation. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure. The court and Constituent Assembly records discuss constitutional and reservation provisions but do not show the BJP government weakening them or depriving the PDA community of jobs. Therefore the allegation is not proved by the retrieved record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofJairam Ramesh (Indian National Congress)1 Oct 2026
“The chorus of voices against the capture of the electoral system is getting louder”
The claim rests on an allegation that the electoral system has been captured. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure for it. The Supreme Court judgment in the record examined the appointment process for election commissioners but did not uphold any finding of capture. Press reports of the Congress's own statement and opposition activities do not prove the allegation, so the claim is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said that the chorus of voices against the capture of the electoral system is getting louder.
thehindu.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's judgment of 23 September 2026 in the challenge to the law on appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners examined how these officials are selected; it did not find that the electoral system has been captured [8]. Media reports of 1 October 2026 quote Jairam Ramesh and the Congress making the claim, and note the INDIA bloc's planned marches and former Chief Election Commissioner O.P. Rawat's criticism of the Special Intensive Revision, but these are press accounts, not official findings [2][6][7]. No official document in the record confirms that the electoral system has been captured or that opposition to such capture is growing.
The Supreme Court's 23 September 2026 judgment in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 146 of 2024 examined the law on appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners; it did not find that the electoral system has been captured. [8]
Media reports from 1 October 2026 quote Jairam Ramesh saying the chorus of voices against the capture of the electoral system is getting louder, and mention the INDIA bloc's planned marches and former CEC O.P. Rawat's criticism of the Special Intensive Revision. [2][6][7]
The claim rests on an allegation that the electoral system has been captured. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure for it. The Supreme Court judgment in the record examined the appointment process for election commissioners but did not uphold any finding of capture. Press reports of the Congress's own statement and opposition activities do not prove the allegation, so the claim is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofJairam Ramesh (Indian National Congress)1 Oct 2026
“Form 6 changes were introduced by the CEC unconstitutionally in mid-July 2026 to remove Gen Z voters from the electoral roll. Clearly, the move was orchestrated by the PM-HM (Narendra Modi-Amit Shah) duo.”
The claim treats allegations as established fact. The only sources for illegality, the Gen Z motive and PM-HM orchestration are statements by Ramesh and the Congress. The Election Commission denies any change to the statutory form, and the Supreme Court ruling cited in the controversy upheld the ECI's SIR powers without examining the July online change. No official document or court order in the record supports the claim.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Jairam Ramesh said that Form 6 changes were introduced unconstitutionally by the Chief Election Commissioner in mid-July 2026 to remove Gen Z voters from the electoral roll, and that the move was orchestrated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah.
thehindu.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, has said there was no change to the statutory Form 6; an additional declaration was added under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms upheld the ECI's power to conduct SIR under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 read with Article 324, but did not specifically review the July 2026 online Form 6 change.
In July 2026, the online version of Form 6 on the Election Commission's ECINet portal was modified to include a new declaration. [1]
Jairam Ramesh and the Congress alleged the change was illegal and unconstitutional and created a barrier for first-time Gen Z voters. [2][4][6]
The Election Commission maintained that there was no change to the statutory Form 6 and that an additional declaration had been added under the SIR process. [4]
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment upheld the ECI's SIR powers but did not specifically review the July 2026 online Form 6 changes. [7][12]
The claim treats allegations as established fact. The only sources for illegality, the Gen Z motive and PM-HM orchestration are statements by Ramesh and the Congress. The Election Commission denies any change to the statutory form, and the Supreme Court ruling cited in the controversy upheld the ECI's SIR powers without examining the July online change. No official document or court order in the record supports the claim.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipke (Cockroach Janta Party)1 Oct 2026
“He also alleged that the Election Commission was functioning under the influence of the political executive.”
The claim is an allegation of institutional capture. The record shows a live dispute over appointments and internal decision-making, but no court or commission has found that the Election Commission is functioning under the influence of the political executive. The Supreme Court has stressed the need for insulation from executive influence and referred the appointment law to a larger bench, which is not the same as finding actual influence. Therefore the allegation is not proven on the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke alleged that the Election Commission was functioning under the influence of the political executive.
hindustantimes.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, in an order dated 23 September 2026, referred challenges to the 2023 law on appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners to a larger bench. It noted the earlier ruling that the Election Commission must be insulated from exclusive executive control in appointments. The Election Commission has said its important decisions were unanimous, while reporting shows internal objections to a Form 6 change.
The Supreme Court, in an order dated 23 September 2026, referred petitions challenging the 2023 law on appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners to a larger bench. [4][11]
The Supreme Court's earlier Anoop Baranwal ruling held that the Election Commission must be insulated from exclusive executive control in appointments. [3][4][11]
Under the 2023 Act, the Selection Committee for these appointments consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister; a Search Committee is headed by the Law Minister. [11]
The Election Commission said its important decisions of the past year had the 'unanimous' approval of the full Commission, while The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners had objected to a Form 6 change as 'illegal, unauthorised'. [2]
The Supreme Court's 2026 order does not find that the Election Commission is functioning under the influence of the political executive; it refers the appointment-law challenge to a larger bench. [11]
The claim is an allegation of institutional capture. The record shows a live dispute over appointments and internal decision-making, but no court or commission has found that the Election Commission is functioning under the influence of the political executive. The Supreme Court has stressed the need for insulation from executive influence and referred the appointment law to a larger bench, which is not the same as finding actual influence. Therefore the allegation is not proven on the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“उत्तर प्रदेश पुलिस पर जरा सा भी भरोसा नहीं किया जा सकता है। उत्तर प्रदेश में तो पुलिस बीजेपी का कार्यकर्ता बनकर काम कर रही है।”
Akhilesh Yadav's statement is an allegation of partisan functioning by an institution. No retrieved source contains an official document, court order, or data that examines or supports the claim, and none contradicts it with specific evidence. Because the accusation was not examined in the record and no independent finding is available, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav said that the Uttar Pradesh Police cannot be trusted at all and that in Uttar Pradesh the police is working as a BJP worker.
jagran.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The four retrieved records are court judgments on unrelated matters: a 1975 Supreme Court ruling on state privilege in an election petition, a suit over the Congress party's name and symbol, a police service termination case, and a 1958 case about a special police establishment. None is an official inquiry, court finding or data set about the Uttar Pradesh Police acting as a BJP worker or being wholly untrustworthy. There is therefore no official record in the provided material that supports the claim.
The first source is a Supreme Court judgment from 1975 about whether the Uttar Pradesh government could claim privilege over a 'Blue Book' in an election petition; it does not discuss police partisanship. [1]
The second source is a Karnataka High Court suit over which group could use the Congress name and symbol after a split; it does not mention the Uttar Pradesh Police. [2]
The third source is an Allahabad High Court service matter about terminating temporary police constables under the Police Act and Temporary Government Servants Rules; it does not find that police act as BJP workers. [3]
The fourth source is a 1958 Allahabad High Court case about whether a Delhi Special Police Establishment officer validly investigated Hari Das Mundhra; it does not concern current Uttar Pradesh Police conduct. [4]
Akhilesh Yadav's statement is an allegation of partisan functioning by an institution. No retrieved source contains an official document, court order, or data that examines or supports the claim, and none contradicts it with specific evidence. Because the accusation was not examined in the record and no independent finding is available, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“सुप्रीम कोर्ट, इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट, हम और आप समय-समय पर कह चुके हैं कि उत्तर प्रदेश पुलिस पर भरोसा नहीं किया जा सकता है। यहां की पुलिस तो भाजपा के कार्यकर्ता बनकर काम कर रही है। इसी कारण सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने टिप्पणी की थी।”
The claim depends on specific comments by the Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court, but the court records provided do not contain any such observation. The cases retrieved concern bail, police service rules, and evidence privilege, not police trust or political alignment. Without a court order or judgment showing these comments, the claim is unproven. The speaker's own statement is not evidence of what courts said.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said that the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court, he and others have said from time to time that the Uttar Pradesh Police cannot be trusted, that the police works as a BJP worker, and that this is why the Supreme Court had commented.
jagran.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The retrieved court records include an Allahabad High Court anticipatory bail order (22 September 2026), a 1963 Supreme Court judgment on investigation procedure, a 2015 Allahabad High Court Full Bench decision on police constable termination, and a 1975 Supreme Court judgment on evidence privilege. None of these contains any comment that the Uttar Pradesh Police cannot be trusted or that it works as a BJP worker. No court order or judgment in the provided record supports the claim that the Supreme Court or Allahabad High Court made such comments.
The Allahabad High Court order in Ajay vs State of U.P. (22 September 2026) concerns anticipatory bail in a criminal case and makes no comment on the trustworthiness of Uttar Pradesh Police or its political alignment. [1]
The Supreme Court judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh vs Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (1963) concerns police investigation procedure and does not comment on Uttar Pradesh Police being untrustworthy or working for the BJP. [2]
The Allahabad High Court Full Bench decision in State of U.P. vs Rajendra Singh (2015) concerns termination of temporary police constables and does not comment on police trust or political bias. [3]
The Supreme Court judgment in State of U.P. vs Raj Narain (1975) concerns privilege over documents and does not contain any comment that Uttar Pradesh Police cannot be trusted or works as a BJP worker. [4]
The claim depends on specific comments by the Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court, but the court records provided do not contain any such observation. The cases retrieved concern bail, police service rules, and evidence privilege, not police trust or political alignment. Without a court order or judgment showing these comments, the claim is unproven. The speaker's own statement is not evidence of what courts said.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofSamajwadi Partychecked 1 Oct 2026
“अखिलेश यादव की ओर से कहा जा रहा है कि वोटों की चोरी हुई”
The claim is an allegation of vote theft. The official record contains no document, court order or Election Commission figure establishing that votes were stolen in the 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly election. Where allegations of EVM tampering after that election were examined, courts held the machines credible and tamperproof, and the Supreme Court found no material showing the Election Commission acted in breach. The claim therefore remains an unsupported allegation.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
समाजवादी पार्टी के अध्यक्ष अखिलेश यादव ने कहा कि 2017 के उत्तर प्रदेश विधानसभा चुनाव में वोटों की चोरी हुई।
khaskhabar.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, said in a press note after the 2017 assembly elections that some parties had alleged tampering of electronic voting machines (EVMs), but that High Courts had held EVMs credible, reliable and tamperproof [9]. The Supreme Court, in its 26 April 2024 order in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, recorded that the petitioners did not attribute motive to the Election Commission and observed there was no material to indicate the Commission acted in breach of its mandate; it said the system ensures accurate electoral results [10]. The Election Commission's official statistical data for the 2017 Uttar Pradesh election contains results and elector numbers but no finding of vote theft [6].
After the 2017 assembly elections, the Election Commission said some parties had alleged EVM tampering, but that High Courts had held EVMs credible, reliable and tamperproof. [9]
In a 26 April 2024 order, the Supreme Court recorded that petitioners did not attribute motive to the Election Commission and observed there was no material to indicate the Commission acted in breach; it said the system ensures accurate electoral results. [10]
The Election Commission's official statistical data for the 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly election lists results and elector numbers but contains no finding of vote theft. [6]
The claim is an allegation of vote theft. The official record contains no document, court order or Election Commission figure establishing that votes were stolen in the 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly election. Where allegations of EVM tampering after that election were examined, courts held the machines credible and tamperproof, and the Supreme Court found no material showing the Election Commission acted in breach. The claim therefore remains an unsupported allegation.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, alleged that the online form was changed “illegally” and asked who at the poll panel authorised the alteration.”
The claim turns on the word 'illegal' and the assertion that the Election Commission's own commissioners recorded that. The official record contains no Election Commission order, minutes or court finding that the change was illegal; the press releases describe the roll revision as a statutory process. What the sources contain is media reporting of objections to an 'unapproved' declaration and its removal, which is not an official finding of illegality.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged that the online Form 6 was changed illegally and asked who at the Election Commission authorised the alteration.
news.abplive.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press releases describe Form 6 being filled along with a declaration under the Special Intensive Revision and say the revision follows constitutional and legal provisions. No Election Commission or court document in the sources states that the online Form 6 was changed illegally. The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to an unapproved declaration inserted in the online Form 6 on the ECINET portal, and that the Commission removed it on the intervening night of Tuesday and Wednesday.
Rahul Gandhi posted on X that the online Form 6 "was changed illegally - as the EC's own Commissioners have recorded" and asked who at the Election Commission ordered Tata Consultancy Services to make the change. [1]
The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to an additional Special Intensive Revision declaration inserted in the online Form 6 on the ECINET portal, and that the Election Commission removed the declaration on the intervening night of Tuesday and Wednesday. [2]
Election Commission press releases state that new electors fill Form 6 along with a declaration and that the Special Intensive Revision adheres to constitutional and legal provisions, but do not record that the online Form 6 was changed illegally. [6][10]
The claim turns on the word 'illegal' and the assertion that the Election Commission's own commissioners recorded that. The official record contains no Election Commission order, minutes or court finding that the change was illegal; the press releases describe the roll revision as a statutory process. What the sources contain is media reporting of objections to an 'unapproved' declaration and its removal, which is not an official finding of illegality.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi1 Oct 2026
“वोट चोरी के मामले में नरेंद्र मोदी और अमित शाह के खिलाफ देश में जांच हो सके”
The demand rests on an allegation of vote theft. The only official record provided, the Supreme Court's EVM judgment, does not support that allegation; it found no material of Election Commission breach and rejected EVM manipulation suspicion. No court, Election Commission or parliamentary record in the sources shows a vote theft case against Modi or Shah. The allegation therefore remains unproven on the record provided.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said that in the vote theft case, an investigation should be conducted in the country against Narendra Modi and Amit Shah.
youtube.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 26 April 2024 judgment in the EVM-VVPAT case (2024 INSC 341) recorded that the petitioners did not attribute motive or malice to the Election Commission and did not contend that EVMs were configured to favour any candidate; it found no actionable material that the Election Commission breached its constitutional mandate and rejected the suspicion that EVMs can be configured or manipulated [10]. The sources contain no court order, Election Commission finding or parliamentary record showing a 'vote theft case' against Narendra Modi or Amit Shah, or an investigation ordered against them [2][3][5][8].
Rahul Gandhi demanded an investigation against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah over alleged vote theft, according to media reports [3][5]. [3][5]
The Supreme Court's 26 April 2024 EVM-VVPAT judgment found no actionable material that the Election Commission breached its mandate and rejected the suspicion that EVMs can be manipulated [10]. [10]
The provided sources contain no official record of a vote theft case against Modi or Shah; they describe allegations and protests, not findings [2][3][5][8]. [2][3][5][8]
The demand rests on an allegation of vote theft. The only official record provided, the Supreme Court's EVM judgment, does not support that allegation; it found no material of Election Commission breach and rejected EVM manipulation suspicion. No court, Election Commission or parliamentary record in the sources shows a vote theft case against Modi or Shah. The allegation therefore remains unproven on the record provided.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi1 Oct 2026
“इस एपिसोड में मैं चुनाव आयोग द्वारा की गई “वोट चोरी” को लेकर अपनी हालिया प्रेस कॉन्फ्रेंस पर चर्चा करता हूँ।”
The substance is an allegation that the Election Commission stole votes. No court judgment, parliamentary answer or official figure in the sources upholds that allegation. The Election Commission’s denial is its own position rather than independent proof, but the court records describe electoral revision and EVM processes as legal procedures with safeguards, not theft.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said he discusses the 'vote theft' done by the Election Commission in his recent press conference.
youtube.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission said on 11 August 2025 that the “vote theft” claim by the Congress and Rahul Gandhi was “factually incorrect” [1]. It also said a Congress video about vote theft was AI-generated and not real [4]. In the Supreme Court’s 26 April 2024 judgment on EVMs and VVPATs, the petitioners themselves did not accuse the Election Commission of bias or EVMs of being rigged, and the court rejected the suspicion of manipulation [7].
The Election Commission called the vote theft claim by Rahul Gandhi and the Congress “factually incorrect” on 11 August 2025. [1]
The Election Commission said a Congress video used to allege vote theft was AI-generated and not real. [4]
Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar said a voter can press the button only once, so vote theft cannot happen. [2]
In the Supreme Court’s April 2024 EVM-VVPAT judgment, the petitioners said they did not attribute motive or malice to the Election Commission or claim EVMs were configured to favour a party. [7]
The Telangana High Court in June 2026 described the Special Intensive Revision as an Election Commission exercise to ensure no eligible voter is left out. [10]
The substance is an allegation that the Election Commission stole votes. No court judgment, parliamentary answer or official figure in the sources upholds that allegation. The Election Commission’s denial is its own position rather than independent proof, but the court records describe electoral revision and EVM processes as legal procedures with safeguards, not theft.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi1 Oct 2026
“In this episode, I discuss my recent press conference on "Vote Chori" by the Election Commission of India.”
0
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleges that "Vote Chori" (vote theft) was committed by the Election Commission of India, which he discussed at a recent press conference.
youtube.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
0
repolls in Bihar Assembly election 2025, PIB
pib.gov.in
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, held a press conference on 17 August 2025. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar called the 'vote chori' allegations baseless and an insult to the Constitution, and said Rahul Gandhi should file an affidavit within seven days or apologise. The Commission's official Bihar election note records 7,45,26,858 eligible electors and zero repolls in the 2025 Bihar Assembly election.
At a press conference on 17 August 2025, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar dismissed the 'vote chori' allegations as baseless and said Rahul Gandhi should file an affidavit within seven days or apologise. [1][3][4]
The Election Commission's official note on the 2025 Bihar Assembly election records 7,45,26,858 eligible electors and zero repolls. [5]
The Election Commission has said that inclusion or deletion of names in the electoral roll is governed by the legal claims-and-objections process, and that only 89 first appeals and one second appeal had been filed as of March 2025. [10]
No court order, parliamentary answer or published official data in the sources finds that the Election Commission stole votes. [1][5][10]
The claim is an allegation of wrongdoing by the Election Commission. The only direct response in the record is the Commission's own denial, which is the accused body's position, not independent proof. Independent reporting also notes that the Commission did not answer several questions at its press conference, so the matter remains contested. Because no court, parliamentary or official data source in the record finds vote theft, the allegation is not proven on this record.
“Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the Election Commission and officials "deliberately removed SP votes" during the election.”
This is an allegation, not an established fact. The only material that mentions deliberate removal of Samajwadi Party votes is Yadav's own statement repeated in news reports, without an accompanying Election Commission document, court order or official figure. The court records in the sources do not contain any finding of partisan deletion of votes. Because the claim rests on the allegation itself and no official record supports it, it is marked NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the Election Commission and officials deliberately removed Samajwadi Party votes during the election.
x.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, has provided no data in the record showing that Samajwadi Party votes were deliberately deleted. News reports carry Akhilesh Yadav's allegation, but they do not establish it. The court records retrieved do not support the charge: in a 26 April 2024 Supreme Court judgment, petitioners stated that they attributed no motive or malice to the Election Commission, and a High Court order on a later electoral roll revision records that exercise as being done under the Commission's legal authority.
The Indian Express reported Yadav's allegation that the Election Commission was conniving with the BJP to delete nearly 1 crore Muslim and PDA (Pichhda, Dalit and Alpsankhyak) voters during an electoral roll revision in Uttar Pradesh. [1]
MSN reported that Yadav alleged the Election Commission and officials had worked together to delete votes belonging to the Samajwadi Party in the 2022 election. [3]
In its 26 April 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court recorded that the counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners do not attribute any motive or malice to the Election Commission. [4]
A Delhi High Court order of 3 September 2026 concerns guidelines for the Election Commission's special intensive revision of electoral rolls and records no finding that Samajwadi Party votes were deliberately removed. [11]
This is an allegation, not an established fact. The only material that mentions deliberate removal of Samajwadi Party votes is Yadav's own statement repeated in news reports, without an accompanying Election Commission document, court order or official figure. The court records in the sources do not contain any finding of partisan deletion of votes. Because the claim rests on the allegation itself and no official record supports it, it is marked NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“उन्होंने आरोप लगाया कि 2022 के चुनाव में चुनाव आयोग ने वोट काटने का काम किया था।”
The claim is an allegation of electoral manipulation. The record contains the allegation in news reports, but no Election Commission data, court order or official figure shows that votes were cut in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh election. The Supreme Court judgment in the record addresses EVM integrity generally and does not uphold this allegation. The claim is therefore not proved by the official record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that in the 2022 election, the Election Commission cut votes.
khaskhabar.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, has published a statistical report for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly election, but the record contains no data from it showing that the Commission cut votes. The Supreme Court, India's highest court, in its 26 April 2024 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India dealt with EVM and VVPAT verification and recorded that the petitioners did not attribute motive or malice to the Election Commission; it did not examine any 2022 Uttar Pradesh vote-cutting claim.
The Election Commission of India has published a statistical report for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly election, but the record contains no figure or finding from it that votes were cut or deleted. [1]
The Supreme Court's 26 April 2024 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India concerned EVM and VVPAT verification, recorded that the petitioners did not attribute motive or malice to the Election Commission, and did not address any 2022 Uttar Pradesh vote-cutting claim. [10]
News reports carry Akhilesh Yadav's allegation that the Election Commission cut votes in 2022, but they provide no official document or court finding to support it. [5]
The claim is an allegation of electoral manipulation. The record contains the allegation in news reports, but no Election Commission data, court order or official figure shows that votes were cut in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh election. The Supreme Court judgment in the record addresses EVM integrity generally and does not uphold this allegation. The claim is therefore not proved by the official record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“सपा प्रमुख अखिलेश यादव ने आरोप लगाया कि पिछली बार सपा को जानबूझकर हराने के लिए चुनाव आयोग की भूमिका रही। उन्होंने कहा कि आयोग ने पहली बार वोट काटने का काम किया और पार्टी को नोटिस भी दिया।”
This is an allegation of deliberate electoral manipulation by a constitutional body. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure. The available record contains no Election Commission order or data showing deliberate vote-cutting or a notice to the Samajwadi Party, and the Commission and district magistrates rejected the claims. So the allegation is not proved.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that in the previous election the Election Commission played a role in deliberately defeating the Samajwadi Party, and that the Commission for the first time cut votes and also issued a notice to the party.
hindi.dynamitenews.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
No official record in the sources shows the Election Commission deliberately defeated the Samajwadi Party or cut its votes. The Supreme Court in ADR v Election Commission of India (2024) recorded that petitioners did not attribute motive or malice to the Commission and found no material indicating a breach of its mandate [9]. The Election Commission rejected claims that internal objections amounted to institutional dissent, and district magistrates called the voter-deletion claims false [1][6].
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the Election Commission and officials colluded to delete Samajwadi Party votes in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly election [1][2]. [1][2]
The Supreme Court in ADR v Election Commission of India (2024) recorded that petitioners did not attribute motive or malice to the Commission and found no material indicating a breach of its constitutional mandate [9]. [9]
The Election Commission rejected claims that internal objections were institutional dissent, saying operational queries during the draft stage are standard procedure [1]. [1]
District magistrates called the voter-deletion claims false, and the Election Commission completed a probe of 15 cases [6]. [6]
This is an allegation of deliberate electoral manipulation by a constitutional body. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure. The available record contains no Election Commission order or data showing deliberate vote-cutting or a notice to the Samajwadi Party, and the Commission and district magistrates rejected the claims. So the allegation is not proved.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Rahul Gandhi said vote chori is being done using both the ways – one directly by deletion and addition of names in electoral rolls and the other is using Electronic Voting Machine (EVMs).”
Rahul Gandhi's statement is an allegation of ongoing vote theft by two methods. The official record shows the roll revision is a statutory process with safeguards, and the Supreme Court has upheld its legality, but it does not find that votes were stolen. No source provides a court finding, Election Commission figure or parliamentary answer supporting EVM manipulation. Because the speaker offered no document or official finding for the allegation, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said vote theft is being carried out in two ways: directly by deletion and addition of names in electoral rolls, and through Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
ummid.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, describes the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls as a statutory exercise to include eligible voters and remove ineligible or duplicate entries, with claims, objections and appeals. In a Lok Sabha answer, the Law Ministry said the Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026, held that the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate and its constitutional duty to ensure free and fair elections. No official document in the sources records a finding of vote theft through deletion or addition of names or through EVMs.
The Election Commission says the Special Intensive Revision aims to ensure all eligible citizens are included and no ineligible voter is included, with claims and objections and appeals to the District Magistrate and Chief Electoral Officer. [1]
A Lok Sabha answer states the Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026, held the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and its constitutional obligation under Article 324 to ensure free and fair elections. [9]
The same answer says grievances received during the claims and objections period are examined and, where found valid, names are restored before finalisation of the roll. [9]
In Kamal Nath v Election Commission of India (2018), the Supreme Court noted a net deletion of around 24 lakh entries in Madhya Pradesh during continuous updation and said there is no doubt about the bona fides of the Election Commission. [11]
The parliamentary and Election Commission records on the SIR process do not mention any finding of vote theft through EVMs. [9][10]
Rahul Gandhi's statement is an allegation of ongoing vote theft by two methods. The official record shows the roll revision is a statutory process with safeguards, and the Supreme Court has upheld its legality, but it does not find that votes were stolen. No source provides a court finding, Election Commission figure or parliamentary answer supporting EVM manipulation. Because the speaker offered no document or official finding for the allegation, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“उन्होंने दावा किया कि 2022 के विधानसभा चुनाव में बड़ी संख्या में समाजवादी पार्टी समर्थकों के वोट काट दिए गए।”
The assertion is an allegation about deletion of a particular party's voters from the electoral roll. The official Election Commission records supplied for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh election do not contain any count or finding of such deletions, and the reports only repeat the speaker's allegation. Since nothing in the record substantiates it, the claim is no-proof rather than shown to be false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav claimed that in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly election, a large number of Samajwadi Party supporters' votes were cut/deleted.
khaskhabar.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, published press notes for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly election covering the schedule and counting, but these do not record deletions of votes of Samajwadi Party supporters. The Commission's Form 7 is the statutory application form for objecting to an entry in the electoral roll, not a record of deletions actually made. News reports carry Akhilesh Yadav's allegation but provide no official confirmation.
The Election Commission's 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly election pages contain press notes on the election schedule and counting, with no data showing that a large number of Samajwadi Party supporters' votes were deleted. [1][2][3]
Form 7 is an application form for objecting to the proposed inclusion or deletion of a name in the electoral roll, not a compiled record of deletions of SP supporters' votes. [5]
News reports quote Akhilesh Yadav as alleging that a large number of SP supporters' votes were cut through Form 7, but they offer no Election Commission data or independent verification of the claim. [7][8]
The assertion is an allegation about deletion of a particular party's voters from the electoral roll. The official Election Commission records supplied for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh election do not contain any count or finding of such deletions, and the reports only repeat the speaker's allegation. Since nothing in the record substantiates it, the claim is no-proof rather than shown to be false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Gandhi had demanded Kumar's resignation amid the ongoing SIR and Election Commission row, alleging that the electoral process had been compromised.”
Rahul Gandhi's allegation that the electoral process was compromised is an assertion, not a finding. The official record in front of us — Election Commission statements, a PIB release, and Telangana High Court orders — describes the SIR as a statutory revision with legal claims and objections, and none of these documents finds that the electoral process was compromised. News reports of internal differences within the poll panel do not by themselves establish compromise, and the Commission's full-Commission statement denies the reported work orders were implemented. The verdict is NO_PROOF because there is no official figure, court order, or commission finding supporting the allegation.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar amid the ongoing SIR and Election Commission row, alleging that the electoral process had been compromised.
x.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, has rejected suggestions that anything improper happened in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR): a spokesperson called a purported resignation letter of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar fake, and a full-Commission statement said work redistribution orders were not actually implemented and oversight of the IT division was never actually withdrawn [2][4]. A Press Information Bureau release of 20 March 2025 states that inclusions and deletions in the draft elector list are governed by claims and objections under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 [10]. Telangana High Court orders show the SIR being treated as that statutory process: one name was deleted only from a second entry in the same constituency, and another petition was left to the claims-and-objections process rather than resulting in a finding that the roll was irregular [9][12].
The Election Commission described a purported resignation letter of CEC Gyanesh Kumar as fake, and a full-Commission statement said work redistribution orders were not implemented and IT oversight was never withdrawn [2][4]. [2][4]
A Press Information Bureau release of 20 March 2025 states that inclusions and deletions to the draft elector list are governed by legal provisions for filing claims and objections under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 [10]. [10]
Telangana High Court orders show the Special Intensive Revision being handled through the claims-and-objections process; in one case a name was deleted only from a second entry in the same constituency, and in another the court declined to interfere because the SIR itself provides the forum for correction [9][12]. [9][12]
Rahul Gandhi's allegation that the electoral process was compromised is an assertion, not a finding. The official record in front of us — Election Commission statements, a PIB release, and Telangana High Court orders — describes the SIR as a statutory revision with legal claims and objections, and none of these documents finds that the electoral process was compromised. News reports of internal differences within the poll panel do not by themselves establish compromise, and the Commission's full-Commission statement denies the reported work orders were implemented. The verdict is NO_PROOF because there is no official figure, court order, or commission finding supporting the allegation.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“मैंने कहा था कि जानबूझकर सपा का वोट काटा गया हम जागरूक थे, इसलिए 2024 में सांसद जिता ले गए.”
The claim rests on an allegation of deliberate vote-cutting in 2017 and a causal link to a 2024 MP seat win. The official record available does not show any such deletion, and the news report's version of his statement places the alleged cutting in 2022, not 2017. No official 2024 Lok Sabha result is in the sources to verify the second part. Therefore the claim is not proven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said he had stated that Samajwadi Party votes were deliberately cut in 2017, and because they were alert they won the MP seat in 2024.
abplive.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's 2017 Uttar Pradesh statistical data and model code documents are in the record but contain no finding of deliberate deletion of SP votes. A news report quotes Akhilesh Yadav saying that in 2017 the party did not pay attention, and that in 2022 SP supporters' votes were cut. No official 2024 Lok Sabha result is provided.
The Election Commission's 2017 Uttar Pradesh statistical data and model code documents contain no finding that Samajwadi Party votes were deliberately cut in 2017. [1][2]
A news report quotes Akhilesh Yadav saying that in 2017 the party did not pay attention, and that in 2022 SP supporters' votes were cut. [3]
The claim rests on an allegation of deliberate vote-cutting in 2017 and a causal link to a 2024 MP seat win. The official record available does not show any such deletion, and the news report's version of his statement places the alleged cutting in 2022, not 2017. No official 2024 Lok Sabha result is in the sources to verify the second part. Therefore the claim is not proven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“He said the legislations enacted thereafter -- specifically the law passed in December 2023 giving immunity to the CEC and the two Election Commissioners -- were illegal, according to sources.”
The statement is an assertion that the 2023 law is illegal, but no court or official document in the record has reached that conclusion. The law is under challenge in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court itself has said it would not examine the validity question at that stage. Because the claim rests on a legal finding that does not yet exist, it is unproven rather than supported by the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said the law passed in December 2023 giving immunity to the Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners was illegal.
newindianexpress.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Parliament passed the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 in December 2023. The Bill text deals with appointment, salary, term and removal of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, and contemporaneous reports said the government sought to add immunity from civil and criminal suits for serving and former officials. Its constitutional validity has been challenged in the Supreme Court, which has referred the matter for a possible Constitution Bench but has not ruled the law illegal.
Parliament passed the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 in December 2023. [3]
The Bill regulates the appointment, salary, term and removal of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners; news reports from December 2023 said the government proposed immunity from civil and criminal suits for serving and former Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. [1][6][7]
Multiple petitions challenged the constitutional validity of the 2023 Act before the Supreme Court, and a two-judge bench referred the challenge to the Chief Justice of India for a possible Constitution Bench. [3][5]
In its March 2024 order, the Supreme Court declined to stay the selection and appointment of two Election Commissioners and said it would not, at that stage, go into the validity of Section 7(1) of the Act. [8]
The statement is an assertion that the 2023 law is illegal, but no court or official document in the record has reached that conclusion. The law is under challenge in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court itself has said it would not examine the validity question at that stage. Because the claim rests on a legal finding that does not yet exist, it is unproven rather than supported by the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“the Congress had been raising the "vote chori" issue strongly and talked about irregularities in polls in Haryana, Karnataka and Maharashtra but many were sceptical of it, sources said.”
Reporting does support that Rahul Gandhi and the Congress raised 'vote chori' allegations, especially about Haryana. But the weight of the claim is that there were election irregularities in Haryana, Karnataka and Maharashtra. The official record before us — a Haryana election office statement and a High Court order on Haryana assembly records — shows no such finding, and the Karnataka and Maharashtra mentions are not backed by any official adjudication in the sources.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said the Congress had strongly raised the vote theft issue and talked about irregularities in polls in Haryana, Karnataka and Maharashtra.
newindianexpress.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Haryana's Chief Electoral Officer has said there was no need for re-polling anywhere in the state during the 2024 Lok Sabha election. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a 9 December 2024 order, directed the Election Commission to supply videography, CCTV footage and Forms 17-C for the 2024 Haryana assembly election to a petitioner, but it made no finding of polling irregularity. The sources contain no official finding of election irregularities in Haryana, Karnataka or Maharashtra.
Haryana's Chief Electoral Officer said there was no need for re-polling anywhere in the state during the 2024 Lok Sabha election, calling the voting process smooth. [5]
On 9 December 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Election Commission to supply videography, CCTV footage and Forms 17-C relating to the 2024 Haryana assembly election to petitioner Mehmood Pracha, without recording a finding that the polls were irregular. [3]
A Wikipedia timeline records that Rahul Gandhi said on 1 August 2025 that the Congress had found evidence of electoral fraud in the 2024 general election and on 5 November 2025 alleged vote fraud in the 2024 Haryana assembly election, claiming theft of over 25 lakh votes. [8]
No official document among the retrieved sources establishes irregularities in the polls in Haryana, Karnataka or Maharashtra. [3][5]
Reporting does support that Rahul Gandhi and the Congress raised 'vote chori' allegations, especially about Haryana. But the weight of the claim is that there were election irregularities in Haryana, Karnataka and Maharashtra. The official record before us — a Haryana election office statement and a High Court order on Haryana assembly records — shows no such finding, and the Karnataka and Maharashtra mentions are not backed by any official adjudication in the sources.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“What are [Amit] Shah’s MHA and Delhi Police doing to stop this growing lawlessness, especially against people from the Northeast?”
The killing is documented in the sources, but the claim that this is part of 'growing lawlessness, especially against people from the Northeast' is a broader assertion about a trend. The sources give one case and police action in that case, not year-wise crime data or any official finding that such crimes are rising. Because the supporting data is absent from this record, the claim cannot be verified from it.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said there is growing lawlessness in Delhi, especially against people from the Northeast, and asked what Amit Shah's Ministry of Home Affairs and Delhi Police are doing to stop it.
indianexpress.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Reporting of the police case says Delhi Police received a PCR call on September 7, registered an FIR under murder provisions, and arrested seven men and one juvenile after 54-year-old Manipuri musician Chongtham Vikram Singh was assaulted and died in Kilokari, Delhi. No source in the record provides year-wise Delhi crime data or data on crimes against people from the Northeast, and none establishes a growing trend.
Media reports state that Delhi Police received a PCR call about the assault on musician Chongtham Vikram Singh on September 7, registered an FIR under murder provisions, and arrested seven men and one juvenile. [1][2][4]
The reports describe Singh, 54, as a Manipuri musician and music teacher who had objected to noise and nuisance outside his home in Kilokari, Delhi before the fatal assault. [2][4]
The official Delhi Police updates page in the record contains no crime statistics, and no source provides data showing that lawlessness in Delhi is growing or that attacks on people from the Northeast are increasing. [5]
The killing is documented in the sources, but the claim that this is part of 'growing lawlessness, especially against people from the Northeast' is a broader assertion about a trend. The sources give one case and police action in that case, not year-wise crime data or any official finding that such crimes are rising. Because the supporting data is absent from this record, the claim cannot be verified from it.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Rahul Gandhi’s claim that BJP won through “vote theft” wherever the special intensive revision (SIR) of”
The claim is an allegation of electoral fraud. The official record describes the Special Intensive Revision as a lawful revision with multiple safeguards, and the Supreme Court has upheld it as within the Election Commission's mandate. No document in the record finds that votes were stolen or that the BJP's victories resulted from theft. Because the speaker offers no court finding, commission data or official figure for the allegation, and the record contains nothing supporting it, the claim is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi asserted that the BJP secured victories through "vote theft" wherever the special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls was carried out.
deccanchronicle.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
A Press Information Bureau note of 25 July 2026 says the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision is being carried out in phases with safeguards to prevent wrongful deletion of eligible electors, and that the Supreme Court has held the exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. A PIB note of 30 September 2025 records the completion of the Bihar SIR with a final electoral roll of nearly 7.42 crore electors and the involvement of political parties and booth-level agents. Neither document, nor any other source in the record, contains a finding that the BJP won elections through vote theft wherever the SIR was carried out.
The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision is a phased revision of electoral rolls with safeguards such as prior intimation, door-to-door visits, publication of draft rolls, claims and objections, and appeals, according to a Press Information Bureau note of 25 July 2026. [9]
The Supreme Court examined the legality of the Special Intensive Revision and held that it is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and its constitutional obligation under Article 324, according to the same PIB note. [9]
The Bihar Special Intensive Revision was completed on 30 September 2025 with a final electoral roll of nearly 7.42 crore electors, and the Election Commission said political parties and over 1.6 lakh booth-level agents were involved. [12]
No court order, Election Commission document or parliamentary record in the record finds that the BJP won elections through vote theft wherever the Special Intensive Revision was carried out. [9][12]
The claim is an allegation of electoral fraud. The official record describes the Special Intensive Revision as a lawful revision with multiple safeguards, and the Supreme Court has upheld it as within the Election Commission's mandate. No document in the record finds that votes were stolen or that the BJP's victories resulted from theft. Because the speaker offers no court finding, commission data or official figure for the allegation, and the record contains nothing supporting it, the claim is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“alleged that funds meant for education were diverted to benefit certain business interests”
₹1,39,289.48 crore
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged on 19 September 2026 in Indore that funds meant for education were diverted to benefit certain business interests.
thequint.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
₹1,39,289.48 crore
Ministry of Education net budget allocation, 2026-27, Expenditure Budget
indiabudget.gov.in
The Expenditure Budget 2026-27 lists the Ministry of Education's net allocation as ₹1,39,289.48 crore — ₹83,562.26 crore for school education and ₹55,727.22 crore for higher education [11]. A Rajya Sabha answer of 4 December 2024 states that education is in the Concurrent List, central spending is about 25% of total government education spending, and total education expenditure was 4.12% of GDP in 2021-22 [2]. No budget document, parliamentary answer or audit finding in the record states that education funds were diverted to business interests.
The Expenditure Budget 2026-27 records the Ministry of Education's net budget allocation as ₹1,39,289.48 crore. [11]
Within that allocation, school education is ₹83,562.26 crore and higher education is ₹55,727.22 crore. [11]
A Rajya Sabha answer of 4 December 2024 says education is in the Concurrent List and central spending is about 25% of total government education spending; total education expenditure was 4.12% of GDP in 2021-22. [2]
The official budget and parliamentary documents provided do not record any diversion of education funds to business interests. [2][11]
The claim is an allegation of diversion. The record provided shows the education budget and its components, but it contains no CAG finding, court order, parliamentary answer or other official document stating that education funds were diverted to business interests. The claim therefore remains an unproven allegation, not an established fact.
“Fadnavis also criticised Rahul Gandhi’s allegations of “vote theft” linked to the SIR process”
This is an allegation of electoral theft. The record shows the Election Commission describes SIR as a lawful revision with safeguards, and the Supreme Court upheld its legality. No court or Election Commission document in the record finds that votes were stolen through SIR. The allegation is therefore not supported by the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged that votes were stolen through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, says the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a phased exercise to make electoral rolls accurate and remove ineligible or duplicate entries, with safeguards such as door-to-door verification, draft rolls, claims and objections, and appeals (PIB, 25 July 2026). The Supreme Court, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India on 27 May 2026, held the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and its constitutional duty under Article 324. No court or Election Commission document in the record finds that votes were stolen through SIR.
The Election Commission says SIR deletions are made only after verification by Booth Level Officers and fall under categories: death of the elector, permanent shifting of residence, duplicate entries, or electors found untraceable despite repeated visits. [9][12]
The Supreme Court held on 27 May 2026 that the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and its constitutional duty under Article 324. [10][12]
The official record contains no finding that votes were stolen through the SIR process. [9][10][12]
This is an allegation of electoral theft. The record shows the Election Commission describes SIR as a lawful revision with safeguards, and the Supreme Court upheld its legality. No court or Election Commission document in the record finds that votes were stolen through SIR. The allegation is therefore not supported by the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“alleged that action was being taken against people for sharing a video and claimed that a situation could arise where even those watching such content might face legal action”
The claim is an allegation about police or legal action against people sharing and possibly watching a video. The available record contains media reports about the video itself but no FIR, government order, or court finding showing any such action. The court documents provided concern unrelated cases, so the allegation is not supported by the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the Uttar Pradesh government was taking action against people for sharing the Ajay Seth video, and said a situation could arise where even those watching such videos face legal cases.
dynamitenews.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Media reports describe a Samajwadi Party AI-generated video in which Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath is addressed as 'Ajay Seth', but they do not report any police case against people for sharing or watching it. The High Court orders in the available record concern unrelated matters: an anticipatory bail plea in a rape case at Kheta Sarai in Jaunpur, petitions to quash FIRs, and a cheque-bounce case. None of these mentions the Ajay Seth video.
Media reports describe a Samajwadi Party AI-generated video in which Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath is addressed as 'Ajay Seth', but they do not report any police case against people for sharing or watching it. [3][4]
The court orders in the available record concern unrelated matters such as an anticipatory bail plea in a rape case, petitions to quash FIRs, and a cheque-bounce case, and none mentions the Ajay Seth video. [1][2][5][6]
No official order, FIR, or court finding in the sources shows that the Uttar Pradesh government took action against anyone for sharing the video or that merely watching it would lead to a legal case. [1][2][3][4][5][6]
The claim is an allegation about police or legal action against people sharing and possibly watching a video. The available record contains media reports about the video itself but no FIR, government order, or court finding showing any such action. The court documents provided concern unrelated cases, so the allegation is not supported by the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“He claimed that voters who had exercised their franchise in 2019 were denied the opportunity to vote in 2022 without notice or adherence to rules.”
This is an allegation of electoral roll manipulation. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure for it. The record contains only news reports of his allegation and the Election Commission's schedule and press note for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh election, with no official finding that voters were removed without notice. The statutory procedure requires notice, but no record shows it was not followed in Uttar Pradesh in 2022.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav claimed that voters who had exercised their franchise in 2019 were denied the opportunity to vote in 2022 without notice or adherence to rules.
babushahi.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, published the schedule and press note for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly election, but the record contains no Election Commission document, court order or official data showing that voters who voted in 2019 were removed from the rolls without notice or procedure. The statutory procedure for deleting a name from an electoral roll requires the registration officer to publish a list and give the person a reasonable opportunity to show cause before deletion.
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that voters who cast ballots in the 2019 Lok Sabha election were denied the chance to vote in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly election because their names were removed from electoral rolls without notice. [1][2][6]
The Election Commission's page for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly election contains the schedule and press note but no finding that voters were removed without notice. [7]
The statutory rule for deleting a name from an electoral roll requires the registration officer to publish a list and give the person a reasonable opportunity to show cause before deletion. [11]
No court order or Election Commission document in the record upholds the claim that 2019 voters in Uttar Pradesh were denied the vote in 2022 without notice or adherence to rules. [7][9][10]
This is an allegation of electoral roll manipulation. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure for it. The record contains only news reports of his allegation and the Election Commission's schedule and press note for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh election, with no official finding that voters were removed without notice. The statutory procedure requires notice, but no record shows it was not followed in Uttar Pradesh in 2022.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“anti-incumbency had “disappeared” from several states in the country because the votes had been stolen”
The claim rests on an allegation of vote theft, but the official record contains no finding that votes were stolen or that anti-incumbency disappeared for that reason. The Election Commission describes the electoral roll revision as a lawful claims-and-objections process, and a court order records that the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct it. Since no document, court finding or official figure supports the allegation, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi claimed that anti-incumbency had disappeared from several states because the votes had been stolen.
scroll.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, states that its Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls aims to make the rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries without removing eligible voters. A Delhi High Court order dated 3 September 2026 records that the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct this revision in its 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms. No court or election authority document in the sources finds that votes were stolen or that anti-incumbency disappeared because of theft.
The Election Commission of India has said its Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls is meant to make the rolls accurate, up-to-date and free of ineligible or duplicate entries, while ensuring no eligible elector is left out. [4]
Under the Election Commission's process, deletions happen only after verification and for reasons such as death, permanent shifting of residence, duplicate entries, or a voter being untraceable despite repeated visits, with claims, objections and appeals provided. [4][10]
A Delhi High Court order of 3 September 2026 records that the Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms, upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision. [9]
The Election Commission's 2024 general-election roll data records deletions under heads such as dead, permanently shifted or duplicate voters, not under any head of stolen votes. [11]
The claim rests on an allegation of vote theft, but the official record contains no finding that votes were stolen or that anti-incumbency disappeared for that reason. The Election Commission describes the electoral roll revision as a lawful claims-and-objections process, and a court order records that the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct it. Since no document, court finding or official figure supports the allegation, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“The BJP engaged a private company and sent them from village to village to get Form 7 applications filled. Do you think people printed these forms in villages?”
The claim is an allegation about who organised the Form 7 applications. The sources contain Yadav's statement and media reports of disputed Form 7 applications, but no official document, court order or Election Commission finding confirms that the BJP engaged a private company and sent it village to village. The official description of the Special Intensive Revision process assigns enumeration to Booth Level Officers and party participation to Booth Level Agents. Therefore the allegation is not proven on the record provided.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the BJP engaged a private company and sent it village to village in Uttar Pradesh to get Form 7 applications for deletion of electoral roll names filled.
indiatoday.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 25 July 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision in Uttar Pradesh ran from October 2025 to April 2026, and deletions were made only after verification by Booth Level Officers through house-to-house enumeration; political parties participate through Booth Level Agents. A Supreme Court plea by a Congress MP alleges misuse of Form 7 in the Uttar Pradesh revision, but no order or finding is provided. News reports record allegations of fraudulent Form 7 applications in Chandauli, but none establishes that the BJP engaged a private company for this.
The Election Commission's press note of 25 July 2026 says the Uttar Pradesh Special Intensive Revision was conducted from October 2025 to April 2026, and deletions were carried out only after verification by Booth Level Officers through house-to-house enumeration. [12]
The same press note says recognised political parties participate in the revision through Booth Level Agents, not through a private company. [12]
A Supreme Court plea by Congress MP Tanuj Punia alleges fraudulent and targeted deletion attempts during the Uttar Pradesh Special Intensive Revision, but the source records no court finding that the BJP hired a private company. [6]
The Quint reported alleged fraudulent Form 7 applications in Chandauli's Sakaldiha, but the available excerpt does not mention a private company engaged by the BJP. [3]
The claim is an allegation about who organised the Form 7 applications. The sources contain Yadav's statement and media reports of disputed Form 7 applications, but no official document, court order or Election Commission finding confirms that the BJP engaged a private company and sent it village to village. The official description of the Special Intensive Revision process assigns enumeration to Booth Level Officers and party participation to Booth Level Agents. Therefore the allegation is not proven on the record provided.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“The BJP, RSS and EC who organised it have committed an act of treason.”
The claim is an allegation of organised vote theft and treason. The only support in the sources is Rahul Gandhi's own statement and Congress party allegations. The official record — the Election Commission's statement and the Delhi High Court order recording the Supreme Court's ruling — shows the Special Intensive Revision was a lawful electoral roll revision, but it does not address or uphold any charge of vote theft or treason. Because no court, election authority or official document finds the alleged conduct, the claim is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
On September 23, 2026, Rahul Gandhi accused the BJP, the RSS and the Election Commission of having organised vote theft and thereby committing an act of treason.
etvbharat.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
A Delhi High Court order of 3 September 2026 records that the Supreme Court, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India on 27 May 2026, upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution. The Election Commission said on 23 September 2026 that all its decisions, including those on the SIR, were unanimous and had the approval of both Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner. No court, Election Commission document or other official record in the sources finds that the BJP, RSS and Election Commission organised vote theft or committed treason.
Rahul Gandhi said on 23 September 2026 that 'vote chori' was a direct attack on the Constitution and that the BJP, RSS and EC who organised it had committed an act of treason. [6]
The Election Commission said all its decisions, including those relating to the Special Intensive Revision, were unanimous and had the approval of both Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner. [6]
A Delhi High Court order of 3 September 2026 records that the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution. [10]
No court, Election Commission document or other official record in the sources finds that the BJP, RSS and Election Commission organised vote theft or committed treason. [6][10]
The claim is an allegation of organised vote theft and treason. The only support in the sources is Rahul Gandhi's own statement and Congress party allegations. The official record — the Election Commission's statement and the Delhi High Court order recording the Supreme Court's ruling — shows the Special Intensive Revision was a lawful electoral roll revision, but it does not address or uphold any charge of vote theft or treason. Because no court, election authority or official document finds the alleged conduct, the claim is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Vote chori is a crime against the Indian people and a direct attack on our constitution.”
The statement treats 'vote chori' as an established fact. The official record does not establish it: the Election Commission describes the roll revision as lawful and the Supreme Court has upheld it. Rahul Gandhi's assertion is his own characterization, and no court or election authority in the retrieved sources supports it.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
In a post dated September 23, 2026, Rahul Gandhi stated that "vote chori" (electoral fraud) is a crime against the Indian people and a direct attack on the Constitution.
etvbharat.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 25 July 2026, published by PIB, says the Special Intensive Revision is being conducted with safeguards to prevent wrongful deletion and that the Supreme Court held the exercise within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and its constitutional duty under Article 324. No court or Election Commission document in the retrieved sources finds that vote theft occurred.
The PIB press note of 25 July 2026 says the SIR is lawful, lists safeguards such as door-to-door visits, claims and objections, and appeals, and states the Supreme Court held the exercise within the Election Commission's mandate. [8]
Congress alleged 7.8 crore voter deletions and called the SIR a 'Shah Instigated Removal', but this is a party allegation, not an official finding. [1]
The statement treats 'vote chori' as an established fact. The official record does not establish it: the Election Commission describes the roll revision as lawful and the Supreme Court has upheld it. Rahul Gandhi's assertion is his own characterization, and no court or election authority in the retrieved sources supports it.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Compromised PM surrendering to US pressure”
The UPI merchant charge is real, but the claim goes further: it says the Prime Minister is compromised and surrendered to US pressure. The official record attributes the charge to an Indian regulatory process, the UPI Steering Committee under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, and says it is not a government tax. The Supreme Court notice concerns legal validity and process, not US pressure. Because no court, parliamentary answer or official document in the record supports the allegation of compromise or surrender, the claim is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said the Prime Minister is compromised and surrendering to US pressure, in the context of reported UPI charges on transactions above Rs 2,000.
msn.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Press Information Bureau (PIB), the government's publicity office, said on 15 September 2026 that the new UPI framework was introduced under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, after deliberations by the UPI Steering Committee, and that the Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) is neither a tax nor a charge collected by the Government or NPCI. The Finance Ministry said on 8 August 2026 that the UPI and Services Steering Committee headed by the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), which manages the payments system, would decide on any MDR. No official document in the record says the Prime Minister is compromised or that the UPI charge was introduced under US pressure.
The Press Information Bureau said on 15 September 2026 that the new UPI framework was introduced under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, following detailed deliberations by the UPI Steering Committee. [6][8]
The Finance Ministry said the Merchant Discount Rate is neither a tax nor a charge collected by the Government or NPCI, and customers will not pay it. [6][8]
The framework applies a 0.4% MDR only to specified person-to-merchant UPI payments above ₹2,000, capped at ₹300 for transactions of ₹75,000 and above; about 96% of merchant transactions remain unaffected. [6][8]
The Finance Ministry said on 8 August 2026 that the UPI and Services Steering Committee headed by NPCI would decide on any MDR after Parliament passes the amendment. [7]
A news report says the Supreme Court, India's highest court, has sought responses from the Centre, the Reserve Bank of India and NPCI on the MDR framework; the petition raises legal validity, transparency, consultation and economic impact, not US pressure. [3]
No official document in the record states that the Prime Minister is compromised or that the UPI charge was introduced because of US pressure. [6][7][8]
The UPI merchant charge is real, but the claim goes further: it says the Prime Minister is compromised and surrendered to US pressure. The official record attributes the charge to an Indian regulatory process, the UPI Steering Committee under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, and says it is not a government tax. The Supreme Court notice concerns legal validity and process, not US pressure. Because no court, parliamentary answer or official document in the record supports the allegation of compromise or surrender, the claim is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Modi and Shah sit at the top of this conspiracy, he said.”
The claim is an allegation against the Prime Minister and Home Minister. To support it, the speaker would need to point to a document, court finding or official figure showing their involvement in a vote-theft conspiracy. The retrieved record contains no such evidence; the only sources are news reports of Rahul Gandhi stating the allegation himself. Since no independent record supports it, the claim is unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said that Modi and Shah sit at the top of this conspiracy.
x.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The retrieved sources contain no official finding that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah are at the top of a conspiracy to steal votes. The only material is news reporting of Rahul Gandhi's press-conference allegation, which does not cite any document, court order or commission finding. The official record that would show such a conspiracy — an Election Commission finding, a parliamentary answer or a court order — is not among the sources.
News reports quote Rahul Gandhi as alleging that Modi and Shah are at the top of a conspiracy to undermine India's voting system, but none of them cites an official document or finding. [1][5][7][8]
The retrieved court records concern unrelated cases (Rahul Virendra Modi vs SFIO, Mukesh Modi vs SFIO, National Herald, 2G) and do not mention any conspiracy by Narendra Modi or Amit Shah over vote theft. [3][4][9][10]
The claim is an allegation against the Prime Minister and Home Minister. To support it, the speaker would need to point to a document, court finding or official figure showing their involvement in a vote-theft conspiracy. The retrieved record contains no such evidence; the only sources are news reports of Rahul Gandhi stating the allegation himself. Since no independent record supports it, the claim is unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Rahul Gandhi Alleges Vote-Rigging, Attacks ECI”
The claim is an allegation of vote-rigging, and the speaker has not produced a court finding, Election Commission admission, or official figure to support it. The official record instead shows the Supreme Court upheld the SIR as lawful and the Election Commission describes the process as having safeguards. Therefore the allegation remains unproven on the retrieved record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged vote-rigging and attacked the Election Commission over its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
outlookindia.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, judgment of 27 May 2026, unanimously upheld the Special Intensive Revision as constitutionally valid under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 [2][5][9]. The Election Commission's press note of 25 July 2026 says the revision is being conducted in phases with house-to-house enumeration, draft rolls, claims and objections, and appeals, and that the process is designed not to leave out any eligible voter [12]. No court order or Election Commission document in the retrieved record finds vote-rigging in the SIR.
The Supreme Court upheld the SIR as within the Election Commission's statutory mandate on 27 May 2026. [2][5][9]
The Election Commission says the SIR includes safeguards such as prior intimation, minimum BLO attempts, draft rolls, claims and objections, and appeals to prevent wrongful deletion of eligible voters. [12]
The retrieved documents contain no official finding that votes were rigged through the SIR; they only report Rahul Gandhi's allegations and protest calls. [8][9][12]
The claim is an allegation of vote-rigging, and the speaker has not produced a court finding, Election Commission admission, or official figure to support it. The official record instead shows the Supreme Court upheld the SIR as lawful and the Election Commission describes the process as having safeguards. Therefore the allegation remains unproven on the retrieved record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“2022 में अधिकारियों ने बिना किसी नियम और कानून के वोट काटे थे। 2024 में हम लोग जागरूक थे, इसलिए यूपी में हरा ले गए।”
The first part is an allegation of illegal deletion. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure for it. The only official material on deletions shows a rule-based, notice-based process, not a lawless one. The 2024 win claim is reported by a news outlet, but no official ECI result is in the record, and the causal link between awareness and the result is not established. Therefore the claim is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said that in 2022 officials deleted votes without any rule or law, and that in 2024 they were aware and therefore won in Uttar Pradesh.
bhaskar.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
An Andhra Pradesh High Court order on electoral roll deletions (Karumanchi Neelima vs Election Commission of India, 2 February 2024) sets out the statutory process: the registration officer must publish a list and notice, consider objections, and make every endeavour to give the person a reasonable opportunity before deleting a name. The court recorded that in that case deletion orders were passed after due notices under Rules 19 and 20. No Election Commission or Chief Electoral Officer, Uttar Pradesh document in the record shows that SP supporters' votes were deleted in 2022 or that any deletion was done without rules.
The Representation of the People Act and Registration of Electors Rules provide a notice-based process for deleting names from electoral rolls; a High Court order recorded that deletion orders in the case before it were passed after due notices under Rules 19 and 20. [9]
The claim that SP supporters' votes were deleted in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh election appears in news reports of Akhilesh Yadav's statements, not in any official document. [7][8]
No official Election Commission or Chief Electoral Officer, Uttar Pradesh document in the record shows that officials deleted votes without rule or law in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly election. [3][4][5]
A news report says the Samajwadi Party won the most MPs from Uttar Pradesh in the 2024 Lok Sabha election, but no official Election Commission result sheet is present in the record. [8]
The first part is an allegation of illegal deletion. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure for it. The only official material on deletions shows a rule-based, notice-based process, not a lawless one. The 2024 win claim is reported by a news outlet, but no official ECI result is in the record, and the causal link between awareness and the result is not established. Therefore the claim is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“Referring to Form 7 applications, which are used for deletion of names from voter lists, he alleged that BJP workers had sought removal of voters' names in large numbers.”
Akhilesh Yadav's statement is an allegation about BJP workers. The official record available describes Form 7 and the deletion safeguards, and media reports mention allegations of bulk filing, including reported claims about BJP workers in West Bengal and Assam. But no Election Commission data, court order or official document in the sources confirms that BJP workers sought removal of voters' names in large numbers, so the claim remains unproven on the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that BJP workers had sought removal of voters' names in large numbers through Form 7 applications.
freepressjournal.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India's Form 7 is the statutory application for objecting to inclusion or seeking deletion of a name from the electoral roll, on grounds such as death or permanent shifting. In a July 2026 press note, the Commission said deletions during Special Intensive Revision happen only after a prescribed process, including recorded reasons, a claims-and-objections period and appeals, and that valid grievances lead to names being restored. In Kamal Nath v Election Commission of India, the Supreme Court held on 12 October 2018 that there was no doubt about the bona fides of the ECI in electoral roll updation.
Form 7 is the Election Commission of India's application form for objecting to inclusion or seeking deletion of a name in the electoral roll, with permitted grounds including death, under age, absent or permanently shifted, already enrolled, and not an Indian citizen. [3]
A July 2026 Election Commission press note says deletions during Special Intensive Revision are made only after prior intimation, recorded reasons, a claims-and-objections period, and provision for appeals; grievances found valid are addressed by restoring names before the roll is finalised. [11]
In Kamal Nath v Election Commission of India, the Supreme Court said on 12 October 2018 that there is no doubt about the bona fides of the ECI in the electoral roll updation process. [9]
Frontline reports an alleged attempt by BJP workers to file a large number of Form 7 applications in Murshidabad, and an Assam Chief Minister's call to BJP workers to file Form 7 in bulk, while a Hindu editorial notes allegations of bulk filing in Uttar Pradesh and that agents from ruling and opposition parties are among those filing objections. [5][6]
The Election Commission press notes and the Supreme Court judgment in the sources describe the legal process for additions and deletions, but do not record a finding that BJP workers sought deletion of voters' names in large numbers. [11][9]
Akhilesh Yadav's statement is an allegation about BJP workers. The official record available describes Form 7 and the deletion safeguards, and media reports mention allegations of bulk filing, including reported claims about BJP workers in West Bengal and Assam. But no Election Commission data, court order or official document in the sources confirms that BJP workers sought removal of voters' names in large numbers, so the claim remains unproven on the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“He also alleged that more than 20 recruitment examination papers had been leaked in Uttar Pradesh and claimed this was being done deliberately to promote outsourcing.”
more than 20 recruitment examination papers
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
more than 20 recruitment examination papers
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that more than 20 recruitment examination papers had been leaked in Uttar Pradesh and that this was done deliberately to promote outsourcing of government recruitment.
freepressjournal.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Enforcement Directorate, which investigates financial crimes, has confirmed that question papers for two Uttar Pradesh recruitment exams were leaked: the UP Police Constable Recruitment Examination-2023 and the UPPSC RO/ARO exam-2023. A January 2026 report also says an Uttar Pradesh assistant professor exam was cancelled over paper-leak allegations. No official document in the material states that more than 20 recruitment examination papers were leaked, and none links the leaks to a deliberate plan to promote outsourcing of government recruitment.
The Enforcement Directorate's press release confirms that question papers for the UP Police Constable Recruitment Examination-2023 and the UPPSC RO/ARO exam-2023 were leaked. [1]
A January 2026 report states that an Uttar Pradesh assistant professor exam was cancelled over paper-leak allegations. [3]
No official source in the material states that more than 20 recruitment examination papers were leaked in Uttar Pradesh or that the leaks were meant to promote outsourcing of government recruitment. [1][3][4]
The core claim that exam papers have been leaked in Uttar Pradesh is supported by the official record, which confirms at least two leaked recruitment exams. But the specific number of more than 20 papers and the motive of promoting outsourcing are not established by any official document, court finding or government figure in the available material. Since the accusation rests on unsupported details, it cannot be verified as stated.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“He claimed that various institutions, including education, business, and the judiciary, have been captured by a select group of powerful individuals, and that students who challenge the status quo are seen as a threat.”
The claim is an allegation of institutional capture. The only supporting material is the speaker's own interview, which states his opinion but provides no document, court finding or official figure. The court order in the record is about a different matter and does not support the allegation. Therefore the claim is not proven by the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi claimed that various institutions, including education, business, and the judiciary, have been captured by a select group of powerful individuals, and that students who challenge the status quo are seen as a threat.
thequint.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
No official document in the record finds that education, business and the judiciary have been captured by a select group. The interview records Rahul Gandhi's view that wealthy and powerful individuals can escape accountability and that the judiciary is harming itself, but it offers no independent evidence. A separate Allahabad High Court order dated 11 July 2016 concerns Sonia Gandhi's citizenship and does not address institutional capture.
The interview quotes Rahul Gandhi saying wealthy and powerful individuals can escape accountability for virtually anything in this country, and that the judiciary is harming itself. [1]
The Allahabad High Court order dated 11 July 2016 in Ramesh Singh vs Sonia Gandhi concerns a challenge to Sonia Gandhi's election and citizenship, and contains no finding about capture of education, business or the judiciary. [2]
The interview and the court order do not provide an official finding, data or court order that institutions have been captured by a select group of powerful individuals. [1][2]
No document in the record addresses the claim that students who challenge the status quo are seen as a threat. [1][2]
The claim is an allegation of institutional capture. The only supporting material is the speaker's own interview, which states his opinion but provides no document, court finding or official figure. The court order in the record is about a different matter and does not support the allegation. Therefore the claim is not proven by the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“उपचुनाव में किस तरह का खेल हुआ, प्राइवेट ड्रेस में पुलिस के लोगों ने वोट डाला।”
This is an allegation of electoral malpractice, but the record contains no official document, court finding or Election Commission data to support it. No source directly contradicts the claim either, so it cannot be treated as false on this record. The appropriate verdict is that the allegation is unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said that in the by-elections, police personnel in private dress cast votes.
bhaskar.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The available record contains no Election Commission communication, returning officer report, police report or court finding on police personnel voting in private dress in by-elections. The court material in the record concerns unrelated matters: a 1997 Delhi High Court bail order in the JMM bribery case, a 1998 Bombay High Court order on compensation for the 1992-93 Bombay riots, a 1992 Supreme Court judgment on the assassination of General Vaidya, and a 1978 Supreme Court order cancelling Sanjay Gandhi's bail.
The available record contains no Election Commission communication, returning officer report, police report or court order about police personnel casting votes in private dress in any by-election. [1][2][3][4]
The court documents in the record relate to the JMM bribery case over a 1993 no-confidence vote, compensation claims from the 1992-93 Bombay riots, the assassination of General Vaidya, and cancellation of Sanjay Gandhi's bail. [1][2][3][4]
This is an allegation of electoral malpractice, but the record contains no official document, court finding or Election Commission data to support it. No source directly contradicts the claim either, so it cannot be treated as false on this record. The appropriate verdict is that the allegation is unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“Yadav also reiterated his allegations regarding electoral roll irregularities and claimed that votes of Samajwadi Party supporters were deleted in previous elections.”
The claim is an allegation of systematic deletion of a party's voters, and the only support offered is the speaker's own assertion and news reports repeating it. The official record before us — the Supreme Court judgment on an electoral roll revision in Bihar, a Delhi High Court order on SIR procedures, and Election Commission data releases — contains no finding that Samajwadi Party voters were deleted in Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court judgment describes electoral roll revision as a lawful exercise by the Election Commission and records deletions in Bihar, not Uttar Pradesh, and makes no finding of partisan deletion against any party. Because the claim rests entirely on an accusation without a supporting document, court finding or official figure, the verdict is NO_PROOF rather than FALSE: nothing in the record directly contradicts the allegation, but nothing supports it either.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav claimed that votes of Samajwadi Party supporters were deleted in previous elections due to electoral roll irregularities.
freepressjournal.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Akhilesh Yadav has repeatedly alleged that Election Commission officials colluded to delete votes of Samajwadi Party supporters, including during the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. The Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment on Bihar's Special Intensive Revision describes electoral roll revision as a legal process and records that Bihar's roll fell from about 7.89 crore electors to 7.42 crore, but that judgment concerns Bihar and makes no finding about Samajwadi Party voters in Uttar Pradesh. The Delhi High Court's September 2026 order on the SIR upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the revision under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, read with Article 324 of the Constitution, and describes statutory safeguards such as Booth Level Agents and undertakings. No court order, Election Commission data set or official document in the sources shows that SP supporters' votes were deleted in Uttar Pradesh.
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that Election Commission officials colluded to deliberately delete votes of Samajwadi Party supporters during the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections, and that such malpractice had been continuing over the years. [1][2][3][4][7]
The Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment concerns the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, where the final roll published on 30 September 2025 contained 7.42 crore electors compared to 7.89 crore on 24 June 2025; it makes no finding about Samajwadi Party voters in Uttar Pradesh. [5]
The Delhi High Court's September 2026 judgment upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct the Special Intensive Revision under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, read with Article 324 of the Constitution, and dealt with procedural matters such as Booth Level Agent undertakings and access to electoral rolls. [11]
The Samajwadi Party finished second with 111 seats in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections, while the BJP won 255 of 403 seats. [1][7]
No Election Commission data set, court finding, or official document in the sources shows that Samajwadi Party supporters' votes were deleted in Uttar Pradesh in any previous election. [1][2][3][4][5][7][11]
The claim is an allegation of systematic deletion of a party's voters, and the only support offered is the speaker's own assertion and news reports repeating it. The official record before us — the Supreme Court judgment on an electoral roll revision in Bihar, a Delhi High Court order on SIR procedures, and Election Commission data releases — contains no finding that Samajwadi Party voters were deleted in Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court judgment describes electoral roll revision as a lawful exercise by the Election Commission and records deletions in Bihar, not Uttar Pradesh, and makes no finding of partisan deletion against any party. Because the claim rests entirely on an accusation without a supporting document, court finding or official figure, the verdict is NO_PROOF rather than FALSE: nothing in the record directly contradicts the allegation, but nothing supports it either.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“Yadav alleged that the BJP government had deprived the PDA (Pichhda, Dalit, Alpsankhyak) sections of their rights and claimed that more than 11,000 government posts had been affected by irregularities.”
more than 11,000 government posts
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
more than 11,000 government posts
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh deprived PDA (Pichhda, Dalit, Alpsankhyak) sections of their rights and that more than 11,000 government posts were affected by irregularities, saying the SP had released an audit report on the issue to which the government gave no response.
freepressjournal.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
A Rajya Sabha answer and a Press Information Bureau release from 1 December 2025 show Uttar Pradesh reported 14,264 complaints of financial irregularities and poor-quality works under the Jal Jeevan Mission, around 84 per cent of all such complaints in the country. Actions were reported against 171 officials, 119 contractors and 143 third-party inspection agencies. These are rural water-supply works, not government posts. No CAG audit report, parliamentary answer or official document in the sources states that more than 11,000 government posts were affected by irregularities.
Uttar Pradesh reported 14,264 complaints of financial irregularities and poor-quality works under the Jal Jeevan Mission, about 84 per cent of the 17,036 complaints nationally. [4][5]
The state government said it initiated inquiries in all 14,264 Jal Jeevan Mission complaints and submitted reports in 14,212 cases, with 52 inquiries still under process. [3][4][5]
The reported actions in Uttar Pradesh under the Jal Jeevan Mission were against 171 officials, 119 contractors and 143 third-party inspection agencies; these figures do not count 11,000 government posts. [4][5]
Recruitment examinations have faced paper-leak allegations; the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission scrapped an Assistant Professor examination after a leak and irregularities, but the sources give no figure of 11,000 affected posts. [1][2]
The claim rests on a specific number: more than 11,000 government posts affected by irregularities. None of the official parliamentary answers, PIB releases or CAG audit report documents in the sources supports that figure. The closest official data is about Jal Jeevan Mission complaints, which concern rural water-supply works, not government posts, and recruitment exam reports that do not give 11,000 posts. Since the speaker offered an audit report but the record supplied contains no such report or finding, the claim is no proof rather than false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Accusing Prime Minister Narendra Modi of “surrendering” before Donald Trump”
The accusation that Prime Minister Modi surrendered to Donald Trump is an allegation of capitulation. The official record does not support it: the Finance Ministry says the UPI decision was taken independently, and the PIB joint statement frames the Modi-Trump meeting as bilateral cooperation. Because no court, parliamentary or official document establishes a surrender, the allegation is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of surrendering before Donald Trump.
indiatvnews.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Finance Ministry, responding on 16 September 2026, said India's UPI policy decisions were being made independently and that UPI would continue to remain free for consumers. The Press Information Bureau's joint statement of 13 February 2025 describes the Modi-Trump meeting as launching the U.S.-India COMPACT for cooperation in defence, trade, energy and technology. No court, parliamentary or official document in the retrieved material finds that Prime Minister Modi surrendered to President Trump.
Rahul Gandhi was reported as saying Prime Minister Modi had 'decided to lie down straight and prostrate himself in front of US President Donald Trump' and was 'once again surrendering to American pressure' over the UPI merchant pricing framework. [2]
The Finance Ministry said India's UPI policy decisions were being made independently and that UPI would continue to remain free for consumers. [3]
The Press Information Bureau's joint statement of 13 February 2025 describes the Modi-Trump meeting as launching the U.S.-India COMPACT for cooperation in defence, trade, energy and technology. [6]
No official document in the retrieved sources finds that Prime Minister Modi surrendered to President Trump. [3][6]
The accusation that Prime Minister Modi surrendered to Donald Trump is an allegation of capitulation. The official record does not support it: the Finance Ministry says the UPI decision was taken independently, and the PIB joint statement frames the Modi-Trump meeting as bilateral cooperation. Because no court, parliamentary or official document establishes a surrender, the allegation is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“Alleging that the BJP and the Election Commission are hatching a major conspiracy to destroy democracy in the country, ...”
The claim is an allegation of collusion between a political party and a constitutional body to destroy democracy. The official record describes electoral roll revision as a statutory process with political-party participation and appeal rights, and a Supreme Court judgment on a challenged revision made no finding of such a conspiracy. Similar accusations by other opposition leaders are allegations, not proof. Because no document, court finding or official figure in the sources supports the conspiracy charge, the claim is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the BJP and the Election Commission are together hatching a major conspiracy to destroy democracy in the country.
msn.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs national and state elections, said in official releases of 24 June and 30 September 2025 that the Bihar Special Intensive Revision was carried out under Article 326 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1950, with political parties involved and appeals available to the District Magistrate and Chief Electoral Officer. A Supreme Court judgment of 27 May 2026 examining that revision said the Commission had not shown why the 2003 rolls were specially accurate and that it could not use roll revision to take over a function beyond its mandate; it made no finding that the BJP and the Commission were acting together to destroy democracy. Reporting shows Congress leaders made similar accusations, but those are allegations, not official findings.
The Election Commission's official release of 30 September 2025 says the final Bihar electoral roll had nearly 7.42 crore electors and that political parties, including their booth-level agents, were involved in the revision. [2]
The Election Commission's official release of 24 June 2025 says the revision's objective was to include all eligible citizens, exclude ineligible voters, and bring transparency to additions and deletions, under Article 326 of the Constitution and Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [3]
A Supreme Court judgment of 27 May 2026 on the Bihar Special Intensive Revision made no finding of a BJP-Election Commission conspiracy; it said the Commission had not placed material showing the 2003 rolls were specially accurate and lacked the mandate to usurp a function under the pretext of electoral roll revision. [4]
Congress leaders Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi have publicly accused the BJP and the Election Commission of electoral roll manipulation and vote theft, but these are political allegations, not court findings or official data. [1]
The claim is an allegation of collusion between a political party and a constitutional body to destroy democracy. The official record describes electoral roll revision as a statutory process with political-party participation and appeal rights, and a Supreme Court judgment on a challenged revision made no finding of such a conspiracy. Similar accusations by other opposition leaders are allegations, not proof. Because no document, court finding or official figure in the sources supports the conspiracy charge, the claim is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofManish Sisodia (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“BJP (Dictator Modi) Wants to Take Over Punjab through ED Raids after Its Campaign Fails”
4,000 ED officers
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
4,000 ED officers
Manish Sisodia said the BJP, under Narendra Modi, wants to take over Punjab through Enforcement Directorate raids after its campaign in the state failed.
oneindia.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Enforcement Directorate said the Punjab searches were conducted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and covered locations in Punjab, Chandigarh and neighbouring areas. No court order, parliamentary record or official finding in the retrieved material says the raids were aimed at taking over Punjab or followed a failed BJP campaign. Sisodia's claim appears in reporting only as his own allegation at a press conference.
Manish Sisodia made the allegation at a press conference in Chandigarh, saying the BJP turned to ED raids after its Punjab campaign failed to attract public support. [2][5]
The Enforcement Directorate said the searches were conducted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and covered multiple locations in Punjab, Chandigarh and neighbouring areas. [5]
Reporting on the raids says ED searched the GMADA office and the residence of a Punjab minister's nephew in a land 'fraud' case; Punjab BJP president Kewal Singh Dhillon said the AAP government should address the issues through facts and records rather than political allegations. [6]
The court orders among the retrieved sources concern the Delhi excise policy cases, not the Punjab raids, and contain no finding about a BJP plan to take over Punjab. [9][10][11]
This is an allegation about the motive behind Enforcement Directorate action. The record confirms that raids took place and that Sisodia accused the BJP of using them to take over Punjab, but it contains no independent evidence—no court order, official inquiry, or election data—showing that the raids had that purpose or that the BJP's Punjab campaign had failed. The ED gives a different, law-enforcement reason for the searches, and the BJP denies the political-motive charge.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“alleged that farmers are not getting fair value for their land.”
The claim is an allegation about underpayment. The record shows the general legal compensation formula, which is intended to be above the determined market value, but it does not contain project-specific payment data, a court order or an official finding that farmers on this expressway were paid less than fair value. Without such evidence, the statement remains unsupported by the record rather than an established fact.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav alleged that farmers are not getting fair value for their land in the Aligarh-Moradabad Expressway project.
dynamitenews.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has stated that land for national highways is acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, and compensation is decided under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, at 2 to 4 times the determined market value. News reports say the National Highways Authority of India began land acquisition for the Moradabad-Aligarh expressway in September 2026 and that 21 villages were to get compensation. No official project-specific compensation figure, circle-rate comparison or court order is in the record.
Akhilesh Yadav demanded that circle rates be raised to reflect actual market value and alleged discrimination against farmers in the Aligarh-Moradabad Greenfield Access-Controlled Expressway project. [1][2]
The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways says compensation for national highway land is decided under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, at 2 to 4 times the determined market value. [10]
NHAI began land acquisition for the Moradabad-Aligarh expressway and 21 villages were to get compensation, according to a news summary of the acquisition. [3]
The claim is an allegation about underpayment. The record shows the general legal compensation formula, which is intended to be above the determined market value, but it does not contain project-specific payment data, a court order or an official finding that farmers on this expressway were paid less than fair value. Without such evidence, the statement remains unsupported by the record rather than an established fact.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofManish Sisodia (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“They go to traders’ homes and start demanding money from them.”
The claim accuses ED officials of specific conduct: going to traders' homes and demanding money. The record shows ED searches and political allegations of harassment, but no court order, agency document or official finding shows ED officials demanding money at traders' homes. The one court case about extortion in the sources points to a different set of accused. Therefore the allegation remains unproven on the record provided.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Manish Sisodia alleged that ED officials go to traders' homes in Punjab and demand money from them.
patialapolitics.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Enforcement Directorate (ED), which probes money laundering, conducted searches in Punjab in cases involving a Punjab minister and jewellers, according to reports. A Punjab and Haryana High Court order of 28 October 2025 records an extortion demand, but it was made by a gang using an international number, not by ED officials.
The ED conducted searches in Punjab in a money-laundering probe involving Punjab minister Sanjeev Arora, with raids reported at locations including Ludhiana and Jalandhar. [2][3]
The ED also searched jewellers and associated entities at 14 premises in Chandigarh, Mohali and Panchkula in a separate money-laundering case linked to an IDFC First Bank matter. [4]
AAP leaders, including Manish Sisodia, said traders were being harassed or targeted through ED raids, but the reports do not describe ED officials going to homes and demanding money. [3][7][8]
Arvind Kejriwal separately alleged that a group he calls the 'ED Party' extorted ₹60 crore from Punjab traders by threatening ED raids, but this is an allegation by a political leader, not an official finding. [6]
The only court record of an extortion demand in the sources involves a gang led by Balwinder Singh alias Doni and associates, not ED officials. [1]
The claim accuses ED officials of specific conduct: going to traders' homes and demanding money. The record shows ED searches and political allegations of harassment, but no court order, agency document or official finding shows ED officials demanding money at traders' homes. The one court case about extortion in the sources points to a different set of accused. Therefore the allegation remains unproven on the record provided.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Despite Centre's denial, Rahul Gandhi sticks to UPI tax claim, says PM bowed to Trump”
The claim that the Prime Minister bowed to Trump is an allegation about motive, and the sources provide no official finding, court order or document that supports it. The government's reported clarification says the UPI merchant charge is not a tax and does not affect users, so the framing of a 'UPI tax' is also not supported by the retrieved record. Since the accusation rests on the speaker's assertion and no official record upholds it, the appropriate verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said the Prime Minister bowed to Trump regarding the UPI tax claim.
msn.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The National Payments Corporation of India announced a revised merchant pricing framework for UPI, and the Centre reportedly clarified that the merchant discount rate is not a tax, cess or surcharge and does not affect users. The official India-US joint statement of 13 February 2025 lists defence, trade, energy and technology items but contains no reference to UPI or the merchant charge.
The National Payments Corporation of India, which runs the Unified Payments Interface, announced a revised merchant pricing framework in September 2026, and the government said users would be unaffected and that the merchant discount rate is not a tax. [2][5]
The official India-US joint statement of 13 February 2025 covers defence, trade, energy and technology cooperation but does not mention UPI or any merchant charge framework. [1]
Rahul Gandhi and the Congress alleged that the UPI decision was taken to appease US President Donald Trump, but the retrieved material contains no independent finding to support that allegation. [3][5]
The claim that the Prime Minister bowed to Trump is an allegation about motive, and the sources provide no official finding, court order or document that supports it. The government's reported clarification says the UPI merchant charge is not a tax and does not affect users, so the framing of a 'UPI tax' is also not supported by the retrieved record. Since the accusation rests on the speaker's assertion and no official record upholds it, the appropriate verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“BJP is the biggest 'land mafia' party; it is the 'Bharatiya Zameen Party' (Indian Land Party), leading the way in land grabbing. Yet, when it comes to compensating farmers, they practice discrimination.”
This is an allegation rather than a documented claim. The official record explains how land compensation is set under the 2013 Act, but it does not examine the BJP's conduct or show discrimination against farmers. No court or commission finding in the sources supports the 'land mafia' and land-grabbing charge, so the claim lacks independent proof.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the BJP is the biggest 'land mafia' party, calling it the 'Bharatiya Zameen Party', that it leads in land grabbing, and that it discriminates against farmers on compensation.
lokmattimes.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The sources contain Akhilesh Yadav's allegation, made at a Lucknow press conference over the Aligarh-Moradabad Expressway, but no official record supporting it. The statutory record instead describes compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which is based on market value, with 100 per cent solatium and, for national highways, 2 to 4 times the determined market value, according to Lok Sabha answers and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.
Akhilesh Yadav made the remarks at a Lucknow press conference while demanding higher compensation for farmers on the Aligarh-Moradabad Greenfield Access-Controlled Expressway. [2][8]
Under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, land compensation is determined on market value, with payment of solatium of 100 per cent of that value; the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways says national highway compensation is 2 to 4 times the determined market value. [4][6]
The sources contain Akhilesh Yadav's allegation, but no court order, commission report or official data showing that the BJP is the biggest land mafia party, leads in land grabbing, or discriminates in compensation. [2][4][6][8]
This is an allegation rather than a documented claim. The official record explains how land compensation is set under the 2013 Act, but it does not examine the BJP's conduct or show discrimination against farmers. No court or commission finding in the sources supports the 'land mafia' and land-grabbing charge, so the claim lacks independent proof.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“When the BJP has no answers, they push the administration to the forefront to carry out their negative politics.”
The claim is a general allegation of political misuse of the administration. The record contains Akhilesh Yadav's own statement and denials by the BJP and a Uttar Pradesh minister, but no independent official record—court order, commission report or data—shows the BJP pushed the administration to carry out negative politics or injustice. The court and NHRC records concern individual cases and do not attribute the actions to the BJP.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that when the BJP has no answers it pushes the administration forward to carry out its negative politics and perpetrate injustice.
latestly.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
No official record in the sources supports the allegation. The court records provided concern individual disputes: a Supreme Court appeal over the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act in which the accused alleged misuse, and a National Human Rights Commission-directed inquiry into police officials in a criminal case; neither attributes the actions to the BJP. The BJP and a Uttar Pradesh minister deny the opposition's charges.
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that Uttar Pradesh is 'flooded with questions' but the government has no answers; a BJP state spokesperson denied this and said Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath periodically answers journalists' questions. [2]
In a Supreme Court appeal over the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act, the accused's counsel argued the case was a 'blatant example of misuse' of the Act by the State, but the judgment provided does not record a finding that the BJP directed that action. [4]
The National Human Rights Commission directed the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into police officials in a criminal case after noting discrepancies in the investigation; the order does not link the police actions to the BJP. [5]
The claim is a general allegation of political misuse of the administration. The record contains Akhilesh Yadav's own statement and denials by the BJP and a Uttar Pradesh minister, but no independent official record—court order, commission report or data—shows the BJP pushed the administration to carry out negative politics or injustice. The court and NHRC records concern individual cases and do not attribute the actions to the BJP.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipkechecked 1 Oct 2026
“CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke flags expired food used in mid day meals, lack of basic facilities in Maharashtra government schools”
The claim is an allegation by Dipke, not an established fact. The sources show he made the allegation during a campaign visit, but they do not independently verify it. No official body in the record has confirmed expired food or lack of basic facilities. The claim therefore remains unproven on the available record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke flagged that expired food was used in midday meals and basic facilities like drinking water and washrooms were lacking in Maharashtra government schools, specifically in Hingoli district.
economictimes.indiatimes.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The record contains media reports of Dipke's visit to a government-run school at Aundha in Hingoli on 29 August 2026, where he claimed expired spice packets meant for midday meals were found and that the bathroom had no water or a defective water filter [1][2][3][4][5][7]. Maharashtra FDA's published circulars contain general school food-safety guidelines but no finding about this school [6]. No government inspection report, FDA action, or school education department data in the record confirms the allegations.
Dipke visited a government-run school at Aundha in Hingoli on 29 August 2026 during his 'School Thik Karo' campaign and claimed expired spice packets meant for midday meals were found. [1][3][4][5][7]
He said the packets had expired in February, six or seven months earlier, and that the school bathroom had no water or a defective water filter. [2][4][7]
The reports present these as Dipke's claims; no government inspection report, FDA action, or school education department data in the record confirms expired food or missing water and washrooms. [1][2][3][4][5][7]
Maharashtra FDA's published circulars contain general school food-safety guidelines but no finding about the Hingoli school. [6]
The claim is an allegation by Dipke, not an established fact. The sources show he made the allegation during a campaign visit, but they do not independently verify it. No official body in the record has confirmed expired food or lack of basic facilities. The claim therefore remains unproven on the available record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Then why were the names of 727 people deleted?”
727 people
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
727 people
Rahul Gandhi alleged that the deletion of 727 names at Bela Estate was not merely an electoral roll revision but 'a method of vote theft' by the Election Commission.
freepressjournal.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, has said the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) identifies deceased, duplicate and shifted voters under the Representation of the People Act and includes a draft roll with a claims-and-objections window (sources 3 and 10). In a Supreme Court judgment of 27 May 2026 on the SIR in Bihar, the court held that the exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate (source 9). The Press Information Bureau, in a note dated 25 July 2026, has published safeguards against wrongful deletion and said valid grievances can lead to restoration before the roll is finalised (source 10).
The Election Commission has rejected opposition allegations that the SIR is 'vote theft', describing it as a routine, legally mandated exercise to remove ineligible, deceased, shifted and duplicate entries. [3]
The Press Information Bureau says the SIR includes house-to-house visits, deletion only after recorded reasons, a draft roll with a claims-and-objections period, appeals to the District Magistrate and Chief Electoral Officer, and verification by Booth Level Agents. [10]
The Supreme Court has held in a challenge to the Bihar SIR that the process is within the Election Commission's mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and its Article 324 duty; electors whose names did not appear in the draft had claims and objections available. [9][10]
Delhi's draft roll was reported to shrink by 47.5 lakh names, with over 33 lakh electors flagged for verification, but the retrieved sources do not contain a Bela Estate deletion list or a count of 727 names. [6][4]
The allegation calls the deletion of 727 Bela Estate names 'vote theft' by the Election Commission. The official record shows SIR as a legal, safeguarded roll-revision process, and the Supreme Court has upheld its legality; the Election Commission has denied vote-theft allegations. No source in the material contains the Bela Estate deletion list, a 727 figure, or any court or Commission finding that those specific deletions were theft. It is therefore an allegation without supporting proof in the record, so the verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofपवन पांडेय (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“यह सब बीजेपी के संरक्षण में हो रहा है.”
The claim is an allegation that corruption in the Cantonment Board was happening under BJP protection. The record does show an anti-corruption agency acting against a Cantonment Board official, but it contains no independent document, court order or official inquiry showing that BJP shielded the corruption. Because the core protective allegation is unsupported in the retrieved record, the claim is unproven rather than false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
पवन पांडेय ने आरोप लगाया कि कैंटोनमेंट बोर्ड में भ्रष्टाचार बीजेपी के संरक्षण में हो रहा है।
abplive.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Central Bureau of Investigation, India's central anti-corruption agency, arrested an Assistant Sanitation Inspector posted with the Ayodhya Cantonment Board for allegedly accepting a ₹60,000 bribe to facilitate sanitation worker recruitment. The CBI registered a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and said it was investigating the recruitment process. No retrieved official document or court order states that BJP provided protection to the corruption.
The CBI arrested an Assistant Sanitation Inspector with the Ayodhya Cantonment Board for allegedly accepting a ₹60,000 bribe in exchange for facilitating sanitation worker recruitment. [2]
The CBI registered a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and launched an investigation into the recruitment process, including possible involvement of other individuals. [2]
One media report says the CBI raided the Ayodhya Cantonment Board and that Samajwadi Party accused the BJP, but it provides no evidence of BJP protection. [3]
Cantonment Boards are civic bodies under the Directorate General Defence Estates; the official record describes their administration but does not link the Ayodhya Cantonment Board corruption to BJP protection. [4][5]
The claim is an allegation that corruption in the Cantonment Board was happening under BJP protection. The record does show an anti-corruption agency acting against a Cantonment Board official, but it contains no independent document, court order or official inquiry showing that BJP shielded the corruption. Because the core protective allegation is unsupported in the retrieved record, the claim is unproven rather than false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Rahul Gandhi stated that the system is run by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with enforcement by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, and includes figures such as RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, and industrialists Gautam Adani and Mukesh Ambani.”
six individuals
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
six individuals
Rahul Gandhi stated on 19 September 2026 in Indore that the system is run by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with enforcement by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, and includes RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, and industrialists Gautam Adani and Mukesh Ambani.
thequint.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The official record in the sources does not contain any finding that these six individuals run the system. A Press Information Bureau release of 1 August 2026 records Amit Shah presenting the Lokmanya Tilak National Award 2026 to Ajit Doval and describes Doval as the longest-serving National Security Advisor, but it does not say he controls the system or taps phones [5]. The reports of the Indore speech attribute the claim to Rahul Gandhi, not to any official finding [1][2][4][6][7].
At the Indore event, Rahul Gandhi named Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, Ajit Doval, Mohan Bhagwat, Gautam Adani and Mukesh Ambani as the six individuals at the top of the system. [2][6]
He described Amit Shah as the system's 'enforcer' and alleged Ajit Doval gets phones tapped and passes information to Modi and Shah. [2][4][7]
A Press Information Bureau release of 1 August 2026 describes Ajit Doval as the longest-serving National Security Advisor and records praise of his service, but does not state that he runs or controls the system. [5]
No court, parliamentary or official document in the sources finds that these six individuals run the system. [5]
The assertion is an allegation about who controls India's system. The sources confirm Rahul Gandhi made it, but no official record supports it. The only official document about a named individual, a PIB release on Ajit Doval, records his official role and award, not control of the system. Therefore the claim is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofDhruv Ratheechecked 1 Oct 2026
“Surrender Modi surrendered once again to Trump”
The claim that Prime Minister Modi 'surrendered' to President Trump is a characterisation of diplomatic conduct, and Rathee's post offers no document, court finding or official figure to support it. The record before me instead shows India negotiating — a minister setting conditions on executing the deal, the external affairs minister raising objections to a US sanctions law, and a leaders' call described as a 'productive conversation' reviewing cooperation. None of the official PIB releases or independent reports document any concession that amounts to a surrender, so the characterisation is not supported by the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee said that Prime Minister Modi surrendered once again to US President Trump, as posted on X on 25-26 September 2026.
x.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
On 24 June 2026, a PIB release said US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer visited New Delhi for bilateral trade agreement talks, including work on an interim deal in line with the joint statement of 7 February 2026 [3]. Media reports record that Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal said on 24 September 2026 that the trade pact is 'done and dusted' but will be executed only once the US gives India 'the right competitive advantage' over its competitors, and that External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar raised India's concerns about the US sanctions law on Russia and Iran [7]. Prime Minister Modi and President Trump then held a phone call on 30 September 2026, described by Modi as a 'productive conversation' reviewing trade, defence, energy and critical technologies [2][6][8]. No official document in the record shows any Indian concession described as a surrender.
A PIB release dated 24 June 2026 records US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer's visit to New Delhi for talks on a bilateral trade agreement and an interim deal, following the 7 February 2026 joint statement [3]. [3]
Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal said on 24 September 2026 that the India–US trade pact is 'done and dusted' but will be executed once the US gives India the right competitive advantage over its competitors in the American market [7]. [7]
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar raised India's concerns related to the US Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act during a meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly [7]. [7]
On 30 September 2026, Prime Minister Modi and President Trump held a phone call that Modi described as a 'productive conversation,' reviewing cooperation in trade, defence, energy and critical technologies [2][6][8]. [2][6][8]
The record shows India and the US were still working towards an interim trade deal after months of negotiations, with Goyal visiting the US from 29 September to 5 October 2026 for further discussions [1][6]. [1][6]
The claim that Prime Minister Modi 'surrendered' to President Trump is a characterisation of diplomatic conduct, and Rathee's post offers no document, court finding or official figure to support it. The record before me instead shows India negotiating — a minister setting conditions on executing the deal, the external affairs minister raising objections to a US sanctions law, and a leaders' call described as a 'productive conversation' reviewing cooperation. None of the official PIB releases or independent reports document any concession that amounts to a surrender, so the characterisation is not supported by the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Rahul Gandhi alleges ‘vote theft’”
727 of 728 names removed
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
727 of 728 names removed
Rahul Gandhi alleged ‘vote theft’ in connection with 728 voters in Bela Estate.
knskashmir.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission said on 29 September 2026 that Bela Estate voters were placed on the absent, shifted, dead or duplicate (ASDD) list during the Special Intensive Revision, that this was a draft roll, and that applications for inclusion could be filed from 31 August to 30 September 2026, with the final roll due on 4 November 2026. Delhi's Chief Electoral Officer Ashok Kumar also said the list was a draft, not final. The Supreme Court held on 27 May 2026 that the Special Intensive Revision is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate.
The Election Commission said Bela Estate voters were placed on the ASDD (absent, shifted, dead or duplicate) list in line with SIR instructions because they had shifted after their homes were demolished in 2023, and that applications for inclusion on the final roll could be submitted from 31 August to 30 September 2026. [8]
Delhi's Chief Electoral Officer Ashok Kumar clarified that the Bela Estate list was a draft voters' list, not the final list. [2]
The Supreme Court's judgment of 27 May 2026 in Association for Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission of India held that the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and its constitutional obligation to ensure free and fair elections. [11][10]
Reports say 728 of 729 voter names were deleted from the Bela Estate draft roll after SIR, and Rahul Gandhi said only one of 728 voters remained; the reported deletion is from a draft roll with a claims and objections period. [2][8]
The claim of 'vote theft' is an allegation, and the official record in the sources contains no finding that the Election Commission stole votes or unlawfully deleted voters in Bela Estate. The Election Commission attributes the deletions to the SIR's absent/shifted/dead/duplicate process on a draft roll, with a statutory window to apply for inclusion before the final roll. Because the official bodies have not found theft and the Supreme Court has upheld the SIR process as lawful, the allegation is not proven on the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipkechecked 1 Oct 2026
“For the opposition—yes, elections are being rigged. But when you continue participating in rigged elections, you give these elections legitimacy and help maintain the illusion that the elections are free and fair.”
The claim that elections in India are being rigged is an allegation. The official record examined here contains no court finding or Election Commission figure showing rigged elections. The Supreme Court's 2024 EVM judgment and the Election Commission's Bihar 2025 data point the other way. The second part of the claim, that contesting rigged elections legitimises them, is an opinion that depends on the unproven premise.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke, founder of the Cockroach Janata Party, said that elections in India are being rigged and that opposition parties, by continuing to contest them, give those elections legitimacy and sustain the illusion that the elections are free and fair.
khaskhabar.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, in its 26 April 2024 judgment on EVM-VVPAT petitions, recorded that the petitioners did not attribute motive or malice to the Election Commission or contend that EVMs were tutored or configured to favour or disfavour any candidate or party; it observed that the Election Commission has built a reputation as an impartial body that strives to hold fair elections. The Election Commission's 17 November 2025 release on the Bihar assembly elections says there were zero repolls and no re-poll requests from any of the 2,616 candidates or 12 recognised parties.
The Supreme Court recorded on 26 April 2024 that petitioners in the EVM-VVPAT case did not attribute motive or malice to the Election Commission and did not contend that EVMs were tutored or configured to favour or disfavour any candidate or political party. [4]
The Supreme Court observed that over the last several decades the Election Commission has built the reputation of an impartial body and a constitutional authority which strives to hold fair elections in which people participate with great trust and faith. [4]
The Election Commission's 17 November 2025 release on the Bihar Legislative Assembly elections states there were zero repolls and no re-poll requests by any of the 2,616 candidates or any of the 12 recognised political parties. [6]
The Election Commission released 42 statistical reports for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, describing the release as an initiative to enhance public trust in India's electoral system. [3]
The claim that elections in India are being rigged is an allegation. The official record examined here contains no court finding or Election Commission figure showing rigged elections. The Supreme Court's 2024 EVM judgment and the Election Commission's Bihar 2025 data point the other way. The second part of the claim, that contesting rigged elections legitimises them, is an opinion that depends on the unproven premise.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“"There was also a feeling that the opposition has been quite successful in putting across to the people of India that elections are 'stolen', that PM Modi and Home Minister Shah have 'destroyed' Indian democracy and there is a new sense of resistance, particularly among young people, that what is going on in India is wrong and needs to be stopped, Gandhi said."”
elections are 'stolen', PM Modi and Home Minister Shah have
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
elections are 'stolen', PM Modi and Home Minister Shah have
Rahul Gandhi said the opposition has been successful in conveying to the people of India that elections are 'stolen', that PM Modi and Home Minister Shah have 'destroyed' Indian democracy, and that there is a new sense of resistance, especially among young people, that what is going on in India is wrong and needs to be stopped.
newindianexpress.com · reported, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Press Information Bureau, the government's information office, stated on 30 December 2024 that the 2024 general election 'showcased India as a resilient democracy, marked by robust voter engagement and civil conduct' and described its process as transparent [9]. The sources contain no court order, Election Commission finding, or parliamentary answer that finds elections were stolen or that Prime Minister Modi and Home Minister Shah destroyed Indian democracy.
The Press Information Bureau wrote on 30 December 2024 that the 2024 general election showcased India as a resilient democracy with transparent processes and robust voter engagement. [9]
News reports record Rahul Gandhi's statements about elections being stolen and Modi and Shah destroying democracy as assertions made at an INDIA bloc meeting and press conference, but they do not include any court or Election Commission finding that supports the charge. [2][4]
The claim rests on serious allegations, but the record contains no court order, Election Commission finding, or parliamentary document that upholds them. The only official document in the sources that touches the subject, a Press Information Bureau article, describes the 2024 election as resilient and transparent rather than stolen. The statement about a new sense of resistance among young people is also not established by any source provided.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“PM Modi uses Gyanesh Kumar to steal elections: Rahul Gandhi on SIR irregularities”
Rahul Gandhi's statement is an allegation of election theft by the Prime Minister through the Chief Election Commissioner. The official record before us contains no such finding. The Supreme Court has held the SIR process was within the Election Commission's mandate, and the Election Commission describes it as a safeguarded revision. Petitions seeking action against the CEC are pending and are not proof of the allegation, so the claim is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi uses Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to steal elections, speaking in connection with irregularities in the SIR (Special Intensive Revision) of electoral rolls.
msn.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, the country's top court, in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India on 27 May 2026, examined the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar and held that the exercise was within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and consistent with Article 324 of the Constitution, which gives the Election Commission its powers. The Election Commission, which runs elections, has said the SIR is being conducted in phases with safeguards to prevent wrongful deletion of eligible voters. No court, Election Commission or official document in the record finds that Prime Minister Modi used Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to steal elections.
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India held that the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar was within the Election Commission's statutory mandate and consistent with Article 324 of the Constitution. [9][12]
A Press Information Bureau note of 25 July 2026 says the Election Commission is conducting the Special Intensive Revision in phases with safeguards such as door-to-door visits, draft roll publication, claims and objections, and appeals, and records that the Supreme Court held the SIR process lawful. [10]
Petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court seeking action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged SIR irregularities, but these are pending allegations and not findings of wrongdoing. [1][2][4]
The Supreme Court judgment and the Election Commission's statements do not record any finding that Prime Minister Modi used the Chief Election Commissioner to steal elections. [9][10][12]
Rahul Gandhi's statement is an allegation of election theft by the Prime Minister through the Chief Election Commissioner. The official record before us contains no such finding. The Supreme Court has held the SIR process was within the Election Commission's mandate, and the Election Commission describes it as a safeguarded revision. Petitions seeking action against the CEC are pending and are not proof of the allegation, so the claim is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“Those Who 'Snatched Elections' Must Quit”
The claim that elections were snatched is an allegation of rigging. The speaker points to no election petition result, court order or official data showing it, and the record supplied contains no such finding. The Election Commission's statement that its decisions were unanimous is its own denial, not independent proof, so the allegation remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said those who snatched elections must quit.
msn.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
No official body has found that any election was snatched or rigged. The Election Commission, which runs elections, has said that all its decisions, including the special revision of voter lists, were unanimous and had the approval of all three commissioners. A Supreme Court judgment on the special revision in Bihar examined the Commission's authority and procedure, but it does not find that any election was snatched.
Akhilesh Yadav called the Election Commission "Chunav Nochwa" (election snatchers), said they had snatched the election, and demanded that the Chief Election Commissioner resign. [3]
The Election Commission said all its decisions, including the special intensive revision of electoral rolls, were unanimous and had the approval of all three commissioners. [2]
Two Election Commissioners were reported to have raised at least 14 objections in 10 months against decisions taken or carried out allegedly without their knowledge or consent. [1][2]
The Supreme Court judgment on the special intensive revision in Bihar examined the Election Commission's authority and procedure, but it contains no finding that any election was snatched. [11]
The claim that elections were snatched is an allegation of rigging. The speaker points to no election petition result, court order or official data showing it, and the record supplied contains no such finding. The Election Commission's statement that its decisions were unanimous is its own denial, not independent proof, so the allegation remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
““Do not place your trust in anything the BJP says…The BJP’s model of development is rooted in corruption.””
Akhilesh Yadav’s statement is a political allegation, not a factual assertion that the record can settle. The official record includes the government’s own anti-corruption policy claims, official figures on corruption cases against central government employees, and a Supreme Court observation about political funding disclosure, but none is a finding that the BJP’s development model is rooted in corruption. No court order, CAG audit or commission report in the sources supports that broad charge.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav urged voters not to trust anything the BJP says and alleged that the BJP’s model of development is rooted in corruption.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The official record does not establish Akhilesh Yadav’s allegation. The Supreme Court’s February 2024 electoral bonds judgment says non-disclosure of political contributions promotes corruption and quid pro quo arrangements, but it does not hold that the BJP’s development model is rooted in corruption [2]. A government statement says the Modi administration adopted a policy of zero tolerance against corruption and lists steps such as amending the Prevention of Corruption Act [3]. In a Rajya Sabha reply, the government said the CBI registered 715 corruption cases against central government employees in 45 departments from 2017 to 2021, and 1,281 employees were booked [5].
The Supreme Court’s electoral bonds judgment observes that non-disclosure of political contributions promotes corruption and quid pro quo arrangements, but it does not find the BJP’s development model rooted in corruption. [2]
A Press Information Bureau statement says Prime Minister Narendra Modi adopted a zero-tolerance policy against corruption, and lists measures such as amending the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [3]
In a written Rajya Sabha reply, the government said the CBI registered 715 corruption cases against central government employees in 45 departments between 2017 and 2021, and 1,281 employees were booked on bribery and corruption charges. [5]
Akhilesh Yadav’s statement is a political allegation, not a factual assertion that the record can settle. The official record includes the government’s own anti-corruption policy claims, official figures on corruption cases against central government employees, and a Supreme Court observation about political funding disclosure, but none is a finding that the BJP’s development model is rooted in corruption. No court order, CAG audit or commission report in the sources supports that broad charge.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAam Aadmi Partychecked 1 Oct 2026
“AAP accused the Rekha Gupta-led administration of failing in its duties”
The accusation that the administration failed in its duties is broad, and the record does not contain a finding that it did. The NHRC has begun an inquiry by issuing notices, which is not the same as a conclusion of failure. Delhi Police's official position disputes the suggestion of a worsening problem. The claim therefore remains an allegation without proof in the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP accused the Rekha Gupta-led Delhi administration of failing in its duties.
indiatoday.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which investigates human rights complaints, took suo motu cognizance on 9 February 2026 of reports that 807 people went missing in Delhi in the first two weeks of January 2026 and issued notices to the Delhi Chief Secretary and the Police Commissioner seeking a detailed report within two weeks [4]. Delhi Police said there was no significant surge in missing-person reports, that January 2026 saw a decline compared with the same period in earlier years, and that standard operating procedures are followed with priority for children [2][6][7].
The NHRC issued notices to the Delhi Chief Secretary and Police Commissioner on 9 February 2026, asking for a detailed report within two weeks on the reported 807 missing persons in the first two weeks of January 2026 [4]. [4]
Delhi Police said there was no significant surge in missing-person cases and that January 2026 saw fewer reports than the same period in previous years [2][6][7]. [2][6][7]
No court order, commission finding or official data in the record concludes that the Rekha Gupta-led Delhi administration failed in its duties [4][2][6][7]. [4][2][6][7]
The accusation that the administration failed in its duties is broad, and the record does not contain a finding that it did. The NHRC has begun an inquiry by issuing notices, which is not the same as a conclusion of failure. Delhi Police's official position disputes the suggestion of a worsening problem. The claim therefore remains an allegation without proof in the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipkechecked 1 Oct 2026
“Speaking upon his arrival in the financial capital, Dipke argued that the Election Commission’s recent administrative conduct was failing to serve national interests”
The statement is a judgment about the Election Commission that the speaker supports by referring to its recent administrative conduct, chiefly the Special Intensive Revision of voter lists. The Supreme Court examined precisely that conduct and did not find any failure; it instead affirmed the Commission's constitutional role. The Election Commission maintains its decisions were lawful, and internal disagreements within the panel do not amount to proof that its conduct failed national interests. No court, Election Commission record or official finding in the sources supports the claim.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke said the Election Commission's recent administrative conduct failed to serve national interests.
english.mathrubhumi.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, in Association For Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission of India (27 May 2026), examined the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar and the Commission's conduct of the exercise. The Court described the Commission — the constitutional body that runs elections — as vested with plenary power of superintendence, direction and control over elections, designed to insulate elections from extraneous influence and guide them by constitutional principles. The Election Commission itself has said its decisions and electoral reforms complied with the law.
The Supreme Court's judgment of 27 May 2026 states the Election Commission has been vested with the plenary power of superintendence, direction and control over elections, so that the conduct of elections remains insulated from extraneous influence and guided by constitutional principles. [1]
In the same case, the Court examined the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision in Bihar — its authority, procedure and timing — after which the Commission published a draft roll of about 7.24 crore electors and a final roll, and then conducted the Bihar Legislative Assembly elections in November 2025. [1]
The Election Commission has said all its decisions and electoral reforms complied with the law, and that its digital systems follow strict security protocols. [4]
Internal differences did exist within the Commission over the Special Intensive Revision, with the CPI(M) demanding the Chief Election Commissioner's removal after objections by two election commissioners became public, but this is dissent among commissioners, not a finding that the Commission's conduct failed national interests. [2]
The statement is a judgment about the Election Commission that the speaker supports by referring to its recent administrative conduct, chiefly the Special Intensive Revision of voter lists. The Supreme Court examined precisely that conduct and did not find any failure; it instead affirmed the Commission's constitutional role. The Election Commission maintains its decisions were lawful, and internal disagreements within the panel do not amount to proof that its conduct failed national interests. No court, Election Commission record or official finding in the sources supports the claim.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMohibbullah Naqvi (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“People with a specific ideology have taken over the country’s resources and institutions.”
The claim is a broad allegation that a specific ideology has captured the country's resources and institutions. No retrieved source provides an official document, court order, parliamentary answer or data that supports it. The only source that mentions the statement is a news report of the MP's own assertion, which is not independent proof. Because the record contains nothing that bears on the substance of the allegation, the claim is unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party MP Mohibbullah Naqvi said people with a specific ideology have taken over the country’s resources and institutions.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The only retrieved source that mentions the statement is a news report of a protest outside the Election Commission, which quotes Mohibbullah Naqvi making the assertion but offers no document or data to support it. The other retrieved official records concern unrelated matters: a Ministry of Home Affairs release on Left Wing Extremism, a Rajya Sabha answer on women's safety schemes, and a 1971 Allahabad High Court ruling on election petition procedure. None of these addresses any takeover of national resources or institutions by a specific ideology.
A news report of a protest outside the Election Commission quotes Mohibbullah Naqvi as saying people with a specific ideology have taken over the country's resources and institutions, but it provides no document, court finding or official figure to support the assertion. [1]
The other retrieved official records concern Left Wing Extremism, women's safety schemes and a 1971 election-petition procedure ruling, and do not address any takeover of national resources or institutions by a specific ideology. [2][3][4]
The claim is a broad allegation that a specific ideology has captured the country's resources and institutions. No retrieved source provides an official document, court order, parliamentary answer or data that supports it. The only source that mentions the statement is a news report of the MP's own assertion, which is not independent proof. Because the record contains nothing that bears on the substance of the allegation, the claim is unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofArvind Kejriwalchecked 1 Oct 2026
“On October 28, 2025, Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu wrote to the Election Commissioner stating, ‘Letters and orders are being issued in the name of the Election Commission of India without the approval of the Central Election Commission.’”
Kejriwal's claim rests on a specific letter dated October 28, 2025, but no source contains that letter or independently confirms it. The Election Commission's own record says the SIR order issued the previous day, October 27, 2025, had unanimous approval, and independent reporting that does document the two Election Commissioners' objections places them from November 2025 onward, not October 2025. The broader pattern of written objections is real, but the specific letter, date and quote are unverified.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal said Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu wrote on October 28, 2025 that letters and orders were being issued in the name of the Election Commission of India without the approval of the Central Election Commission.
patialapolitics.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India's official press note of September 26, 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision schedule for 12 states and Union territories issued on October 27, 2025 — the day before the letter Kejriwal quotes — was issued with the unanimous approval of all three Election Commissioners. Independent reporting by The Logical Indian says the two Election Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between November 2025 and August 2026 over decisions taken in the Election Commission's name, the earliest in that reported window coming after the October 28, 2025 letter.
The Election Commission's official press note of 26 September 2026 states the SIR schedule for 12 states and UTs issued on 27 October 2025 was issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. [11][2][6]
Independent reporting documents that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded at least 14 objections between November 2025 and August 2026 over decisions and administrative steps taken in the name of the Election Commission. [3]
The Hindu reports that Election Commissioner Sandhu raised questions about electoral rolls and decision-making, including after his own name appeared in Delhi SIR notices. [4]
The specific October 28, 2025 letter quoted by Kejriwal is not reproduced or independently confirmed in any source; it appears only in reporting of Kejriwal's speech. [1]
Kejriwal's claim rests on a specific letter dated October 28, 2025, but no source contains that letter or independently confirms it. The Election Commission's own record says the SIR order issued the previous day, October 27, 2025, had unanimous approval, and independent reporting that does document the two Election Commissioners' objections places them from November 2025 onward, not October 2025. The broader pattern of written objections is real, but the specific letter, date and quote are unverified.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“The BJP engaged a private company and sent them from village to village to get Form 7 applications filled.”
The charge that the BJP hired a private company to fill Form 7 applications is an allegation for which no document, court finding or official figure was offered. The official record describes the SIR exercise as run by the Election Commission's own Booth Level Officers, and the Form-7 guidelines set out who may file, but nothing in the record shows a private company was engaged by the BJP. A Supreme Court bench agreed to examine a separate plea about Form-7 misuse, but no court has found the private-company charge to be true.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the BJP engaged a private company and sent it village to village in Uttar Pradesh to get Form 7 applications filled for deletion of names from electoral rolls.
indiatoday.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The record contains only news reports quoting Akhilesh Yadav's allegation. The Election Commission's official press notes, published by the Press Information Bureau, describe the Special Intensive Revision as carried out by its own Booth Level Officers through house-to-house enumeration, with deletions done only after verification in categories such as death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries or electors found untraceable. The official Form-7 guidelines also state that an application may be made by an elector registered in the constituency. No official document mentions a private company being engaged to fill Form 7 applications.
The allegation that the BJP engaged a private company and sent it village to village to get Form 7 applications filled appears only in news reports quoting Akhilesh Yadav. [1][2][6]
The Election Commission's press notes describe deletions during the Special Intensive Revision as carried out by Booth Level Officers through house-to-house enumeration, after due verification. [9][12]
The official Form-7 guidelines state that an application can be made by an elector registered in the electoral roll of the constituency. [8]
The charge that the BJP hired a private company to fill Form 7 applications is an allegation for which no document, court finding or official figure was offered. The official record describes the SIR exercise as run by the Election Commission's own Booth Level Officers, and the Form-7 guidelines set out who may file, but nothing in the record shows a private company was engaged by the BJP. A Supreme Court bench agreed to examine a separate plea about Form-7 misuse, but no court has found the private-company charge to be true.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“"INDIA bloc meeting saw a very good discussion and the main issue was 'vote chori'. All parties are of the opinion that the democratic system of India has been attacked by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shad and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar ," Gandhi said.”
The allegation that Prime Minister Modi, Home Minister Shah and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar attacked India's democratic system through 'vote chori' is a political charge made by Rahul Gandhi and the Congress. The official record provided instead describes the Election Commission's electoral roll process as governed by legal safeguards and objections. The claim that all parties at the INDIA bloc meeting shared this view is also not established: the source only shows the Congress making the allegation and says an INDIA bloc meeting was to follow.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said that the main issue at the INDIA bloc meeting was 'vote chori' and that all parties believe India's democratic system has been attacked by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shad, and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
newindianexpress.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, said in a press note on 20 March 2025 that additions and deletions to draft electoral rolls are governed by the legal process of claims and objections under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and that political parties were invited to all-party meetings. The sources reporting the Congress's allegations do not show any court, election body or joint INDIA bloc resolution finding that Modi, Shah or the Chief Election Commissioner attacked the democratic system.
The Congress Working Committee alleged a 'match-fixing' involving Prime Minister Modi, Home Minister Shah and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and demanded their resignations over what the Congress called 'vote chori'. [1]
The Election Commission said any inclusion or deletion in the draft electoral roll is governed by the legal framework of claims and objections, available to all political parties under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [9]
The report on the Congress meeting said an INDIA bloc meeting would be held the next day to chalk out further action, but it did not record that all parties in the bloc had already agreed that the democratic system had been attacked. [1]
The allegation that Prime Minister Modi, Home Minister Shah and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar attacked India's democratic system through 'vote chori' is a political charge made by Rahul Gandhi and the Congress. The official record provided instead describes the Election Commission's electoral roll process as governed by legal safeguards and objections. The claim that all parties at the INDIA bloc meeting shared this view is also not established: the source only shows the Congress making the allegation and says an INDIA bloc meeting was to follow.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“People who had voted in 2019 were not allowed to vote in 2022 -- without notice and without following any rule or law.”
Akhilesh Yadav's statement is an allegation that specific voters were denied a vote and names were removed without notice or law. No document, court order or official figure in the record shows that any 2019 voter was denied a vote in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly election, or that any name was removed without notice. The official material shows a regulated revision process and a growing national electorate, but none of it addresses the specific 2022 Uttar Pradesh deletions he alleges, so the claim is not proven rather than shown false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that people who had voted in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections were not allowed to vote in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly polls, with their names removed without notice and without following any rule or law.
indiatoday.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, has published national figures showing registered electors rose from 91.19 crore in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls to 97.97 crore in 2024, and that its 2024 revision deleted entries for dead, permanently shifted and duplicate voters. For the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly rolls, no source in the record provides an ECI or court document showing a single 2019 voter was removed without notice. The Commission's revision rules provide for prior intimation, draft publication, claims and objections, and appeals, and a Supreme Court judgment on a later SIR exercise in Bihar upheld that process as within the Commission's statutory mandate.
The claim appears only in a news article as Akhilesh Yadav's allegation, with no supporting data, documents or independent finding. [1]
Election Commission data shows registered electors for the Lok Sabha grew from 91.19 crore in 2019 to 97.97 crore in 2024 nationally. [5]
The Election Commission's 2024 revision figures included deletions of 67.82 lakh dead voters, 75.11 lakh permanently shifted or absent voters and 22.05 lakh duplicate voters. [4]
The Election Commission has described safeguards in special revision exercises: prior intimation and visits by booth-level officers, reasons for deletion, publication of draft rolls and a period for claims and objections, and appeals. [6]
A Supreme Court judgment in 2026, in a case about a Special Intensive Revision in Bihar, held that the SIR process is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [7]
Akhilesh Yadav's statement is an allegation that specific voters were denied a vote and names were removed without notice or law. No document, court order or official figure in the record shows that any 2019 voter was denied a vote in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly election, or that any name was removed without notice. The official material shows a regulated revision process and a growing national electorate, but none of it addresses the specific 2022 Uttar Pradesh deletions he alleges, so the claim is not proven rather than shown false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofDimple Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“SP had claimed voter list rigging all along; strict action should be taken against officials: Dimple Yadav on SIR row”
The claim rests on the Samajwadi Party having previously and consistently alleged that the voter list was rigged. The retrieved sources document the SIR process and its legal challenge, but none records the Samajwadi Party or Dimple Yadav making that claim before or during the row. The court record examined the legality of the SIR and did not find rigging; it upheld the exercise. Therefore the specific assertion is not proven on the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dimple Yadav said the Samajwadi Party had claimed all along that the voter list was rigged, in the row over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
msn.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
A Press Information Bureau note of 25 July 2026 says the Election Commission is conducting the SIR to remove ineligible or duplicate entries while ensuring no eligible elector is left out, with safeguards such as door-to-door visits and claims-and-objections periods [5]. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026, held that the SIR is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Article 324 of the Constitution [11]. Neither record mentions the Samajwadi Party having claimed all along that the voter list was rigged.
The Election Commission's SIR involves house-to-house enumeration and a statutory period for claims and objections before the final roll is published [5]. [5]
The Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment, held the SIR exercise to be within the Election Commission's statutory mandate and constitutional obligation to ensure free and fair elections [11]. [11]
The claim rests on the Samajwadi Party having previously and consistently alleged that the voter list was rigged. The retrieved sources document the SIR process and its legal challenge, but none records the Samajwadi Party or Dimple Yadav making that claim before or during the row. The court record examined the legality of the SIR and did not find rigging; it upheld the exercise. Therefore the specific assertion is not proven on the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“‘Vote chori’ buys arrogance that follows”
The slap video is reported by several news outlets, so that part of the context is supported. But the claim's central charge is 'vote chori' — an allegation of vote theft. No official record in the sources, including the Election Commission page, supports that vote theft occurred or that it produced the BJP's result or the minister's conduct. The allegation therefore remains unproven on the record provided.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said that 'vote chori' (vote theft) buys arrogance that follows, attacking the BJP over a video showing a Delhi PWD Minister slapping someone.
msn.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's Delhi Legislative Assembly Election 2025 page contains no finding of vote theft. Media reports say a video showed Delhi PWD Minister Parvesh Sahib Singh slapping a man during a road inspection in Tilak Nagar, and that Rahul Gandhi linked the incident to 'vote chori.' No court, Election Commission or official document in the sources finds that vote theft took place or that it bought election results or arrogance.
A video surfaced showing Delhi PWD Minister Parvesh Sahib Singh slapping a man who was recording a road inspection in Tilak Nagar. [1][3][5][6]
Rahul Gandhi said in a Hindi post on X that 'vote theft buys this -- not just the result, but the arrogance that follows.' [3][5][6]
The Election Commission's Delhi Legislative Assembly Election 2025 page contains no finding of vote theft. [8]
The minister said he acted after his family was abused; the man said the minister snatched his phone and raised his hand. [3][5]
The slap video is reported by several news outlets, so that part of the context is supported. But the claim's central charge is 'vote chori' — an allegation of vote theft. No official record in the sources, including the Election Commission page, supports that vote theft occurred or that it produced the BJP's result or the minister's conduct. The allegation therefore remains unproven on the record provided.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)checked 30 Sept 2026
“First Prime Minister Narendra Modi did ‘notebandi’ now doing ‘votebandi’, taking away people’s rights”
The claim is an allegation of vote theft. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure. The record contains no Election Commission or court finding that supports it; the only official document describes the 2024 election as democratic. A news report shows a similar allegation by another leader, but an allegation is not proof.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi first did demonetisation (notebandi) and is now doing vote theft (votebandi), taking away people's rights.
theprint.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The official record contains no Election Commission or court finding of 'votebandi' or vote theft. The only official document, a Press Information Bureau release dated 30 December 2024, describes the 2024 general election as a democratic exercise with robust voter engagement and a mandate for Prime Minister Modi. A news abstract reports that Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav made a similar allegation that the BJP's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh was 'votebandi' after 'notebandi', but that is an allegation, not an official finding.
A Press Information Bureau release dated 30 December 2024 describes the 2024 general election as a democratic exercise with robust voter engagement and a mandate for Prime Minister Modi. [4]
A news abstract reports that Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav alleged the BJP's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh was 'votebandi' after 'notebandi', but it records an allegation, not an official finding. [2]
The record contains no Election Commission order, court judgment or official figure showing that votes were stolen or voters' rights were taken away. [2][4]
The claim is an allegation of vote theft. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure. The record contains no Election Commission or court finding that supports it; the only official document describes the 2024 election as democratic. A news report shows a similar allegation by another leader, but an allegation is not proof.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“He also alleged that not a single officer from the PDA (Pichhda, Dalit, Alpsankhyak) communities had been assigned key election-related responsibilities with regard to preparations for the 2027 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections.”
not a single officer from PDA communities
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
not a single officer from PDA communities
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that no officer from the PDA (Pichhda, Dalit, Alpsankhyak) communities had been assigned key election-related responsibilities in preparations for the 2027 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections.
hindustantimes.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, issued a press note in July 2026 on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. It describes the revision process and safeguards such as booth-level enumeration and political-party Booth Level Agents, but it does not record the caste or community of officers assigned election-related duties. A news report says Akhilesh Yadav alleged that officials from PDA communities were being removed from roles such as Assistant Returning Officers, and that his party would complain to the Election Commission, but the report cites no official confirmation.
The Election Commission's July 2026 press note on the Special Intensive Revision describes the revision process and safeguards, but contains no information about the social category or community of officers given poll-related responsibilities. [9]
A media report says Akhilesh Yadav alleged that officials from backward, Dalit and minority communities were being removed from poll duties such as Assistant Returning Officers, and that the Samajwadi Party would complain to the Election Commission. [6]
No source in the record provides an Election Commission order, roster or data showing the community composition of officers assigned key election duties for the 2027 Uttar Pradesh assembly preparations. [9][6]
This is an allegation about the composition of election machinery. The official record retrieved does not publish the caste or community of officers on election duty, and the media report only repeats Akhilesh Yadav's claim without independent confirmation. There is no court order, Election Commission figure or official list that establishes that no PDA-community officer held key responsibilities.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Then Modi and Shah made him the umpire and put him in charge of match-fixing India's elections.”
This is an allegation of election manipulation against the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Chief Election Commissioner. The sources contain no court order, Election Commission finding or official document upholding it. The only official document, a PIB release, shows Kumar took charge as an Election Commissioner, not that he was put in charge of match-fixing. The charge therefore remains unproven on this record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged that Modi and Shah made Gyanesh Kumar the umpire and put him in charge of match-fixing India's elections.
scroll.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Press Information Bureau, the government's publicity office, recorded on 15 March 2024 that Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu assumed charge as Election Commissioners, and that a gazette notification on their appointment was published on 14 March 2024. The news reports only relay Rahul Gandhi's allegation and note there was no immediate response from CEC Kumar. No official body in the sources has found match-fixing or that Modi and Shah assigned him that role.
Rahul Gandhi made the allegation in a post on X on 26 September 2026, according to news reports. [1]
The Press Information Bureau recorded that Gyanesh Kumar assumed charge as an Election Commissioner on 15 March 2024, with a gazette notification on the appointment published on 14 March 2024. [8]
The reports note there was no immediate response from CEC Kumar to the claims. [1]
The official record in the sources contains no finding of match-fixing; the PIB release only records his appointment as Election Commissioner. [8]
This is an allegation of election manipulation against the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Chief Election Commissioner. The sources contain no court order, Election Commission finding or official document upholding it. The only official document, a PIB release, shows Kumar took charge as an Election Commissioner, not that he was put in charge of match-fixing. The charge therefore remains unproven on this record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026
“Targeting the government over ethanol blending in petrol, the SP chief alleged that the benefits of the process were not adequately reaching farmers. He claimed that the government was making profits from ethanol blending while farmers continued to face financial difficulties.”
₹1,04,000 crore
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the benefits of ethanol blending in petrol were not adequately reaching farmers and that the government was making profits from ethanol blending while farmers faced financial difficulties.
latestly.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
₹1,04,000 crore
paid to farmers under ethanol blending, Rajya Sabha answer, March 2025
sansad.in
In a Rajya Sabha answer on 24 March 2025, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas said the Ethanol Blended Petrol programme had resulted in expeditious payment to farmers of more than ₹1,04,000 crore up to January 2025. A PIB factsheet says the programme has delivered ₹1.60+ lakh crore in additional farmer earnings, and states that ethanol procurement costs have risen above refined petrol costs, so the mandate continues for energy security, environmental and farm income gains rather than profit.
The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas told the Rajya Sabha on 24 March 2025 that the ethanol blending programme had resulted in expeditious payment to farmers of more than ₹1,04,000 crore up to January 2025. [2]
A PIB factsheet says the programme has delivered ₹1.60+ lakh crore in additional farmer earnings and that ethanol procurement costs have risen above refined petrol costs, so the government is not pocketing a price difference. [1]
The government says maize-based ethanol is procured at around ₹71.86 per litre to ensure farmers receive a fair price. [4]
A Frontline analysis argues that farmers are not beneficiaries of the ethanol policy, showing the matter is disputed. [7]
The claim is an allegation that the government is profiting from ethanol blending while farmers do not adequately benefit. The official record shows large payments to farmers and the government's position that it is not making a profit from the price difference, but this is the government's own account. Independent reporting in Frontline argues farmers are not beneficiaries, so the matter is disputed. No court, audit or independent official figure in the sources establishes the allegation.
No proofAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“The Kannauj MP further alleged that the Commission failed to act on numerous complaints filed by his party, including during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.”
The claim is an allegation that the Election Commission ignored complaints from Akhilesh Yadav's party. The official record shows a functioning mechanism for claims, objections and appeals, and the Supreme Court upheld the revision process, but no document in the record identifies Samajwadi Party complaints or shows that the Commission failed to act on them. Because the allegation is not supported by any court finding, parliamentary answer or Election Commission record, it is not proven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the Election Commission failed to act on numerous complaints filed by his party, including during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
hindustantimes.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
A Press Information Bureau release dated 25 July 2026, citing the Election Commission's press note, says the Special Intensive Revision includes publication of draft rolls, a claims-and-objections period, appeals, and Booth Level Agents nominated by political parties. A Lok Sabha answer dated 24 July 2026 says grievances received during the claims and objections period are examined and, where found valid, names are restored before the roll is finalised. The Supreme Court, on 27 May 2026, upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision and called the exercise valid and non-arbitrary.
The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision process includes a draft electoral roll, a statutory period for claims and objections, appeals, and verification by Booth Level Agents nominated by political parties. [5]
A Lok Sabha answer of 24 July 2026 states that grievances received during the claims and objections period are examined and, where found valid, names are restored before finalisation of the roll. [10]
The Supreme Court, on 27 May 2026, upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision and described the exercise as valid and non-arbitrary, with inbuilt safeguards. [1]
None of the official records mentions complaints filed by the Samajwadi Party during the Special Intensive Revision or any failure by the Election Commission to act on them. [5][10][1]
The claim is an allegation that the Election Commission ignored complaints from Akhilesh Yadav's party. The official record shows a functioning mechanism for claims, objections and appeals, and the Supreme Court upheld the revision process, but no document in the record identifies Samajwadi Party complaints or shows that the Commission failed to act on them. Because the allegation is not supported by any court finding, parliamentary answer or Election Commission record, it is not proven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAam Aadmi Party - Punjab (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
The claim is an allegation of responsibility. The sources contain no court order, official inquiry, or data that connects the BJP-SAD government to pushing Punjab into a drug crisis. The statements repeating the charge come from AAP spokespersons, so they are the party's position, not proof. Because the record does not uphold the allegation, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP Punjab alleged that the BJP, in alliance with Shiromani Akali Dal during 2007-17, pushed Punjab into a drug furnace.
facebook.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The official record in the sources is limited. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), the central agency that enforces drug laws, reported a seizure of 55 kg of heroin and 95 g of opium in Amritsar on 7 December 2017, made with the Border Security Force. That shows heroin was being trafficked in Punjab in 2017, but it does not say who was behind it. An academic study of the 2007-2017 Akali-BJP government lists controlling drugs as one of the challenges it faced, not as something it caused.
AAP spokespersons have repeatedly alleged that the drug network expanded during the 2007-2017 Akali-BJP government and that drugs reached every household. [1][4][8]
An academic study of the Akali-BJP government's performance lists controlling drugs among the challenges it faced, but does not find the government responsible for spreading drugs. [3]
The Narcotics Control Bureau reported seizing 55 kg of heroin and 95 g of opium in Amritsar on 7 December 2017, which shows trafficking existed but does not attribute it to the BJP or Shiromani Akali Dal. [6]
The claim is an allegation of responsibility. The sources contain no court order, official inquiry, or data that connects the BJP-SAD government to pushing Punjab into a drug crisis. The statements repeating the charge come from AAP spokespersons, so they are the party's position, not proof. Because the record does not uphold the allegation, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar should resign from his post and “turn approver””
The demand that CEC Kumar resign and 'turn approver' assumes he committed or knew of wrongdoing in the electoral roll revision. No court, election body or official figure in the record supports that assumption. The Election Commission states the SIR decisions were unanimous, and a court has found the SIR exercise lawful. The allegations in the pending Supreme Court petition are claims, not findings, so the implication of wrongdoing remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar should resign from his post and “turn approver”, implying the CEC was involved in wrongdoing over the Election Commission's special intensive revision of electoral rolls.
scroll.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, said in a clarification on Saturday that the major decisions concerning the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were approved unanimously by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi. A government note of 25 July 2026 says a court examined the legality of the SIR exercise and held it to be within the Election Commission's statutory mandate and consistent with its duty to ensure free and fair elections. A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court questioning CEC Kumar's SIR decisions, but it is pending and contains allegations, not findings.
The Election Commission said in a clarification that the major SIR decisions were approved unanimously by CEC Gyanesh Kumar and the two Election Commissioners. [6]
A government note of 25 July 2026 states that a court examined the SIR process and held it lawful and within the Election Commission's statutory mandate. [7]
A petition filed in the Supreme Court alleges CEC Kumar took SIR decisions without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners and manipulated the electoral roll, but the petition is pending and records no finding against him. [5]
The Congress has demanded that the CEC step down or turn approver, while the BJP has defended the Election Commission and dismissed the allegations. [2]
The demand that CEC Kumar resign and 'turn approver' assumes he committed or knew of wrongdoing in the electoral roll revision. No court, election body or official figure in the record supports that assumption. The Election Commission states the SIR decisions were unanimous, and a court has found the SIR exercise lawful. The allegations in the pending Supreme Court petition are claims, not findings, so the implication of wrongdoing remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipke, Cockroach Janta Party (Cockroach Janta Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“He alleged that the "dictatorship" of the Election Commission was a matter of concern and claimed that collective efforts were needed to bring change in the country.”
The word 'dictatorship' is an allegation, not a finding. The official record from the Election Commission describes legal safeguards — claims, objections, notice and speaking orders — and the Commission says its decisions were unanimous. Opposition parties have expressed concern, but that is political criticism, not proof that the Commission is a dictatorship. The second part of the claim, that collective efforts are needed, is a call to action and cannot be checked against records.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke of the Cockroach Janta Party alleged that the Election Commission's "dictatorship" was a matter of concern and said collective efforts were needed to bring change in the country.
newsable.asianetnews.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, says in its press releases that inclusions and deletions in electoral rolls are governed by claims and objections under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and that no name can be deleted from the draft roll without notice and a speaking order by the Electoral Registration Officer (Press Information Bureau, 20 March 2025 and 27 July 2025). After reports that two Election Commissioners had raised objections 14 times, the Commission said its decisions had been taken unanimously.
The Election Commission's 20 March 2025 press release says any inclusion or deletion in the draft electoral roll is governed by the legal process of claims and objections under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [9]
The Election Commission's 27 July 2025 press release on Bihar's Special Intensive Revision says no name can be deleted from the draft list without notice and a speaking order of the Electoral Registration Officer or Assistant Electoral Registration Officer. [10]
After a news report said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised at least 14 objections over 10 months, the Election Commission said its decisions had been taken unanimously. [2]
Opposition parties and Left parties have protested and demanded the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision process, citing reports that some decisions were taken by the Chief Election Commissioner alone. [2][3][7]
The word 'dictatorship' is an allegation, not a finding. The official record from the Election Commission describes legal safeguards — claims, objections, notice and speaking orders — and the Commission says its decisions were unanimous. Opposition parties have expressed concern, but that is political criticism, not proof that the Commission is a dictatorship. The second part of the claim, that collective efforts are needed, is a call to action and cannot be checked against records.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Rahul earlier demanded the immediate resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, accusing him of attacking the election system.”
The demand for resignation is reported in the media, but the accusation that the CEC attacked the election system is an allegation. The official record — the Election Commission's press note and PIB releases — contains no finding supporting it; the Commission says the Special Intensive Revision was approved unanimously. A Supreme Court petition is pending, not decided. So the claim is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi demanded the immediate resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, accusing him of attacking the election system.
tribuneindia.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision order of 24 June 2025 and later schedules were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission [9]. The Supreme Court on 29 September 2026 agreed to list a petition seeking to suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar, but has not ruled on the allegations [4]. PIB releases show the CEC's official statements about India's electoral rolls and election processes, with no finding that he attacked the system [1][6][7].
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 states that the Special Intensive Revision order of 24 June 2025 and the schedules for 12 States/UTs on 27 October 2025 and 19 States/UTs on 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. [9]
The Supreme Court on 29 September 2026 agreed to list a petition seeking to suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar from office, but no court has ruled on the allegations against him. [4]
Media reports describe opposition and Congress Working Committee demands for the CEC's resignation over alleged electoral manipulation, but they do not show an official finding that he attacked the election system. [2][3][5]
PIB releases show CEC Gyanesh Kumar's official statements about India's electoral rolls and election processes, with no admission or finding that he attacked the system. [1][6][7]
The demand for resignation is reported in the media, but the accusation that the CEC attacked the election system is an allegation. The official record — the Election Commission's press note and PIB releases — contains no finding supporting it; the Commission says the Special Intensive Revision was approved unanimously. A Supreme Court petition is pending, not decided. So the claim is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofPawan Khera, Congress (Indian National Congress)checked 30 Sept 2026
“Today, the whole country is worried about vote theft. They feel like the entire mandate is being stolen. Governments built on theft and robbery are in power.”
The claim is a sweeping allegation of systemic fraud. Pawan Khera offers no document, court finding or official figure to prove vote theft across India; the record before us contains none. The Election Commission denies the allegation and describes its exercise as routine, but its denial alone cannot settle the matter. The Supreme Court's interventions raise questions about the revision's power, procedure and timing, yet the court record provided does not uphold a finding that votes were stolen or that any government obtained power through theft.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress leader Pawan Khera alleged that vote theft is happening across India, that the entire mandate is being stolen, and that governments built on 'theft and robbery' are in power.
thenewsmill.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, has said the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls is a routine, legally mandated process to remove names of dead, shifted or duplicate voters, and has denied the allegation of vote theft. For Bihar, the Commission's official figures show 7.89 crore electors as of 24 June 2025, 65 lakh removed from the draft list of 1 August 2025, 3.66 lakh ineligible electors removed, and 21.53 lakh eligible electors added, with a final roll of about 7.42 crore published on 30 September 2025. The Supreme Court, hearing challenges to the Bihar exercise, identified questions about the Commission's power, procedure and timing; the court record provided contains no finding that votes were stolen or that any mandate was robbed.
The Election Commission has stated that the Special Intensive Revision is designed to identify and remove names of voters who are dead, have moved away, or appear twice, and has denied claims that it amounts to vote theft or manipulation. [2][4]
According to the Commission's press release on Bihar, there were 7.89 crore electors as on 24 June 2025; 65 lakh were removed from the draft list, 3.66 lakh ineligible electors were removed from that draft, and 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added, giving a final roll of about 7.42 crore on 30 September 2025. [12]
The Supreme Court's order of 10 July 2025 in the petitions against the Bihar Special Intensive Revision recorded three prima facie questions: the Commission's authority to do the exercise, the procedure and manner, and the timing, given that Bihar elections were due in November 2025. [5]
For the 2024 general election, the Election Commission published electoral rolls showing 96.88 crore registered voters across the country, an increase of about 8 percent over 2019, with 2.63 crore new electors added. [11]
The claim is a sweeping allegation of systemic fraud. Pawan Khera offers no document, court finding or official figure to prove vote theft across India; the record before us contains none. The Election Commission denies the allegation and describes its exercise as routine, but its denial alone cannot settle the matter. The Supreme Court's interventions raise questions about the revision's power, procedure and timing, yet the court record provided does not uphold a finding that votes were stolen or that any government obtained power through theft.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026
“Instead of providing real solutions, this government is peddling fake numbers and false statistics in the name of job creation.”
16.83 crore
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav accused the BJP-led government of peddling fake numbers and false statistics in the name of job creation instead of providing real solutions.
thenewsmill.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
16.83 crore
increase in employment 2017-18 to 2023-24, MoSPI/PIB data
pib.gov.in
The official record does not show any fabricated job numbers. A Press Information Bureau note quoting the Ministry of Labour and Employment says India's employment, as measured by the Periodic Labour Force Survey and the Reserve Bank of India's KLEMS database, rose from 47.5 crore in 2017-18 to 64.33 crore in 2023-24, an increase of about 16.83 crore [5]. The Ministry of Labour and Employment said on 8 July 2024 that official data show more than 8 crore employment opportunities from 2017-18 to 2021-22 and over 6.2 crore net subscribers joining the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation between September 2017 and March 2024, and cautioned against private surveys that it said use weak methodology [6].
A PIB note says total employment in India increased from 47.5 crore in 2017-18 to 64.33 crore in 2023-24, a rise of about 16.83 crore, using PLFS and RBI KLEMS data. [5]
The Ministry of Labour and Employment said official PLFS and KLEMS data show over 8 crore employment opportunities were created from 2017-18 to 2021-22, with over 6.2 crore net EPFO subscribers between September 2017 and March 2024. [6]
The Labour Ministry called its official data comprehensive and credible, and argued that private employment surveys use definitions and samples that are not as robust as official sources. [6]
Akhilesh Yadav's charge is an allegation, not a verified finding. The record shows the official basis for the government's job-creation figures: PLFS, RBI KLEMS and EPFO data, all of which indicate employment has increased. It contains no court order, audit report, parliamentary finding or statistical-body finding that any of these figures was faked.
“He alleged that paper leaks are being orchestrated so that the government doesn't have to provide permanent jobs. He pointed out that while paper leaks have occurred across the country, the highest number of such incidents has been recorded in Uttar Pradesh.”
The claim has two parts: an allegation about government motive and a factual comparison across states. Reporting supports that Uttar Pradesh has had repeated paper leaks and exam cancellations, so the underlying concern is real. But the allegation that the government is orchestrating leaks to avoid permanent jobs is not supported by any official document, court order or data in the record, and the statement that Uttar Pradesh recorded the highest number of such incidents nationally is also unsupported because no state-wise count is available.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that paper leaks are being orchestrated so the government does not have to provide permanent jobs, and said Uttar Pradesh has recorded the highest number of such incidents in the country.
zoomnews.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
A Press Information Bureau note on the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 acknowledges that paper leaks and exam malpractice continue, but it gives no state-wise count and says nothing about any government organising leaks to stop permanent hiring. News reports document repeated leaks and cancellations in Uttar Pradesh, including the constable recruitment and RO/ARO exams, an assistant professor exam, and the Lekhpal recruitment process. One report also says the constable recruitment and RO/ARO leak network extended to Haryana and Madhya Pradesh. No report or official document in the record provides a national state-by-state tally placing Uttar Pradesh highest.
News reports document repeated paper leaks and exam cancellations in Uttar Pradesh, including the constable recruitment and RO/ARO exams, an assistant professor exam, and the Lekhpal recruitment process. [1][4][5][8]
A Press Information Bureau note says Parliament passed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 because cases of paper leaks and exam malpractice have continued, but it gives no state-wise count and does not suggest any government is organising leaks to stop permanent hiring. [6]
One report says the Uttar Pradesh constable recruitment and RO/ARO paper leak network was not limited to Uttar Pradesh and extended to Haryana and Madhya Pradesh. [1]
The records about paper leaks in Uttar Pradesh do not contain a national, state-by-state comparison of paper leak incidents that would establish Uttar Pradesh had the highest number. [1][5][6][8]
The claim has two parts: an allegation about government motive and a factual comparison across states. Reporting supports that Uttar Pradesh has had repeated paper leaks and exam cancellations, so the underlying concern is real. But the allegation that the government is orchestrating leaks to avoid permanent jobs is not supported by any official document, court order or data in the record, and the statement that Uttar Pradesh recorded the highest number of such incidents nationally is also unsupported because no state-wise count is available.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026
“लखनऊ में एक ही व्यक्ति के नाम से 100 से अधिक वोट कटवाए गए, जबकि नियमानुसार एक व्यक्ति पांच से अधिक वोट नहीं कटवा सकता।”
more than 100 votes
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
more than 100 votes
Akhilesh Yadav said that in Lucknow, more than 100 votes were deleted in the name of a single person, whereas under the rules one person cannot get more than five votes deleted.
bhaskar.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The retrieved sources include an official Uttar Pradesh Chief Electoral Officer document and a gazette notification, but they do not show any such deletion or any five-vote limit. No court order or Election Commission finding in the retrieved material supports the claim.
The retrieved sources do not contain any official record of more than 100 deletions in Lucknow on one person's application or a rule limiting one person to five deletions. [1][2]
The claim asserts a specific event and a specific rule. The official record that would show such deletions — the Uttar Pradesh Chief Electoral Officer's electoral roll data or an Election Commission order — is not in the retrieved material, and no court or commission finding is provided. The speaker's statement is therefore an unsupported allegation, not an established fact.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofDimple Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“SP MP Dimple Yadav accused the Election Commission of rigging voter lists, demanding action against officials.”
Dimple Yadav's statement is an allegation of rigging. The official record shows a large revision of rolls, with removals and additions, and the Election Commission says its final decisions were unanimous. Media reports show internal objections and very large deletions, which raise questions, but none of the sources contains a court order, Election Commission figure or inquiry report that establishes rigging. The Election Commission's denial is its own position, not independent proof, but the independent reporting also stops short of finding rigging.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party MP Dimple Yadav alleged that the Election Commission rigged voter lists and demanded action against the officials responsible.
msn.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, announced on 30 September 2025 that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar was complete: the final roll had about 7.42 crore electors, 65 lakh names were removed from the draft list, 3.66 lakh ineligible electors were removed, and 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added. The Commission said the exercise followed its motto of leaving out no eligible voter and including no ineligible person. The Indian Express has reported that two Election Commissioners raised objections 14 times in 10 months, but that is reporting of internal disagreement, not a finding that the rolls were rigged.
The Election Commission's 30 September 2025 press note on Bihar's Special Intensive Revision says the final roll had about 7.42 crore electors; 65 lakh names were removed from the draft list, 3.66 lakh ineligible electors were removed, and 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added. [3]
The Election Commission has said internal technical notes and written queries are routine in a multi-member body, and that all final decisions on the SIR process were unanimous and approved by all three commissioners. [1]
The Indian Express reported that the SIR struck more than 13 crore names off draft voter rolls in 30 states and union territories, and that two Election Commissioners objected on record 14 times in 10 months. [6]
The Election Commission's March 2025 press note said inclusions and deletions are governed by claims and objections under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and that only 89 first appeals and one second appeal had been filed at that point. [9]
Dimple Yadav's statement is an allegation of rigging. The official record shows a large revision of rolls, with removals and additions, and the Election Commission says its final decisions were unanimous. Media reports show internal objections and very large deletions, which raise questions, but none of the sources contains a court order, Election Commission figure or inquiry report that establishes rigging. The Election Commission's denial is its own position, not independent proof, but the independent reporting also stops short of finding rigging.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026
“At times, they were getting fake signatures made; at other times, they were wrongly deleting names or adding new ones. They were acting as puppets of the Bharatiya Janata Party.”
The claim is an allegation of fraud and partisan control of election officials. None of the official records provided — Election Commission press notes, a parliamentary answer, or the Supreme Court's 2026 judgment on the Special Intensive Revision — establishes that fake signatures were made, that names were wrongly deleted or added, or that officials acted at the BJP's direction. The record instead shows a regulated process with notice, appeal, and judicial approval, but it does not independently prove or disprove the accusation, so the allegation remains without proof in these sources.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that during the electoral process fake signatures were being made and names were being wrongly deleted or added, and that Election Commission officials were acting as puppets of the BJP.
thenewsmill.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which supervises voter rolls, has stated that during the Special Intensive Revision no name can be deleted from the draft roll without a notice and a speaking order by the Electoral Registration Officer, and that appeals lie to the District Magistrate and the Chief Electoral Officer. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026, held that the SIR process is within the Commission's statutory mandate, and the record states that valid grievances lead to names being restored before the roll is finalised.
The Election Commission's published guidelines for the Special Intensive Revision say no name can be deleted from the draft electoral roll without a notice and a speaking order from the Electoral Registration Officer or Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, with appeals available to the District Magistrate and Chief Electoral Officer. [6]
The Supreme Court, by its judgment of 27 May 2026, examined the SIR process and held that it is within the Election Commission's powers under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and consistent with its constitutional duty to ensure free and fair elections. [9][10]
The official press notes and parliamentary answer describe the safeguards against wrongful deletion and the restoration of valid names, but they contain no finding that signatures were faked or that Election Commission officials acted as puppets of the BJP. [6][9][10]
The claim is an allegation of fraud and partisan control of election officials. None of the official records provided — Election Commission press notes, a parliamentary answer, or the Supreme Court's 2026 judgment on the Special Intensive Revision — establishes that fake signatures were made, that names were wrongly deleted or added, or that officials acted at the BJP's direction. The record instead shows a regulated process with notice, appeal, and judicial approval, but it does not independently prove or disprove the accusation, so the allegation remains without proof in these sources.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026
“If the Election Commission is involved in a scam and the chief minister is speaking in support of the Commission, it means the chief minister himself is involved in the scam. The entire BJP is involved in the scam”
The claim is an allegation drawn from an inference: because the chief minister defended the Election Commission, Yadav concluded that the chief minister and the entire BJP are involved in a scam. None of the official documents in the sources contains any finding that Yogi Adityanath or the BJP participated in an electoral roll scam. The charge therefore has no independent confirmation in the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that because Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath defended the Election Commission over the SIR, the chief minister himself and the entire BJP are involved in the electoral roll scam.
indiatoday.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision press note, circulated by the Press Information Bureau on 25 July 2026, and the Law Ministry's Lok Sabha answer of 24 July 2026 describe the revision as having safeguards such as house-to-house verification, draft rolls with claims and objections, appeals, Booth Level Agents, sample audits and restoration of valid grievances. Neither document names Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath or the BJP as being involved in any scam, and the sources contain no court or Election Commission finding that they were.
Akhilesh Yadav said that if the Election Commission is involved in a scam and the chief minister is speaking in support of the Commission, it means the chief minister himself is involved in the scam, and the entire BJP is involved. [3][6]
Yadav's statement came after Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath asked opposition parties to apologise for criticising the Election Commission and the Special Intensive Revision exercise. [3][6]
The Election Commission and the Law Ministry describe the Special Intensive Revision as a safeguarded process in which valid grievances are examined and names are restored before the roll is finalised. [9][11]
The claim is an allegation drawn from an inference: because the chief minister defended the Election Commission, Yadav concluded that the chief minister and the entire BJP are involved in a scam. None of the official documents in the sources contains any finding that Yogi Adityanath or the BJP participated in an electoral roll scam. The charge therefore has no independent confirmation in the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipkechecked 30 Sept 2026
“Abhijeet Dipke has accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of undermining voter rights and rigging elections.”
Dipke's accusation is an allegation of rigging and voter-rights violation. The official record provided shows the Election Commission stating that the Special Intensive Revision orders were unanimous, and the Supreme Court text does not find rigging. No document, court finding or official figure is provided that supports the allegation. The reported warning of a protest is separate from the truth of the underlying accusation.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of undermining voter rights and rigging elections, and warned of nationwide protests if Kumar does not resign within 48 hours.
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision order of 24 June 2025 for all States/UTs, and the schedules for 12 and 19 States/UTs, were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission [11]. The Supreme Court examined the Bihar Special Intensive Revision in 2026, but the provided judgment text does not record any finding that elections were rigged [10]. The Hindu reported that Abhijeet Dipke demanded Kumar's resignation for 'undermining' voter rights and said Opposition parties should take a stand against election rigging [1].
The Hindu reported that Cockroach Janta Party founder Abhijeet Dipke demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar for 'undermining' voter rights through the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls [1]. [1]
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision order and its schedules were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission [11]. [11]
The Supreme Court examined the Bihar Special Intensive Revision, but the provided judgment text does not show a finding that elections were rigged [10]. [10]
A PIB release of 20 March 2025 says inclusions and deletions in electoral rolls are governed by claims and objections under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and that only 89 first appeals and 1 second appeal had been filed at that point [7]. [7]
Dipke's accusation is an allegation of rigging and voter-rights violation. The official record provided shows the Election Commission stating that the Special Intensive Revision orders were unanimous, and the Supreme Court text does not find rigging. No document, court finding or official figure is provided that supports the allegation. The reported warning of a protest is separate from the truth of the underlying accusation.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi (Indian National Congress)checked 30 Sept 2026
“Opposition has been quite successful in conveying to people that the PM and the HM have destroyed democracy and elections are stolen.”
The claim asserts a serious allegation: that elections were stolen and that the Prime Minister and Home Minister destroyed democracy. The only official document retrieved is a government press release that describes the 2024 election as democratic and transparent, but it is the government's own account from December 2024 and does not settle the later allegation. No independent record such as an Election Commission order or court judgment is in the sources, so the allegation remains unproven rather than contradicted by an official adjudication.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said the opposition has successfully conveyed to people that the Prime Minister and Home Minister have destroyed democracy and that elections are stolen.
theprint.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The only official document in the sources, a Press Information Bureau release dated 30 December 2024, describes the 2024 general election as a resilient democracy with robust voter engagement, civil conduct and a transparent process. A news report records Rahul Gandhi's accusation that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar attacked democracy and that elections were being stolen, but it contains no independent verification. No Election Commission order, court judgment or other official finding in the retrieved record supports the claim that any election was stolen.
A Press Information Bureau release of 30 December 2024 describes the 2024 general election as a resilient democracy, marked by robust voter engagement, civil conduct and a transparent process, and says PM Modi secured a historic third term. [2]
NDTV reported that Rahul Gandhi accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of attacking democracy and alleged that elections were being 'stolen'. [1]
The retrieved record contains no court order, Election Commission finding or other independent official document showing that any election was stolen or that the Prime Minister and Home Minister destroyed democracy. [1][2]
The claim asserts a serious allegation: that elections were stolen and that the Prime Minister and Home Minister destroyed democracy. The only official document retrieved is a government press release that describes the 2024 election as democratic and transparent, but it is the government's own account from December 2024 and does not settle the later allegation. No independent record such as an Election Commission order or court judgment is in the sources, so the allegation remains unproven rather than contradicted by an official adjudication.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“It has come to light that people from Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh will come and enrol as voters to increase their vote count”
This is an allegation about future manipulation of voter rolls. The speaker has not provided any document, court finding or official figure, and the official record on the Special Intensive Revision contains nothing that supports it. The Election Commission describes safeguards, but that is not proof that the alleged enrolment will happen. So the claim is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party national president Akhilesh Yadav alleged that people from Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh will come and enrol as voters in Uttar Pradesh to increase the BJP's vote count.
hindustantimes.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, said in a press note dated 25 July 2026 that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is being done in phases to make electoral rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries, with safeguards such as door-to-door checks and a claims-and-objections period. It said deletions happen only after verification and fall under death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries, or untraceable electors. Neither that note nor the Uttar Pradesh Chief Electoral Officer's SIR 2026 page shows any plan or data about people from Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh or Chhattisgarh enrolling in Uttar Pradesh to increase any party's votes.
The Election Commission's press note of 25 July 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision is meant to make rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries, with safeguards such as door-to-door checks and a claims-and-objections period. [4]
The press note says deletions during the Special Intensive Revision are carried out only after verification and fall under death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries, or electors found untraceable despite repeated visits. [5]
The Chief Electoral Officer of Uttar Pradesh has published the final SIR 2026 roll and the ASDDR list (absent, shifted, dead, duplicate, refused), but no data showing cross-state enrolment to boost any party. [1]
This is an allegation about future manipulation of voter rolls. The speaker has not provided any document, court finding or official figure, and the official record on the Special Intensive Revision contains nothing that supports it. The Election Commission describes safeguards, but that is not proof that the alleged enrolment will happen. So the claim is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)checked 30 Sept 2026
“The pawns are just a front, the PM, HM are behind the vote chori and thus they are winning polls”
The claim is an allegation of election rigging against the Prime Minister and Home Minister. The official record provided does not support it: the Election Commission, the constitutional body that conducts elections, rejected the 'vote chori' charge as factually incorrect and asked for proof, and the Supreme Court's judgment on the Bihar electoral-roll revision makes no finding implicating these two office-holders. Because no document, court finding or official figure connects them to vote theft, the allegation is unproven on this record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge alleged that the Prime Minister and Home Minister are behind the vote theft and are thus winning elections.
theprint.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, said on 14 August 2025 that 'vote chori' was a false narrative and that proof should be given instead. It had earlier fact-checked Opposition posts alleging vote fraud and called them factually incorrect. The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment on the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision in Bihar examines the Commission's authority and procedure but contains no finding that the Prime Minister or Home Minister directed any vote theft.
On 14 August 2025 the Election Commission said instead of creating a false narrative by using phrases like 'vote chori', proof should be given, and that the 'one person one vote' law has existed since the first elections in 1951-52. [2]
On 11 August 2025 the Election Commission fact-checked Opposition leaders' vote fraud allegations and rejected them as 'factually incorrect'; it also stamped a Rahul Gandhi post as 'MISLEADING'. [4]
The Supreme Court's judgment of 27 May 2026 concerned the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar; the provided pages discuss the Commission's powers and contain no finding against the Prime Minister or Home Minister. [7]
The retrieved record shows the Election Commission disputed vote theft allegations made by Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition leaders, but no official document names the Prime Minister or Home Minister as being behind the alleged theft. [1][3][5]
The claim is an allegation of election rigging against the Prime Minister and Home Minister. The official record provided does not support it: the Election Commission, the constitutional body that conducts elections, rejected the 'vote chori' charge as factually incorrect and asked for proof, and the Supreme Court's judgment on the Bihar electoral-roll revision makes no finding implicating these two office-holders. Because no document, court finding or official figure connects them to vote theft, the allegation is unproven on this record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“He claimed this would be used to manipulate the voter list ahead of the 2027 assembly elections.”
The claim has two parts: that a Special Annual Revision would be pushed after the SIR, and that this would be used to manipulate the voter list. The sources show only that the Election Commission carried out the SIR in Uttar Pradesh. No document, court order or Commission note in the record mentions a SAR after the SIR or any manipulation. Because this is an allegation, the absence of such evidence leaves it without proof.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav claimed the BJP government is preparing to push a Special Annual Revision (SAR) of the electoral rolls through the Election Commission after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), and that this would be used to manipulate the voter list ahead of the 2027 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections.
hindustantimes.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The official material retrieved concerns the Special Intensive Revision, not a Special Annual Revision. The Election Commission's note says Uttar Pradesh was covered in Phase II of the SIR from October 2025 to April 2026, and deletions were carried out only after verification by Booth Level Officers. The Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment on the Bihar SIR addresses legal questions about the Commission's authority and procedure, but no source contains any document about a SAR after the SIR or about manipulated rolls.
The Election Commission released a revised schedule for the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh, with January 1, 2026 as the qualification date. [2]
The Uttar Pradesh chief electoral officer said preparations for the Special Intensive Revision were completed for the 2027 state assembly elections. [1]
A Press Information Bureau note of July 25, 2026 says Uttar Pradesh was part of Phase II of the SIR, conducted from October 2025 to April 2026, and that deletions were made only after verification by Booth Level Officers. [12]
The Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment on the Bihar SIR discusses the Election Commission's authority, procedure and timing, but it does not mention a Special Annual Revision after the SIR or a finding of manipulated rolls. [9]
The claim has two parts: that a Special Annual Revision would be pushed after the SIR, and that this would be used to manipulate the voter list. The sources show only that the Election Commission carried out the SIR in Uttar Pradesh. No document, court order or Commission note in the record mentions a SAR after the SIR or any manipulation. Because this is an allegation, the absence of such evidence leaves it without proof.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026
“However, when the results came out in 2022, I remember stating at our national convention that the Election Commission and officials had colluded to deliberately delete the votes of the Samajwadi Party.”
Akhilesh Yadav clearly makes an accusation of collusion and deliberate deletion of votes. But an accusation, even when repeated in news reports, is not proof. None of the sources contains an Election Commission inquiry, court order or official data showing that Samajwadi Party votes were deleted in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh election, let alone that officials colluded to do so. The official record present instead shows only the election result and an Election Commission note on EVM tampering, not on electoral roll deletions.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the Election Commission and officials colluded to deliberately delete Samajwadi Party votes in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh elections.
newsable.asianetnews.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
News reports quote Akhilesh Yadav making this allegation, but they contain no Election Commission of India finding, court ruling or official data confirming it. The only official election data in the sources is the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly result: the Bharatiya Janata Party won 255 of 403 seats and the Samajwadi Party won 111, as compiled by PRS Legislative Research from Election Commission results. The Election Commission's official note in the sources concerns EVM tampering and does not address deletion of voters from electoral rolls.
Akhilesh Yadav said at a press conference and recalled earlier at the Samajwadi Party's national convention that the Election Commission and officials colluded to deliberately delete Samajwadi Party votes. [2][4][7]
In the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly election, the Bharatiya Janata Party won 255 of 403 seats and the Samajwadi Party won 111, according to PRS Legislative Research using Election Commission of India data. [6]
The Election Commission's official note in the sources discusses EVM credibility and says courts found the machines tamperproof, but it does not mention deletion of voters' names from electoral rolls. [12]
Akhilesh Yadav clearly makes an accusation of collusion and deliberate deletion of votes. But an accusation, even when repeated in news reports, is not proof. None of the sources contains an Election Commission inquiry, court order or official data showing that Samajwadi Party votes were deleted in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh election, let alone that officials colluded to do so. The official record present instead shows only the election result and an Election Commission note on EVM tampering, not on electoral roll deletions.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav, Samajwadi Party (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
““When the results came out in 2022, I remember stating at our national convention that the Election Commission and officials had colluded to deliberately delete the votes of the Samajwadi Party,” Yadav said.”
The claim is an allegation of deliberate deletion and collusion. For such a claim, the record would need an Election Commission figure, a court order or a parliamentary answer. None of the sources provides one; they only report the allegation. The official material available concerns a later roll-revision exercise, so it neither confirms nor contradicts the 2022 claim.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the Election Commission and officials colluded to deliberately delete the votes of Samajwadi Party supporters during the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections.
thenewsmill.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's page for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly election in the sources does not show any deletion figures or finding of collusion. A July 2026 government note describes a later electoral roll revision with safeguards and a Supreme Court ruling upholding that process, but it does not cover the 2022 election. Media reports quote Yadav making the allegation without citing any official document.
Media reports quote Yadav as saying the Election Commission and officials colluded to delete Samajwadi Party supporters' votes in 2022, but they cite no official figure or finding. [1][4][6]
The Election Commission's 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly election page in the sources contains no deletion data or finding of collusion. [2]
A July 2026 Press Information Bureau note on a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls lists safeguards against wrongful deletion and a Supreme Court ruling on that process, not on the 2022 Uttar Pradesh election. [8]
The claim is an allegation of deliberate deletion and collusion. For such a claim, the record would need an Election Commission figure, a court order or a parliamentary answer. None of the sources provides one; they only report the allegation. The official material available concerns a later roll-revision exercise, so it neither confirms nor contradicts the 2022 claim.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofArvind Kejriwal (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“First, you demanded the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan. Now you are demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. I say, go ahead and directly demand the boss's resignation. Everything is happening at his behest.”
Kejriwal's statement is an allegation that the Chief Election Commissioner acted at the Prime Minister's direction. The sources show that petitions have been filed and political parties have made similar allegations, but no court, Election Commission document or other official record establishes that the Prime Minister directed the Chief Election Commissioner. Because the claim is an allegation without a supporting finding in the record, it is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal alleged that everything, including Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's actions, is happening at Prime Minister Narendra Modi's behest, and that the CEC acted for his "boss" not himself.
timesnownews.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, has said the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls is being carried out in phases with safeguards to prevent wrongful deletion of eligible voters [3]. Petitions in the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court allege that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took decisions on the revision without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners, but these are pending allegations, not findings [1][5][7]. No court order or official document in the record shows that Prime Minister Narendra Modi directed the Chief Election Commissioner.
A public interest litigation in the Supreme Court seeks action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged unilateral decisions on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, despite objections from the other two Election Commissioners [1][5]. [1][5]
Two petitions in the Bombay High Court challenge 14 orders issued by the Chief Election Commissioner in connection with the Special Intensive Revision in Maharashtra and seek restoration of deleted voters [1]. [1]
The Election Commission of India has said the revision includes safeguards such as door-to-door visits by Booth Level Officers, publication of draft rolls, a claims and objections period, and appeals before names are finally deleted [3]. [3]
The Congress Working Committee demanded the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner and the resignation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, alleging voter list manipulation and bias, but this is a political demand, not a finding by any court or official body [4]. [4]
Former Union minister R K Singh asked whether the Chief Election Commissioner was directed by his bosses, but the record contains no answer or finding on that question [6]. [6]
Kejriwal's statement is an allegation that the Chief Election Commissioner acted at the Prime Minister's direction. The sources show that petitions have been filed and political parties have made similar allegations, but no court, Election Commission document or other official record establishes that the Prime Minister directed the Chief Election Commissioner. Because the claim is an allegation without a supporting finding in the record, it is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Opposition parties led by Rahul Gandhi have demanded the immediate resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, accusing him of electoral manipulation and functioning under the protection of the central government.”
The demand and the 'vote chori' language are reported, but the accusation of electoral manipulation and functioning under central government protection is an allegation. The official record — the Election Commission's own press note — describes the SIR as unanimously approved and contains no finding of manipulation or protection. So the accusation is not proven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi, leading opposition parties, demanded the immediate resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, accusing him of electoral manipulation and of functioning under the protection of the central government.
indiatoday.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision order of 24 June 2025 and its schedules were issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. The Commission has also said a viral resignation letter is fake and that Gyanesh Kumar remains the Chief Election Commissioner. No court, parliamentary or Commission record in the sources finds electoral manipulation or central government protection.
The Election Commission's 26 September 2026 press note states the SIR order and its schedules were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. [7]
The Election Commission called a viral resignation letter fake and said Gyanesh Kumar remains the Chief Election Commissioner. [2]
India Today reported Rahul Gandhi demanded the CEC's resignation; The Hindu reported Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and senior leaders also demanded it. [1][5]
The demand and the 'vote chori' language are reported, but the accusation of electoral manipulation and functioning under central government protection is an allegation. The official record — the Election Commission's own press note — describes the SIR as unanimously approved and contains no finding of manipulation or protection. So the accusation is not proven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Gandhi raised the issue of "vote chori" last year and alleged irregularities in elections, which he said the news report has corroborated.”
The claim that a news report corroborated vote theft rests on a news report, not on any court order, election body finding or official figure. The official record shows the Election Commission described the electoral roll revision as lawful and safeguarded, and the Supreme Court upheld it; no official body found vote theft. Because the allegation of election irregularities is unproven in the official record, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged irregularities in elections (vote chori) last year and said a news report has corroborated it.
etvbharat.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, said in a press note on 25 July 2026 that the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls is lawful and has safeguards, and the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 27 May 2026 upheld the revision as within the ECI's mandate. The ECI's 30 September 2025 press note said Bihar's final electoral roll after the revision included nearly 7.42 crore electors. No court, election body or official figure in the record found vote theft or election irregularities.
Rahul Gandhi accused the Election Commission of India and the BJP of orchestrating 'vote chori' during the 2024 general election and recent state assembly elections. [1][2]
Wion reported 'independent verifications' of voter roll anomalies such as house number zero and duplicate names, but these are news-report claims, not official findings. [1]
The Election Commission said the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls is lawful, has safeguards against wrongful deletion, and was upheld by the Supreme Court on 27 May 2026. [9]
The Election Commission said Bihar's final electoral roll after the revision included nearly 7.42 crore electors. [10]
The claim that a news report corroborated vote theft rests on a news report, not on any court order, election body finding or official figure. The official record shows the Election Commission described the electoral roll revision as lawful and safeguarded, and the Supreme Court upheld it; no official body found vote theft. Because the allegation of election irregularities is unproven in the official record, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“The briefing comes a day after Gandhi accused the BJP, RSS and the Election Commission of being involved in what he termed 'vote chori', following reports of differences within the poll panel over decisions related to electoral rolls and the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR).”
Rahul Gandhi's charge of 'vote chori' is an allegation of election theft against the BJP, RSS and Election Commission. The available official record does not contain any court finding, election body order or official figure showing such vote theft; instead, the record shows the Supreme Court upheld the SIR process as lawful. The Election Commission's insistence that its decisions were unanimous is the poll body's own position, not independent proof, but the allegation itself remains unsupported.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi accused the BJP, the RSS and the Election Commission of being involved in what he called 'vote chori' (vote theft), following reports of differences within the poll panel over decisions on electoral rolls and the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
latestly.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Press Information Bureau's press note of 25 July 2026 states that the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls is being carried out in phases with safeguards, and that the Supreme Court, in a judgment dated 27 May 2026, held the SIR to be within the Election Commission's statutory mandate and its constitutional duty. The Election Commission has separately said that all its SIR decisions were unanimous and approved by both Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner.
The Election Commission's SIR press note says the exercise is intended to make electoral rolls accurate, up-to-date and free of ineligible or duplicate entries, while ensuring no eligible elector is left out. [5]
Safeguards listed in the press note include multiple Booth Level Officer visits before a voter is treated as untraceable, recording of reasons before deletion, publication of draft rolls, a claims and objections period, and appeals before the District Magistrate and Chief Electoral Officer. [5]
The Supreme Court held on 27 May 2026 that the SIR is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and is consistent with its constitutional obligation under Article 324 to ensure free and fair elections. [5]
The Election Commission said all its decisions, including those relating to SIR, were unanimous and had the approval of both Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner. [2]
News reports describe an Indian Express investigation in which two Election Commissioners raised concerns over SIR-related matters, but the Election Commission rejected suggestions that the objections amounted to a split in the poll panel. [4]
Rahul Gandhi's charge of 'vote chori' is an allegation of election theft against the BJP, RSS and Election Commission. The available official record does not contain any court finding, election body order or official figure showing such vote theft; instead, the record shows the Supreme Court upheld the SIR process as lawful. The Election Commission's insistence that its decisions were unanimous is the poll body's own position, not independent proof, but the allegation itself remains unsupported.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“vote theft buys not just the result, but the arrogance that follows”
Rahul Gandhi's statement is an allegation that election results were bought through vote theft. The material provided records his remark and the political dispute, but no official body has found such theft. What the official record does show is an electoral roll revision described as safeguarded and upheld by the Supreme Court. Without a document, court finding or official figure to support the specific charge, the claim remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged that vote theft buys not just election results but also the arrogance that follows.
siasat.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, describes its Special Intensive Revision as a safeguarded exercise to remove ineligible or duplicate entries while ensuring no eligible voter is left out. The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated 27 May 2026, held that the revision is within the Election Commission's legal mandate and its constitutional duty to ensure free and fair elections. No court order, Election Commission finding or official figure in the record shows that vote theft bought an election result.
News reports say Rahul Gandhi made the remark after a video showed a Delhi minister slapping a young man. [1]
The Election Commission says its Special Intensive Revision follows safeguards such as prior intimation, reasons for deletion, publication of draft rolls and claims-and-objections periods, and appeals. [10]
The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated 27 May 2026, held that the Special Intensive Revision is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate and consistent with its constitutional duty to ensure free and fair elections. [10]
The BJP has rejected the vote-theft allegations and said polls have been conducted smoothly since 2014. [6]
The record contains no court order, commission finding or official figure showing that vote theft bought an election result. [10]
Rahul Gandhi's statement is an allegation that election results were bought through vote theft. The material provided records his remark and the political dispute, but no official body has found such theft. What the official record does show is an electoral roll revision described as safeguarded and upheld by the Supreme Court. Without a document, court finding or official figure to support the specific charge, the claim remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Rahul Gandhi Says ‘Vote Chori’ Is Treason, Targets BJP, RSS And EC Amid SIR Electoral Roll Row”
The claim is an allegation of vote theft and treason against the BJP, RSS and Election Commission. The official record contains no finding of vote theft or treason; the Election Commission describes the Special Intensive Revision as a routine, legal revision and denies the charge. A court petition is pending, not decided. So the allegation is unproven on the available record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said that 'vote chori' (vote theft) amounts to treason, and targeted the BJP, the RSS and the Election Commission in the row over SIR (Special Intensive Revision) of electoral rolls.
outlookindia.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's official note on Bihar's Special Intensive Revision, published on 30 September 2025, says the final electoral roll has nearly 7.42 crore electors and that the exercise followed Article 326 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1950, with appeals available. The Commission has also said the revision is routine and legally mandated, and it has denied allegations of vote theft; it says decisions taken by the full Commission over the past year were unanimous. A Supreme Court petition seeking criminal prosecution of the Chief Election Commissioner and a forensic inquiry is pending, but no court has ruled on it.
Rahul Gandhi accused the BJP, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Election Commission of involvement in 'vote chori' and called the alleged irregularities treason. [1][5][7][8]
The Election Commission has said the Special Intensive Revision is a routine, legally mandated process under the Representation of the People Act and has denied the vote-theft allegations. [3][5][7]
The Election Commission's official note on Bihar's Special Intensive Revision, dated 30 September 2025, says the final electoral roll has nearly 7.42 crore electors and that the exercise followed Article 326 and the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [4]
Reports say two Election Commissioners raised objections at least 14 times over 10 months, but the Commission says its decisions were unanimous. [2][5][7]
A Supreme Court petition seeks prosecution of the Chief Election Commissioner and a forensic inquiry into electoral-roll data, but no court order in the record upholds the allegation. [6]
The claim is an allegation of vote theft and treason against the BJP, RSS and Election Commission. The official record contains no finding of vote theft or treason; the Election Commission describes the Special Intensive Revision as a routine, legal revision and denies the charge. A court petition is pending, not decided. So the allegation is unproven on the available record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“IIT-JEE 2021 and Uttarakhand Patwari 2025 for Rs 15 lakhs”
₹15 lakh each
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
₹15 lakh each
Rahul Gandhi alleged that leaked IIT-JEE 2021 and Uttarakhand Patwari 2025 question papers were being sold for Rs 15 lakhs each.
wionews.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Central Bureau of Investigation has officially confirmed a NEET-UG 2026 paper leak and said students allegedly paid several lakhs of rupees for special coaching, but its release does not mention IIT-JEE 2021, Uttarakhand Patwari 2025, or a Rs 15 lakh price. Uttarakhand reporting shows paper leaks in a UKSSSC graduate-level exam in September 2025 and in UTU semester exams, but none identifies the Patwari 2025 exam or any sale price.
Rahul Gandhi displayed a chart listing Rs 15 lakh each for IIT-JEE 2021 and Uttarakhand Patwari 2025; this is the figure repeated in news reports. [1][2]
The CBI's 15 May 2026 release confirms a NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, and says students allegedly paid 'several lakhs of rupees' for coaching, but it does not mention IIT-JEE 2021, Uttarakhand Patwari 2025 or Rs 15 lakh. [7]
Students protested after a UKSSSC graduate-level exam paper leak on 21 September 2025 in Uttarakhand, and police investigated; no source states this was the Patwari 2025 exam or gives a price. [3]
Uttarakhand police arrested an assistant professor over a UTU semester exam leak, but that is a different exam and no price is stated. [4][5][6]
The only source for the Rs 15 lakh figure is the graphic Rahul Gandhi himself displayed, which news reports repeated. The official CBI record and Uttarakhand reports concern different exams and do not name IIT-JEE 2021 or Uttarakhand Patwari 2025, nor do they state any sale price. Because the claim is an allegation with no document, court finding or official figure in the record, it is marked NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Anti-incumbency is India's greatest political force. But why doesn't this force affect Narendra Modi and Amit Shah—the answer has been given by two Election Commissioners”
The substance of the claim is an allegation that electoral roll manipulation, described by two Election Commissioners, explains why anti-incumbency does not affect Narendra Modi and Amit Shah. No official document in the record establishes that the two commissioners actually gave that answer; only news reports of the dissent are present. The official PIB release offers a different explanation—voter endorsement of Modi and the BJP—but it is a government press release and does not settle the electoral process question. Because the Election Commission's own dissent notes or findings are missing from the record, the causal claim cannot be verified.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said anti-incumbency is India's greatest political force but does not affect Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, and that two Election Commissioners have given the answer to why.
indiablooms.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The only official document in the record, a Press Information Bureau release dated 30 December 2024, says Narendra Modi won a third term and the BJP won Haryana, Maharashtra and Odisha in 2024, describing this as an exception to a global anti-incumbency wave; it does not cite any Election Commissioner's explanation. News reports say Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi dissented over the Special Intensive Revision, but the record contains no Election Commission order, dissent note or finding stating why anti-incumbency did not affect Modi and Shah.
At a press conference on 24 September 2026, Rahul Gandhi said: “Anti-incumbency is India's greatest political force. But why doesn't this force affect Narendra Modi and Amit Shah—the answer has been given by two Election Commissioners.” [2]
Press reports state that Gandhi linked the claim to an Indian Express report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected to discrepancies in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and had dissented from Election Commission decisions at least 14 times over 10 months. [5][6]
A Press Information Bureau release dated 30 December 2024 says Narendra Modi won a third term and the BJP won Haryana, Maharashtra and Odisha in 2024, presenting this as an exception to anti-incumbency; the release does not mention any explanation by the two Election Commissioners. [4]
The substance of the claim is an allegation that electoral roll manipulation, described by two Election Commissioners, explains why anti-incumbency does not affect Narendra Modi and Amit Shah. No official document in the record establishes that the two commissioners actually gave that answer; only news reports of the dissent are present. The official PIB release offers a different explanation—voter endorsement of Modi and the BJP—but it is a government press release and does not settle the electoral process question. Because the Election Commission's own dissent notes or findings are missing from the record, the causal claim cannot be verified.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Both Narendra Modi and Amit Shah are at the centre of this conspiracy, and they will be investigated for what they have done to this country. This is an act against the Indian state and the people of India. We refuse to remain silent while this is happening.”
This is an allegation of election rigging and institutional capture. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure in the sources, and the record contains none. The court orders provided concern a different fraud case. Therefore the allegation is not proved by the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged that Narendra Modi and Amit Shah are at the centre of a conspiracy to steal elections at national and state levels and will be investigated for acting against the Indian state and people.
indiablooms.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The only official documents in the source set are two Punjab and Haryana High Court bail orders dated 22 December 2025 in an Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society fraud case involving persons named Mukesh Modi and Rahul Virendra Modi; they do not concern election rigging or the Prime Minister and Home Minister [7][8]. The remaining sources are media reports of a Congress press conference on 24 September 2026 in which Rahul Gandhi demanded the Chief Election Commissioner's resignation and alleged that Narendra Modi and Amit Shah were at the top of a conspiracy to 'steal elections' [1][2][3]. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson dismissed the allegation, saying transparent elections have made it impossible for the Congress to win [3].
The sources are news reports of a press conference, not official findings; they quote Rahul Gandhi's allegation that Modi and Shah were at the top of a conspiracy to steal elections. [1][2][3]
The BJP's spokesperson rejected the allegation, saying transparent elections have made it impossible for the Congress to win. [3]
The two court orders in the source set concern bail pleas in an Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society fraud case, not election rigging or the Prime Minister and Home Minister. [7][8]
This is an allegation of election rigging and institutional capture. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure in the sources, and the record contains none. The court orders provided concern a different fraud case. Therefore the allegation is not proved by the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026
“He claimed that in Lucknow, a single person had submitted applications for deletion of more than 100 votes, despite rules limiting the number of applications that can be filed by an individual.”
The claim contains two load-bearing parts: that one person in Lucknow filed more than 100 deletion applications, and that rules limit the number of applications an individual can file. The official Form 7 rules in the sources set out eligibility and procedure but do not set any such numerical limit, and no source provides applicant-wise data for Lucknow to confirm or refute the specific allegation of more than 100 applications by one person. Because the claim is an allegation of electoral roll irregularity without any supporting document, official figure, court order, or independent data, it is not proved.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav claimed that in Lucknow, a single person had submitted applications for deletion of more than 100 votes, despite rules limiting the number of applications that can be filed by an individual.
freepressjournal.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's Form 7 and its guidelines state that only a person already enrolled in the electoral roll of the same assembly constituency may file an objection for deletion, and they list the permissible grounds for deletion. They do not fix any cap on how many applications one person can submit. The Uttar Pradesh chief electoral officer said Form 7 is not received in bulk and reported statewide figures of 49,399 forms before the draft roll and 82,684 later, but the sources contain no applicant-wise or Lucknow-specific data showing that a single person filed more than 100 deletion applications.
The Election Commission's official Form 7 and guidelines state that an objection for deletion can be filed only by a person whose name is already on the electoral roll of the same assembly constituency, and they list the permissible grounds but set no numerical limit on how many applications one person may file. [2][3][6][8]
The Uttar Pradesh chief electoral officer said Form 7 is not received by the electoral registration officer in bulk, and reported that 49,399 Form 7 applications were received before the draft roll publication and 82,684 between January 6 and February 4. [4][5]
No source provides a list of Form 7 applicants for Lucknow or any official finding identifying a single person who submitted applications for deletion of more than 100 votes. [4][5]
The claim contains two load-bearing parts: that one person in Lucknow filed more than 100 deletion applications, and that rules limit the number of applications an individual can file. The official Form 7 rules in the sources set out eligibility and procedure but do not set any such numerical limit, and no source provides applicant-wise data for Lucknow to confirm or refute the specific allegation of more than 100 applications by one person. Because the claim is an allegation of electoral roll irregularity without any supporting document, official figure, court order, or independent data, it is not proved.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026
“Showing fake job data while Rupee slides against Dollar”
The part of the claim about the rupee sliding is supported by official parliamentary replies. But the allegation that the government is presenting fake employment data is not backed by any document, official statistic, court order or independent verification in the record. Because that central accusation is unsupported, the claim as a whole is not established.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said the government is presenting fake employment/job data at a time when the Indian rupee is sliding against the US dollar.
news.webindia123.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Parliamentary replies record the rupee’s fall: the Finance Ministry told Parliament the rupee depreciated 7.49% in 2025-26 up to 17 March 2026, and a separate government reply put the rupee at ₹89.4 per US dollar on 4 December 2025, against ₹63.04 at end-2014. The retrieved record contains no employment data or official finding that job figures were fake.
The rupee has fallen against the dollar: a Finance Ministry reply in Parliament recorded a 7.49% depreciation in 2025-26 up to 17 March 2026. [2]
A government reply in Parliament said the rupee closed at ₹89.4 per US dollar on 4 December 2025, compared with ₹63.04 per dollar on 31 December 2014. [3]
The part of the claim about the rupee sliding is supported by official parliamentary replies. But the allegation that the government is presenting fake employment data is not backed by any document, official statistic, court order or independent verification in the record. Because that central accusation is unsupported, the claim as a whole is not established.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026
“In Lucknow, more than 100 Form 7 applications were filled by one person, when the rule says no more than five forms can be filled with one signature. As a result, more than 100 votes were deleted.”
The claim rests on three specific points: a Lucknow incident, a numerical limit of five forms per signature, and a resulting deletion of more than 100 votes. None of these appears in the official Form 7 or the parliamentary record provided, and the only bulk-application reporting in the sources concerns Karnataka. The absence of any official figure, electoral officer report, or court finding means the allegation is not established.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said that in Lucknow more than 100 Form 7 applications for deletion of electoral roll entries were filled by a single person, although the rule allows no more than five forms per signature, and that more than 100 votes were consequently deleted.
indiatoday.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's Form 7 is an application to object to the proposed inclusion or deletion of one person's name in the electoral roll. The form as provided cites Rules 13(2) and 26 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, but contains no five-forms-per-signature limit. A parliamentary answer on the Special Intensive Revision says grievances filed during the claims and objections period are examined and, where found valid, names are restored before the roll is finalised.
The Election Commission's Form 7 is a voter application form for objecting to the proposed inclusion or deletion of a name in an existing electoral roll. [2][4]
The provided Form 7 does not mention any rule that no more than five forms may be filed with one signature. [2][3][4]
A parliamentary answer says grievances received during the claims and objections period of the Special Intensive Revision are examined and, where valid, names are restored before finalisation. [7]
The sources contain reporting of bulk Form 7 concerns in Karnataka, not Lucknow. [5]
The claim rests on three specific points: a Lucknow incident, a numerical limit of five forms per signature, and a resulting deletion of more than 100 votes. None of these appears in the official Form 7 or the parliamentary record provided, and the only bulk-application reporting in the sources concerns Karnataka. The absence of any official figure, electoral officer report, or court finding means the allegation is not established.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026
“Those who had voted in 2019 were denied the opportunity to vote in 2022 without notice and without adherence to any rules or laws, and the result was that a Samajwadi government was not formed in 2022...”
The claim is an allegation of electoral roll manipulation that changed the election result. Such a claim needs an official finding, data or court order to be established. The record contains only Akhilesh Yadav's statements and news reports of them. No Election Commission data on deletions, no court order and no independent verification is present. The election result itself is not evidence of manipulation.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said voters who had voted in 2019 were denied the opportunity to vote in 2022 without notice or adherence to rules, and that this prevented a Samajwadi government from being formed in 2022.
newsable.asianetnews.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The sources are news reports of Akhilesh Yadav's allegation. He said voters who had voted in 2019 were denied the opportunity to vote in 2022 without notice or adherence to rules, and linked this to the Samajwadi Party not forming a government. The reports note this remains the party's allegation and has not been established as a finding about the election result. The Election Commission's 2022 Uttar Pradesh election page contains a press note on the election schedule, not any finding on deletions. The BJP won 255 of 403 seats in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly election and formed the government.
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that voters who had voted in 2019 were denied the opportunity to vote in 2022 without notice or adherence to rules, and that this prevented a Samajwadi Party government from being formed. [1][2][4][5][6][7]
The reports state that the claim remains the Samajwadi Party's allegation and has not been established as a finding about the 2022 election result. [2]
The Election Commission of India's page for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly election contains a press note on the election schedule, not any finding on electoral roll deletions. [3]
The BJP won 255 of 403 seats in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly election and formed the government under Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. [4][6]
The claim is an allegation of electoral roll manipulation that changed the election result. Such a claim needs an official finding, data or court order to be established. The record contains only Akhilesh Yadav's statements and news reports of them. No Election Commission data on deletions, no court order and no independent verification is present. The election result itself is not evidence of manipulation.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“The 2024 Lok Sabha election was completely fake. The elections before that were also completely fake. Even in the assembly elections, there was rigging”
The claim alleges complete fraud across multiple elections, but the official record offers no such finding. The Election Commission's data shows a normal, large-scale election with a tiny number of repolls, and no court has ruled that the 2024 or earlier Lok Sabha elections were fake or that assembly elections were rigged. An NGO report raised concerns, but that is not an official finding of complete fraud. Because this is an allegation without supporting documents, court rulings or official figures, the appropriate verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said the 2024 Lok Sabha election was completely fake, that the elections before it were also completely fake, and that there was rigging even in assembly elections.
ummid.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's granular data for the 2024 Lok Sabha election shows 64.64 crore votes were polled and repolls were held at only 40 polling stations, or 0.0038% of all polling stations. No court or official body has found that the 2024 Lok Sabha election or earlier Lok Sabha elections were completely fake, or that assembly elections were rigged. The one judicial finding of electoral malpractice cited is from a municipal corporation election in Chandigarh, where the Supreme Court set aside the mayor's election due to a presiding officer's misconduct—not a Lok Sabha or state assembly election.
The Election Commission reported that in the 2024 Lok Sabha election, 64.64 crore votes were polled and repolls were held at only 40 polling stations out of 10,52,664, which is 0.0038% of all polling stations. [9]
The Press Information Bureau has published that various High Courts have held EVMs credible, reliable and tamperproof, based on technological and administrative safeguards. [12]
The Supreme Court found malpractice only in a Chandigarh Municipal Corporation mayor election due to a presiding officer marking ballots invalid; it set aside that result and declared the appellant elected, but did not find rigging in Lok Sabha or assembly elections. [11]
The claim alleges complete fraud across multiple elections, but the official record offers no such finding. The Election Commission's data shows a normal, large-scale election with a tiny number of repolls, and no court has ruled that the 2024 or earlier Lok Sabha elections were fake or that assembly elections were rigged. An NGO report raised concerns, but that is not an official finding of complete fraud. Because this is an allegation without supporting documents, court rulings or official figures, the appropriate verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026
“He further alleged that irregularities in electoral rolls had affected the outcome of the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections.”
This is an allegation about election integrity. The record contains the speaker's claim and his party's assertion, but no Election Commission finding, court order, or independent data supports that electoral roll irregularities changed the 2022 Uttar Pradesh result. The official ECI pages for that election do not record any such finding. Therefore the claim is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that irregularities in electoral rolls had affected the outcome of the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections.
freepressjournal.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Akhilesh Yadav and his party have claimed that voters' names were deliberately deleted from the rolls and that this prevented the Samajwadi Party from forming the government in 2022 [1][5]. The Election Commission of India (ECI), which runs elections, has official pages for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly election, and they contain no finding that electoral roll irregularities affected the outcome [2][6]. No court order or independent data in the record supports the claim.
Akhilesh Yadav alleged 'vote theft' in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh polls and linked the result to that alleged theft [1]. [1]
After the 2022 election, the Samajwadi Party said it gave a list of voters whose names were 'deliberately deleted' from the rolls, and claimed that due to this the party was unable to form the government in 2022 [5]. [5]
The Election Commission of India's official pages for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly election contain no finding that electoral roll irregularities affected the outcome [2][6]. [2][6]
This is an allegation about election integrity. The record contains the speaker's claim and his party's assertion, but no Election Commission finding, court order, or independent data supports that electoral roll irregularities changed the 2022 Uttar Pradesh result. The official ECI pages for that election do not record any such finding. Therefore the claim is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Gandhi claims that places where the SIR of electoral rolls was conducted, the BJP won by “vote chori”, but facts are otherwise, he said.”
The claim is an allegation of vote theft, but the official record describes the Special Intensive Revision as a roll-revision process with verification safeguards. Rahul Gandhi has offered no document, court finding or official figure showing that the BJP won any election through theft in places where the revision was conducted. The available records contain nothing that supports the charge, so it remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi claimed that in places where the SIR of electoral rolls was conducted, the BJP won by 'vote chori' (vote theft).
theprint.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision is a phased exercise to make electoral rolls accurate. It appointed Special Roll Observers in states including West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan. Deletions under the revision are done only after verification by Booth Level Officers through house-to-house visits, for reasons such as death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries or untraceable electors.
The Election Commission appointed Special Roll Observers for the Special Intensive Revision in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan. [1]
Deletions during the Special Intensive Revision are carried out only after verification by Booth Level Officers through house-to-house enumeration, under categories such as death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries and untraceable electors. [5]
The Election Commission's official 2024 Lok Sabha data show 10,52,664 polling stations and repolls at only 40 of them; the data do not record any constituency being won through vote theft. [6]
The claim is an allegation of vote theft, but the official record describes the Special Intensive Revision as a roll-revision process with verification safeguards. Rahul Gandhi has offered no document, court finding or official figure showing that the BJP won any election through theft in places where the revision was conducted. The available records contain nothing that supports the charge, so it remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026
“He also alleged that the Commission failed to act on numerous complaints filed by his party, including during the Special Intensive Revision ...”
The statement asserts that the Election Commission ignored numerous complaints from his party. The record contains the general complaints mechanism and a court ruling upholding the Special Intensive Revision process, but nothing that lists Samajwadi Party complaints or shows the Commission failed to act on them. Since the allegation is not supported by any document, court finding or official figure in the sources, it is not proved.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the Election Commission failed to act on numerous complaints filed by his party, including during the Special Intensive Revision.
msn.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Special Intensive Revision is the Election Commission's exercise to update and clean electoral rolls. A Parliament answer says grievances received during the claims and objections period are examined, and where valid, names are restored before the final electoral roll is published. An Election Commission press note says the Supreme Court examined the Special Intensive Revision and held that the exercise was within the Commission's statutory mandate. No document in the record identifies any Samajwadi Party complaint, the number of complaints, or an Election Commission refusal to act on them.
During the Special Intensive Revision, grievances received in the claims and objections period are examined, and where valid, names are restored before the final electoral roll is published. [10]
An Election Commission press note says the Supreme Court examined the legality of the Special Intensive Revision and held that the exercise was within the Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and consistent with Article 324. [6]
The statement asserts that the Election Commission ignored numerous complaints from his party. The record contains the general complaints mechanism and a court ruling upholding the Special Intensive Revision process, but nothing that lists Samajwadi Party complaints or shows the Commission failed to act on them. Since the allegation is not supported by any document, court finding or official figure in the sources, it is not proved.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026
“2022 के विधानसभा चुनाव में भी सपा समर्थकों के वोट चिह्नित करके काटे गए थे। उपचुनावों में भी बड़े पैमाने पर अधिकारियों की मनमानी पोस्टिंग कराकर बेईमानी की गई थी।”
The claim makes two serious allegations: that SP supporters' votes were marked and cut in 2022, and that by-election officials were arbitrarily posted to enable dishonesty. The record before us contains Akhilesh Yadav repeating these charges, but no election commission report, court order or independent analysis confirms them. The official ECI page and the Quint result analysis do not show such findings, and the Indian Express investigation is about internal dissent in the commission, a separate matter.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said that in the 2022 assembly elections SP supporters' votes were marked and cut, and that in by-elections large-scale arbitrary posting of officials was done to commit dishonesty.
bhaskar.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India (ECI), which runs elections, has an official 2022 Uttar Pradesh page that carries the election schedule and a press note, not any finding on vote deletion or officer postings. Media reports quote Akhilesh Yadav claiming SP votes were deliberately deleted, but they report the allegation rather than verify it. The Indian Express investigation he cites concerns objections by two Election Commissioners to ECI decisions, a separate matter from the 2022 deletion or by-election posting claims.
Media reports quote Akhilesh Yadav alleging that Samajwadi Party supporters' votes were deliberately deleted in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly election. [2][3][6]
The Election Commission of India's official page for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly election carries the election schedule and a press note, with no finding on marked or cut SP votes. [4][5]
A Quint fact-check of official 2022 result data finds only 29 seats were won by a margin under 2,000 votes, and the BJP won 18 of them; it does not examine the deletion or by-poll posting allegation. [8]
The Indian Express investigation reports formal objections by two Election Commissioners to Election Commission decisions, not evidence of 2022 vote deletion or by-election posting manipulation. [1]
The claim makes two serious allegations: that SP supporters' votes were marked and cut in 2022, and that by-election officials were arbitrarily posted to enable dishonesty. The record before us contains Akhilesh Yadav repeating these charges, but no election commission report, court order or independent analysis confirms them. The official ECI page and the Quint result analysis do not show such findings, and the Indian Express investigation is about internal dissent in the commission, a separate matter.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofArvind Kejriwalchecked 30 Sept 2026
“Arvind Kejriwal alleged ‘vote-chori’ and demanded CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s arrest, cancellation of SIR and fresh elections in ...”
Arvind Kejriwal's 'vote theft' charge is an allegation, not an established fact. The Election Commission's official press note says the Special Intensive Revision decisions were taken unanimously, and the Supreme Court has set up a judicial mechanism to decide voter-list claims rather than confirming any theft. The demand for the Chief Election Commissioner's arrest is a political call, and no court or commission in the sources has upheld the alleged wrongdoing.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal alleged 'vote-chori' (vote theft) and demanded the arrest of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
oneindia.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision order of 24 June 2025 and later schedules were issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. In the West Bengal matter, the Supreme Court entrusted voter-list claims to judicial officers and a committee of former judges, but recorded no finding of vote theft. A public interest litigation seeking action against the Chief Election Commissioner remains pending in the sources.
The Election Commission says the Special Intensive Revision order of 24 June 2025 and later schedules were issued with the unanimous approval of all three commissioners, not by the Chief Election Commissioner alone. [10]
The Supreme Court, facing allegations and counter-allegations about the Special Intensive Revision process in West Bengal, entrusted claims about voter-list inclusions and exclusions to judicial officers, and did not record a finding of vote theft. [11]
A public interest litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, but the sources contain no court order upholding the allegation of vote theft. [8]
Calls for the Chief Election Commissioner's arrest have come from opposition leaders, including Mamata Banerjee and Andhra Pradesh Congress leaders, but these are political demands, not official findings. [1][7]
Arvind Kejriwal's 'vote theft' charge is an allegation, not an established fact. The Election Commission's official press note says the Special Intensive Revision decisions were taken unanimously, and the Supreme Court has set up a judicial mechanism to decide voter-list claims rather than confirming any theft. The demand for the Chief Election Commissioner's arrest is a political call, and no court or commission in the sources has upheld the alleged wrongdoing.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Gandhi listed alleged prices of leaked papers such as NEET UG 2026 for Rs 40 lakhs, IIT-JEE 2021 and Uttarakhand Patwari 2025 for Rs 15 lakhs, Bihar Teacher Recruitment 2024 for Rs 10 lakhs and Odisha Police Sub-Inspector 2025 for Rs 25 lakhs.”
The official record confirms one of the five exams, NEET-UG 2026, was indeed hit by a paper leak, with CBI arrests and charges framed. But the core of the assertion is a fixed rate card with exact prices for each leaked paper, and no source provides evidence for that. For NEET-UG 2026, the CBI says students paid several lakhs, not Rs 40 lakh; for the other four exams there is no retrieved record. Because the price list is an allegation without an official document, court finding or published data, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi listed alleged prices of leaked examination papers: NEET UG 2026 at Rs 40 lakhs, IIT-JEE 2021 and Uttarakhand Patwari 2025 at Rs 15 lakhs, Bihar Teacher Recruitment 2024 at Rs 10 lakhs, and Odisha Police Sub-Inspector 2025 at Rs 25 lakhs.
wionews.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The CBI, India's federal investigating agency, registered a case in the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak and said it arrested the 'kingpin'; its press note says students paid 'several lakhs of rupees' for special coaching where leaked questions were dictated, not the Rs 40 lakh figure cited at the rally. A Times of India report says charges were framed against 52 accused in a NEET-UG paper leak case. No retrieved source provides any official figure or document for the alleged prices of IIT-JEE 2021, Uttarakhand Patwari 2025, Bihar Teacher Recruitment 2024 or Odisha Police Sub-Inspector 2025 papers.
Media reports from the Dehradun rally said Rahul Gandhi displayed a chart listing alleged leaked-paper prices: Rs 40 lakh for NEET UG 2026, Rs 15 lakh each for IIT-JEE 2021 and Uttarakhand Patwari 2025, Rs 10 lakh for Bihar Teacher Recruitment 2024, and Rs 25 lakh for Odisha Police Sub-Inspector 2025. [1][3]
The CBI registered a case in the alleged NEET-UG 2026 paper leak based on a complaint from the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education. [5]
The CBI said it arrested the 'kingpin' in the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak case and that students allegedly paid 'several lakhs of rupees' for special coaching classes where leaked questions were dictated. [4]
Charges have been framed against 52 accused in a NEET-UG paper leak case, according to a Times of India report. [6]
The official record confirms one of the five exams, NEET-UG 2026, was indeed hit by a paper leak, with CBI arrests and charges framed. But the core of the assertion is a fixed rate card with exact prices for each leaked paper, and no source provides evidence for that. For NEET-UG 2026, the CBI says students paid several lakhs, not Rs 40 lakh; for the other four exams there is no retrieved record. Because the price list is an allegation without an official document, court finding or published data, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026
“Akhilesh Yadav addressed a public meeting in Raebareli, alleging the Election Commission assisted in vote theft during 2022.”
This is an allegation that the Election Commission helped steal votes. The sources show the allegation being made and then disputed by district officials and the Commission. What is missing is an independent finding — a court order, an Election Commission investigation, or published election data — that upholds it. The Commission's denial and the district magistrates' statements are positions, not proof.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged at a public meeting in Raebareli that the Election Commission assisted in 'vote theft' during the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly polls.
msn.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Media reports record that Akhilesh Yadav alleged vote theft in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh elections. District magistrates publicly said voter-list deletions were carried out lawfully, and the Election Commission said it had not received the Samajwadi Party's affidavits. The Election Commission's own 2022 Uttar Pradesh election pages and statistical reports available in the record contain no finding that the Commission assisted vote theft.
Media reports record that Akhilesh Yadav alleged vote theft during the 2022 Uttar Pradesh elections and said his party has no trust in the Election Commission. [1][2]
Three Uttar Pradesh district magistrates publicly countered the allegations, saying voter-list deletions were lawful and carried out as per rules; the Election Commission said it had not received the SP's affidavits, while Akhilesh Yadav said receipts from the Commission's office showed otherwise. [3]
The Election Commission of India's official pages for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly election contain press notes and statistical reports but no finding that the Commission assisted vote theft. [4][5][6]
After the 2022 assembly results, political parties raised concerns about EVM tampering; the Election Commission stated that high courts had held EVMs credible and tamperproof, and that it had technical and administrative safeguards in place. [10]
This is an allegation that the Election Commission helped steal votes. The sources show the allegation being made and then disputed by district officials and the Commission. What is missing is an independent finding — a court order, an Election Commission investigation, or published election data — that upholds it. The Commission's denial and the district magistrates' statements are positions, not proof.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Indian elections being rigged: Rahul Gandhi mounts big attack on EC, government over SIR dissent row”
The claim is an allegation of rigging. The record contains no document, court finding or official figure that supports it. Where the Supreme Court examined the SIR deletions, it did not uphold the charge that they were procedurally unlawful; it found them consistent with Rule 21A. The Election Commission denies internal dissent and describes the revision as a safeguarded statutory exercise.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said Indian elections are being rigged, mounting an attack on the Election Commission and the government over the SIR dissent row.
msn.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, has said all decisions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were approved by all three Election Commissioners, and it rejected reports of internal dissent as part of normal administrative process. In a 27 May 2026 judgment on the Bihar SIR, the Supreme Court held that deletions made under the revision could not be said to be contrary to the procedure under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. A parliamentary answer describes the SIR as a house-to-house enumeration with a draft roll, a claims and objections period, and restoration of valid grievances before final publication.
The Election Commission said all decisions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken with the approval of all three Election Commissioners, and that the Form 6 changes were upheld by the Supreme Court. [6]
The Election Commission rejected the suggestion of internal dissent, describing the observations as part of the normal administrative and decision-making process. [7]
In its 27 May 2026 judgment on the Bihar SIR, the Supreme Court held that deletions effected under the Special Intensive Revision could not be said to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. [9][10]
A Lok Sabha answer said the SIR exercise involved house-to-house enumeration, publication of a draft roll, a claims and objections period, and final publication after verification; grievances found valid are restored before finalisation. [11]
The claim is an allegation of rigging. The record contains no document, court finding or official figure that supports it. Where the Supreme Court examined the SIR deletions, it did not uphold the charge that they were procedurally unlawful; it found them consistent with Rule 21A. The Election Commission denies internal dissent and describes the revision as a safeguarded statutory exercise.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“He questioned Rahul Gandhi’s claim that BJP won through “vote theft” wherever the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral roll is done, citing Tamil Nadu and Kerala where the BJP did not sweep win.”
The claim is an allegation of vote theft tied to a specific electoral-roll exercise. The official record treats the Special Intensive Revision as a lawful, safeguarded process, and the Supreme Court has upheld its deletions as following procedure. No source provides results or evidence that the BJP won any election through theft in the revised states. The claim therefore lacks proof in the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi claimed that the BJP won through 'vote theft' wherever the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral roll is done.
deccanchronicle.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission describes the Special Intensive Revision as a phased exercise to make rolls accurate and remove ineligible, duplicate or untraceable entries, with house-to-house verification, draft rolls, claims and objections, and appeals before the roll is finalised. The Supreme Court in 2026 INSC 564 held that deletions under the Special Intensive Revision cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. No document, court finding or official election result in the record shows that the BJP won through vote theft wherever the revision was conducted.
The Election Commission says the Special Intensive Revision is carried out in phases with safeguards to ensure no eligible elector is left out, and that deletions happen only after verification by Booth Level Officers. [6][7]
The Supreme Court held that deletions effected under the Special Intensive Revision cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. [8][9]
The record contains no official data or court finding showing that the BJP won elections through vote theft in states where the Special Intensive Revision was done. [2][3][5][8]
The claim is an allegation of vote theft tied to a specific electoral-roll exercise. The official record treats the Special Intensive Revision as a lawful, safeguarded process, and the Supreme Court has upheld its deletions as following procedure. No source provides results or evidence that the BJP won any election through theft in the revised states. The claim therefore lacks proof in the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Gandhi also said that there is no doubt that the 2024 election was "completely fixed and rigged".”
The claim is an allegation that the entire 2024 election was fixed. The record before us contains no court finding, Election Commission admission, or official data showing that. What the official record shows is a completed election with repolls at a tiny fraction of polling stations, and the Supreme Court found no actionable material in a related EVM-VVPAT challenge. Independent groups have raised doubts, but doubts and allegations are not proof.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said there is no doubt that the 2024 general election was completely fixed and rigged.
newindianexpress.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's published 2024 data record 64.64 crore votes polled across 10,52,664 polling stations, with repolls ordered at only 40 polling stations, or 0.0038 per cent [9]. In a Supreme Court order examining EVMs and VVPATs before the 2024 polls, the court said it was not doubting the Election Commission's fairness or integrity and that no actionable material had been placed to show a breach of its mandate [5]. Independent groups have alleged manipulation and an unexplained rise in turnout figures, but those remain allegations, not a court or Election Commission finding [3][8].
Election Commission data show 64.64 crore votes were polled in the 2024 Lok Sabha election and repolls were ordered at only 40 of 10,52,664 polling stations, or 0.0038 per cent [9]. [9]
A Supreme Court order in an EVM-VVPAT matter said the court was not doubting the Election Commission's fairness or integrity and that the petitioner had placed no actionable material showing the Election Commission breached its mandate [5]. [5]
The Election Commission has said EVMs are electronically protected from tampering, and that High Courts have repeatedly held them credible, reliable and tamperproof [10]. [10]
A report by the civil society group Vote for Democracy alleged vote manipulation and a five-crore increase between initial and final turnout, but this is an allegation by a non-government group, not a court or Election Commission finding [3][8]. [3][8]
The claim is an allegation that the entire 2024 election was fixed. The record before us contains no court finding, Election Commission admission, or official data showing that. What the official record shows is a completed election with repolls at a tiny fraction of polling stations, and the Supreme Court found no actionable material in a related EVM-VVPAT challenge. Independent groups have raised doubts, but doubts and allegations are not proof.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofArvind Kejriwalchecked 30 Sept 2026
“AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal accused CEC Gyanesh Kumar of masterminding a vote-rigging scheme.”
This is an allegation by a political leader, not a documented fact. The official Election Commission record before us says the Special Intensive Revision orders were approved by the full Commission, and the Supreme Court order on a related electoral roll dispute does not uphold the charge. No court judgment, official figure or poll record in the sources finds that CEC Gyanesh Kumar masterminded vote-rigging.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of masterminding a vote-rigging scheme.
msn.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
News reports say Kejriwal accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of orchestrating vote-rigging and demanded his arrest on sedition charges. The Election Commission's press note says the Special Intensive Revision orders were issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. A Supreme Court order on the West Bengal electoral roll process set up judicial scrutiny of objections because of allegations and counter-allegations, but it made no finding that the CEC rigged votes.
The Election Commission's press note says the Special Intensive Revision order of 24 June 2025 and later schedules were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. [10]
The Supreme Court, while dealing with objections to the West Bengal electoral roll process, entrusted adjudication of objections to judicial officers and a committee of former judges; the order records allegations but does not find vote-rigging by the CEC. [11]
News reports record Kejriwal's allegation that CEC Gyanesh Kumar masterminded a vote-rigging scheme, but no source provides an official finding or document proving that claim. [1][2][3][5]
This is an allegation by a political leader, not a documented fact. The official Election Commission record before us says the Special Intensive Revision orders were approved by the full Commission, and the Supreme Court order on a related electoral roll dispute does not uphold the charge. No court judgment, official figure or poll record in the sources finds that CEC Gyanesh Kumar masterminded vote-rigging.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“"So, there are two forms of match-fixing: EVM match-fixing and voter list match-fixing, both are happening,"”
The claim is an allegation of election rigging through two methods. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure for it. The official record shows that courts have repeatedly upheld EVMs as tamperproof, and the Election Commission's own data show a completed 2024 election with repolls in only 40 of 10.52 lakh polling stations. On voter lists, the SIR is a statutory revision with safeguards, and the Supreme Court has examined it. The record therefore does not support the allegation that both forms of match-fixing are happening.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said there are two forms of election match-fixing — EVM match-fixing and voter list match-fixing — and that both are happening.
newindianexpress.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, has said that EVMs are electronically protected and tamperproof, and that various High Courts have held them credible and reliable. Its published data for the 2024 Lok Sabha election show repolls in only 40 of 10,52,664 polling stations. On voter lists, the Special Intensive Revision is described in the parliamentary record as a house-to-house enumeration with a draft roll, a claims and objections period, and restoration of valid names before the final roll; the Supreme Court examined the SIR in a judgment dated 27 May 2026.
The Election Commission has said EVMs are electronically protected to prevent tampering, and that High Courts have held the machines credible, reliable and tamperproof. [4]
Election Commission data for the 2024 Lok Sabha election show repolls in only 40 of 10,52,664 polling stations. [10]
The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls involved house-to-house enumeration, publication of a draft roll, a claims and objections period, and restoration of names where grievances were found valid before finalisation. [9]
The Supreme Court examined the Special Intensive Revision in a judgment dated 27 May 2026. [11]
The claim is an allegation of election rigging through two methods. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure for it. The official record shows that courts have repeatedly upheld EVMs as tamperproof, and the Election Commission's own data show a completed 2024 election with repolls in only 40 of 10.52 lakh polling stations. On voter lists, the SIR is a statutory revision with safeguards, and the Supreme Court has examined it. The record therefore does not support the allegation that both forms of match-fixing are happening.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Rahul Gandhi accuses ECI of abetting ‘vote theft’ through SIR of electoral rolls”
The claim is an allegation of electoral wrongdoing, not a statement supported by the record. The Election Commission denies it, and the Supreme Court examined the Special Intensive Revision and found the deletions followed procedure. Because no official record supports the charge that the Commission abetted vote theft, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi accused the Election Commission of India of abetting 'vote theft' through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
thehindu.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs India's elections, has called the vote-theft allegation an insult to the Constitution and says the Special Intensive Revision is a routine, legally mandated exercise with safeguards such as published draft rolls and a claims-and-objections period. In its 27 May 2026 judgment on the Bihar SIR, the Supreme Court held that deletions under the revision could not be said to be contrary to the procedure under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. No document, court finding or official figure in the record shows the Commission abetted vote theft.
The Election Commission condemned the vote-theft allegations as an insult to the Constitution and said the Special Intensive Revision is a routine, legally mandated process. [1][2]
The Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment, held that deletions effected under the Special Intensive Revision could not be said to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. [10]
The Commission says the revision includes safeguards: draft electoral rolls are published, claims and objections are invited, and valid grievances lead to restoration of names before the roll is finalised. [2][9][11]
The poll body fact-checked a Congress 'vote theft' video and asked Rahul Gandhi to submit his claims on an affidavit. [4][6]
The claim is an allegation of electoral wrongdoing, not a statement supported by the record. The Election Commission denies it, and the Supreme Court examined the Special Intensive Revision and found the deletions followed procedure. Because no official record supports the charge that the Commission abetted vote theft, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi30 Sept 2026
“और एक भी वोट मिटाना सिर्फ़ कार्रवाई नहीं, वोट की चोरी है।”
एक भी वोट (even one vote)
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
एक भी वोट (even one vote)
Rahul Gandhi alleged that deleting even one vote is not just action but vote theft.
youtube.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, said in a press note published by PIB on 25 July 2026 that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is a lawful exercise with safeguards to prevent wrongful deletion of eligible electors, and that deletion is done only after recording reasons and following the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The same press note says the Supreme Court examined the legality of the SIR process and held it is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate. In Kamal Nath v Election Commission of India (12 October 2018), the Supreme Court recorded the Election Commission's explanation that electoral roll updation is continuous and aimed at purity and correctness, and did not find vote theft.
The Election Commission's press note, published by PIB on 25 July 2026, says the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is being conducted with safeguards to prevent wrongful deletion of eligible electors, and that deletion is done only after recording reasons and following the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. [12]
The same press note says the Supreme Court examined the legality of the SIR process and held it is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [12]
In Kamal Nath v Election Commission of India (12 October 2018), the Supreme Court recorded the Election Commission's explanation that electoral roll updation is a continuous process aimed at purity and correctness, and that there was a net deletion of around 24 lakh entries in Madhya Pradesh between 19 January and 31 July 2018; the court did not find vote theft. [1]
India Today reported the Election Commission's clarification on Bela Estate that 727 of 728 names were placed on the absent, shifted, dead or duplicate (ASDD) list in line with SIR instructions, and that applications for inclusion could be submitted from 31 August to 30 September 2026. [2]
The claim treats any deletion of a voter's name as vote theft. The official record does not support that characterisation: the Election Commission describes deletion as a lawful part of electoral roll revision with statutory safeguards and remedies, and the Supreme Court has not found the SIR exercise to be theft. No court or commission document in the sources finds that deleting a vote was vote theft, so the allegation remains unproven on the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“The planned briefing comes a day after Gandhi accused the BJP, RSS and Election Commission of being involved in what he described as “vote chori” and called it an attack on the Constitution.”
The claim is an allegation of vote theft against three bodies. The official record does not support it. The Election Commission says its decisions were unanimous, and the Supreme Court has examined the roll-revision process and found it lawful. Reports of internal objections are a dispute about process, not evidence of theft. So the allegation is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi accused the BJP, RSS and the Election Commission of being involved in 'vote chori' (vote theft) and called it an attack on the Constitution.
The Election Commission, which runs India's elections, said all its decisions, including those on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, were unanimous and had the approval of both Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner. The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated 27 May 2026, held that the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate and consistent with its constitutional duty to ensure free and fair elections. A parliamentary answer says deletions during SIR happen only after verification by Booth Level Officers for reasons such as death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries or electors found untraceable, with a claims and objections period and an appeal.
The Election Commission said all its decisions, including those on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, were unanimous and had the approval of both Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner. [5]
The Election Commission rejected the suggestion that reported internal differences meant its final decisions lacked consensus. [2]
The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated 27 May 2026, held that the Special Intensive Revision exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate and consistent with its constitutional obligation to ensure free and fair elections. [9]
Deletions during the Special Intensive Revision are carried out only after verification by Booth Level Officers for reasons such as death, permanent shifting of residence, duplicate entries, or electors found untraceable, with a claims and objections period and an appeal. [9]
No court finding, official figure or document in the record shows that the BJP, RSS or Election Commission stole votes. [5][9]
The claim is an allegation of vote theft against three bodies. The official record does not support it. The Election Commission says its decisions were unanimous, and the Supreme Court has examined the roll-revision process and found it lawful. Reports of internal objections are a dispute about process, not evidence of theft. So the allegation is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“First, Gyanesh Kumar - then a serving IAS officer - was used to recruit for the BJP. Then Modi and Shah made him the umpire and put him in charge of match-fixing India's elections.”
The first part of the claim rests only on Jiji Thomson's personal account, which is not corroborated and which Kumar and the BJP have not answered. The second part — that Modi and Shah made Kumar the 'umpire' and put him in charge of 'match-fixing' India's elections — is an allegation of election manipulation, and the record contains no document, court finding or official data supporting it. Because this is an allegation of rigging and the record shows no such finding, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged that Gyanesh Kumar, then a serving IAS officer, was used to recruit for the BJP, and that Modi and Shah made him the umpire and put him in charge of match-fixing India's elections.
scroll.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Gyanesh Kumar is a 1988-batch Kerala-cadre IAS officer who took charge as the 26th Chief Election Commissioner on 19 February 2025. Former Kerala Chief Secretary Jiji Thomson has alleged that Kumar, while serving as an IAS officer in 2016, asked him to contest the 2019 Lok Sabha election on a BJP ticket; Kumar and the BJP had not responded. No court order, Election Commission document, or official figure in the record shows that Kumar recruited for the BJP or fixed elections.
Gyanesh Kumar is a 1988-batch Kerala-cadre Indian Administrative Service officer and took charge as the 26th Chief Election Commissioner of India on 19 February 2025. [4]
In 2016, Kumar was the Resident Commissioner of the Kerala government in Delhi. [5]
Former Kerala Chief Secretary Jiji Thomson alleged that Kumar, while serving as an IAS officer, asked him in 2016 whether he would contest the 2019 Lok Sabha election as a BJP candidate from Pathanamthitta. [1][2][5]
Rahul Gandhi responded to Thomson's allegation by writing that Kumar, then a serving IAS officer, was used to recruit for the BJP. [2][5]
Kumar and the BJP had not issued an official response to Thomson's allegations. [1][2][5]
One report notes that Thomson's account is his personal version of a 2016 conversation and does not provide evidence that Kumar interfered with or manipulated elections. [6]
The Election Commission's official profile records only Kumar's service batch and appointment as Chief Election Commissioner; it contains no finding that he recruited for the BJP or fixed elections. [4]
The first part of the claim rests only on Jiji Thomson's personal account, which is not corroborated and which Kumar and the BJP have not answered. The second part — that Modi and Shah made Kumar the 'umpire' and put him in charge of 'match-fixing' India's elections — is an allegation of election manipulation, and the record contains no document, court finding or official data supporting it. Because this is an allegation of rigging and the record shows no such finding, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
““Then why were the names of 727 people deleted?” Gandhi asked, alleging that the exercise was not merely an electoral roll revision but “a method of vote theft.””
The claim asserts a specific number, 727, and calls the exercise vote theft. The record contains no official document, court finding or Election Commission figure showing 727 deletions. The court that examined the SIR upheld the deletion procedure, and the Election Commission's published safeguards describe a verification-based revision, not vote theft. The vote-theft language in the record comes from opinion or political statements, not an official finding.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi asked why the names of 727 people were deleted and alleged that the exercise was not merely an electoral roll revision but a method of vote theft.
freepressjournal.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note says the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is meant to make electoral rolls accurate, up-to-date and free of ineligible or duplicate entries, while ensuring no eligible elector is left out. It says deletions are done only after house-to-house verification by Booth Level Officers and fall under death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries, or electors found untraceable, with a claims and objections period and appeals. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 27 May 2026, held that deletions under the impugned SIR cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. No source in the record gives a figure of 727 deletions or an official finding of vote theft.
The Election Commission's press note says the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is meant to make electoral rolls accurate, up-to-date and free of ineligible or duplicate entries, while ensuring no eligible elector is left out. [3][11]
The press note says deletions during SIR are done only after house-to-house verification by Booth Level Officers and fall under death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries, or electors found untraceable, with a claims and objections period and appeals. [3][11]
The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 27 May 2026, held that deletions effected under the impugned SIR cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. [9][10]
The claim asserts a specific number, 727, and calls the exercise vote theft. The record contains no official document, court finding or Election Commission figure showing 727 deletions. The court that examined the SIR upheld the deletion procedure, and the Election Commission's published safeguards describe a verification-based revision, not vote theft. The vote-theft language in the record comes from opinion or political statements, not an official finding.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026
“Because PM [Narendra] Modi and Amit Shah want a rubber stamp who can help them remain in power. In fact they are the real culprits,”
The claim is an accusation about secret motives and culpability. The record before us contains the political allegation itself and a Supreme Court judgment on election commissioner appointments, but no court finding, commission finding, or official document that establishes Mr Modi or Mr Shah sought a rubber-stamp Election Commission or were the 'real culprits'. The Election Commission's own position is that internal disagreements are normal, which does not prove the charge. The claim therefore remains an unproven allegation.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Kharge alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Amit Shah want a rubber-stamp Election Commission to help them remain in power and called them the real culprits.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 23 September 2026 on the challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner appointment law, recorded the statutory Selection Committee: the Prime Minister is chairperson, alongside the Leader of Opposition and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. It said the Election Commission must be insulated from exclusive executive control, but the judgment contains no finding that Mr Modi or Mr Shah appointed anyone as a rubber stamp or rigged elections. The Election Commission has not accepted the charge; it has said differences among commissioners are part of internal deliberation.
Mallikarjun Kharge alleged at an INDIA alliance partners' meeting that Gyanesh Kumar was appointed Chief Election Commissioner because Mr Modi and Mr Amit Shah wanted a 'rubber stamp' who could help them remain in power. [2]
Other Congress leaders made similar allegations: Jairam Ramesh called the Election Commission an 'arm of the BJP' and described the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls as part of a 'Modi-Shah strategy' to manufacture a majority. [1]
The Supreme Court's 23 September 2026 judgment records that the selection committee for the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners has the Prime Minister as chairperson, the Leader of Opposition as a member, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister as a member. [9]
The same Supreme Court judgment contains no finding that Prime Minister Modi or Home Minister Amit Shah wanted a rubber-stamp election body or were culpable in any electoral wrongdoing. [9]
The Election Commission said Election Commissioners had raised issues about deletion of names from electoral rolls and the handling of voter databases, and it maintained that differing views are a normal part of institutional deliberations. [5][8]
The claim is an accusation about secret motives and culpability. The record before us contains the political allegation itself and a Supreme Court judgment on election commissioner appointments, but no court finding, commission finding, or official document that establishes Mr Modi or Mr Shah sought a rubber-stamp Election Commission or were the 'real culprits'. The Election Commission's own position is that internal disagreements are normal, which does not prove the charge. The claim therefore remains an unproven allegation.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026
“Mr. Kharge also said that by changing the rules in Form 6 for enrolling for the first-time-voters by the Election Commission, the youngsters are deliberately being discouraged from voting.”
The factual core of the claim — that the online Form 6 process was altered during the SIR and that this affected first-time voters, prompting written objections from two Election Commissioners and concerns in reporting — is supported by the record. But the word "deliberately" turns the description into an allegation of motive, and the record contains no court finding, official figure or document establishing that the Commission acted to discourage young people from voting. The two Commissioners objected on legal grounds, and the Commission later removed the declaration; neither establishes intent to discourage.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Kharge alleged that the Election Commission's changes to Form 6 rules for enrolling first-time voters deliberately discourage young people from voting.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Form 6 is the application a first-time voter fills out to get on the electoral roll, prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. During the Special Intensive Revision of rolls that began in Bihar in mid-2025, the Election Commission added an SIR-linked declaration (Annexure D) to the online Form 6 process, asking for details such as parent and grandparent information. Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record that the statutory form could not be changed without amending the 1960 Rules, while the Commission's own position was that Form 6 itself was not changed, only a separate annexure added.
Form 6 is the application a first-time voter fills out to enrol, and it is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. [1][3][4]
During the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls that began in Bihar in mid-2025, the Election Commission added an SIR-linked declaration (Annexure D) to the online Form 6 process, requiring extra details including parent and grandparent information. [1][6][8]
Two of the three Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, objected in writing that the statutory Form 6 could not be altered without amending the 1960 Rules; Sandhu described the change as "unauthorised and illegal" and said it "must be removed immediately". [2][4][7]
The Commission's stated position was that there was "no change" to Form 6 and that only a separate annexure had been added for the SIR-linked question. [6][8]
On 26 September 2026 the Commission said the forms as per the Rules would be used for the non-SIR period, and on the intervening night of 29-30 September it removed the SIR declaration from its portal in states where the revision had concluded. [6][7]
One report said the inclusion of the SIR question "raised concerns about its impact on young people seeking to enrol for the first time" — a concern, not a finding that the Commission deliberately discouraged anyone. [1]
The factual core of the claim — that the online Form 6 process was altered during the SIR and that this affected first-time voters, prompting written objections from two Election Commissioners and concerns in reporting — is supported by the record. But the word "deliberately" turns the description into an allegation of motive, and the record contains no court finding, official figure or document establishing that the Commission acted to discourage young people from voting. The two Commissioners objected on legal grounds, and the Commission later removed the declaration; neither establishes intent to discourage.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026
“The Opposition leaders, Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge said, will seek an appointment with the President in the second week of October to inform her of the "manner in which institutions are being taken over".”
The claim rests on a broad allegation — institutions are being taken over — and a future meeting. None of the provided records contains a court finding, official figure or document supporting that allegation, and the Election Commission's reported clarification disputed the special intensive revision claims. The Supreme Court's order addresses constitutional concerns about appointment processes without making any finding of institutional takeover. Because the speaker offered no document or official finding for the takeover allegation, and the record does not support it, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge said opposition leaders will seek an appointment with the President in the second week of October to inform her of the manner in which institutions are being taken over.
ndtv.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
No source among the retrieved records confirms that Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge's stated presidential meeting was sought or scheduled, or that institutions are being taken over. The Supreme Court's 23 September 2026 judgment on Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner appointments discusses the need to insulate the Election Commission from exclusive executive control, but makes no finding that institutions have been captured. The Election Commission's published Bihar special intensive revision release sets out procedural safeguards, including that no name can be deleted without notice and a speaking order, and that aggrieved electors can appeal.
In a 23 September 2026 judgment on appointments to the Election Commission, the Supreme Court discussed insulating the body from exclusive executive control, but did not find that institutions have been taken over. [1]
The Election Commission's 27 July 2025 release on the Bihar special intensive revision states that no name can be deleted from the draft roll without notice and a speaking order, and any aggrieved elector can appeal to the District Magistrate and Chief Electoral Officer. [6]
The Hindu reported on 28 September 2026 that the Election Commission had issued a fact-based clarification calling the Opposition's special intensive revision allegations 'fabricated', while the BJP accused Opposition leaders of making unsubstantiated claims. [2]
Kharge was reported separately as alleging that institutions were being weakened and accusing the Election Commission of being influenced, but no source supported those allegations as fact. [3]
The claim rests on a broad allegation — institutions are being taken over — and a future meeting. None of the provided records contains a court finding, official figure or document supporting that allegation, and the Election Commission's reported clarification disputed the special intensive revision claims. The Supreme Court's order addresses constitutional concerns about appointment processes without making any finding of institutional takeover. Because the speaker offered no document or official finding for the takeover allegation, and the record does not support it, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofSanjay Singh (AAP) (Aam Aadmi Party)30 Sept 2026
“He raised questions over changes made to Form 6, which is used for inclusion of names in electoral rolls, and alleged that the changes were "illegal" and "unconstitutional".”
Calling the Form 6 changes 'illegal' and 'unconstitutional' is an allegation, not a finding. The record contains internal objections from two Election Commissioners and political criticism, but no court order or Election Commission adjudication declaring the July 2026 online Form 6 change illegal or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment upheld the SIR exercise broadly but did not specifically rule on that online Form 6 modification.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP MP Sanjay Singh alleged that changes made to Form 6, used for inclusion of names in electoral rolls, were 'illegal' and 'unconstitutional'.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Law and Justice's PIB note of 25 July 2026 says the Supreme Court examined the legality of the Special Intensive Revision and held it within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Article 324. The Election Commission said on 30 September 2026 that it had removed the extra SIR-related declaration from online Form 6 in states where the SIR was complete, and that it made no legal changes to the statutory Form 6. Reporting notes the Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment did not specifically review the July 2026 online Form 6 modification.
The Election Commission removed the additional SIR-related declaration from online Form 6 in states where the Special Intensive Revision is complete, and said it made no legal changes to the original statutory Form 6 prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. [1]
Within the Election Commission, Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to the change; Joshi said a form prescribed under the 1960 rules could not be modified without amending the rules, while Sandhu called it 'illegal' and sought removal. [1][5]
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision, but reporting says it did not specifically review the July 2026 online Form 6 change. [5]
The official PIB note of 25 July 2026 states the Supreme Court held the SIR exercise to be within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and in consonance with Article 324. [9]
Calling the Form 6 changes 'illegal' and 'unconstitutional' is an allegation, not a finding. The record contains internal objections from two Election Commissioners and political criticism, but no court order or Election Commission adjudication declaring the July 2026 online Form 6 change illegal or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment upheld the SIR exercise broadly but did not specifically rule on that online Form 6 modification.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi28 Sept 2026
“He further alleged that the ruling political leaders "no longer fear that elections can remove them", reiterating his allegation of "vote chori". He said the theft of vote also allows these people to become arrogant.”
The claim rests on an allegation of vote theft. The Election Commission, the body that runs elections, rejected the allegation as factually incorrect and misleading. The Supreme Court has separately rejected the suspicion that EVMs can be manipulated to favour a candidate. No court, Election Commission document or official record in the sources finds that vote theft occurred or that ruling leaders no longer fear elections. The allegation therefore remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged that ruling political leaders no longer fear that elections can remove them, reiterating his allegation of vote theft, and said the theft of vote allows these people to become arrogant.
hindustantimes.com, 28 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, fact-checked Rahul Gandhi's 'vote chori' post and stamped it 'MISLEADING', saying the allegations were 'factually incorrect' (India Today, 11 August 2025). The Supreme Court's 26 April 2024 EVM/VVPAT judgment recorded that petitioners did not attribute motive or malice to the Election Commission and rejected the suspicion that EVMs can be configured or manipulated to favour a candidate. The Press Information Bureau described the 2024 general election as showcasing India as a resilient democracy with robust voter engagement.
The Election Commission of India fact-checked Rahul Gandhi's 'vote chori' post and stamped it 'MISLEADING', calling the allegations 'factually incorrect'. [6]
The Supreme Court's 26 April 2024 EVM/VVPAT judgment recorded that petitioners did not attribute motive or malice to the Election Commission and rejected the suspicion that EVMs can be configured or manipulated to favour a candidate. [7]
The Press Information Bureau described the 2024 general election as showcasing India as a resilient democracy with robust voter engagement. [9]
The claim rests on an allegation of vote theft. The Election Commission, the body that runs elections, rejected the allegation as factually incorrect and misleading. The Supreme Court has separately rejected the suspicion that EVMs can be manipulated to favour a candidate. No court, Election Commission document or official record in the sources finds that vote theft occurred or that ruling leaders no longer fear elections. The allegation therefore remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi27 Sept 2026
“Karnataka Chief Minister D K Shivakumar said the concerns raised by Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and LoP Rahul Gandhi over alleged “vote theft” turned out to be true”
The first part of the claim is supported: Rahul Gandhi did make vote-theft allegations. The second part is an allegation presented as a conclusion. D K Shivakumar's statement is his position, not proof, and the official record does not validate it: the Supreme Court upheld the SIR as lawful, and the Election Commission describes it as a safeguarded cleanup. Therefore the assertion that the concerns "turned out to be true" is unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi had raised concerns about alleged vote theft in the conduct of elections; Karnataka Chief Minister D K Shivakumar said those concerns turned out to be true.
indianexpress.com, 27 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, held that the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is within its statutory mandate under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and its constitutional duty under Article 324. A Lok Sabha answer from the Ministry of Law and Justice says the SIR is meant to make rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries, with safeguards such as door-to-door visits, draft roll publication, and appeals. No court or Election Commission document in the sources finds vote theft.
Rahul Gandhi alleged that 727 voters were deleted from Delhi's Bela Estate draft electoral rolls during the SIR and called it "vote theft." [4]
D K Shivakumar, at a Congress protest in Bengaluru, accused the Election Commission of aiding vote theft through the SIR exercise. [1]
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment upheld the SIR as within the Election Commission's statutory and constitutional mandate. [2][3][10]
The Lok Sabha answer describes safeguards to prevent wrongful deletion, including prior intimation, draft roll publication, claims and objections, and appeals. [3]
No court or Election Commission document in the sources finds that votes were stolen or that the concerns turned out to be true. [2][3][9][10]
The Election Commission describes the SIR as a lawful exercise to ensure accurate rolls, not as vote theft. [3]
The first part of the claim is supported: Rahul Gandhi did make vote-theft allegations. The second part is an allegation presented as a conclusion. D K Shivakumar's statement is his position, not proof, and the official record does not validate it: the Supreme Court upheld the SIR as lawful, and the Election Commission describes it as a safeguarded cleanup. Therefore the assertion that the concerns "turned out to be true" is unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi27 Sept 2026
“He also claimed the 2024 Lok Sabha and recent state elections had all been rigged.”
This is an allegation of systemic rigging. The speaker's claim rests on his own assertion, and the Election Commission, the body that runs India's elections, says the allegation has no basis. Official 2024 Lok Sabha data show a completed election with repolls in only 40 of 10.52 lakh polling stations, and no court or commission in the record has upheld the claim that the Lok Sabha or recent state elections were rigged. The one election set aside by a court in these sources was a municipal mayoral poll in Chandigarh, not the elections named in the claim.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi claimed that the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and recent state elections had all been rigged.
ndtv.com, 27 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The official record contains no document, court finding or official figure showing that the 2024 Lok Sabha or recent state assembly elections were rigged. The Election Commission has rejected the allegation as misleading and baseless. Its published 2024 Lok Sabha data show 97.97 crore registered electors, 64.64 crore votes polled, 10,52,664 polling stations, and repoll in only 40 polling stations (0.0038%).
The Election Commission has called Rahul Gandhi's charge that the 2024 Lok Sabha elections were rigged “misleading and baseless.” [8]
Official Election Commission data for the 2024 Lok Sabha election show 10,52,664 polling stations, with repoll held in only 40 of them, or 0.0038%. [9]
In the 2024 Lok Sabha election, 64.64 crore votes were polled and 97.97 crore electors were registered, according to the Election Commission. [9]
The only court decision in the record about a flawed election concerns the Chandigarh municipal mayoral election of 30 January 2024, where the Supreme Court set aside the result because the presiding officer improperly marked eight ballot papers invalid; this is not a Lok Sabha or state assembly election. [10]
This is an allegation of systemic rigging. The speaker's claim rests on his own assertion, and the Election Commission, the body that runs India's elections, says the allegation has no basis. Official 2024 Lok Sabha data show a completed election with repolls in only 40 of 10.52 lakh polling stations, and no court or commission in the record has upheld the claim that the Lok Sabha or recent state elections were rigged. The one election set aside by a court in these sources was a municipal mayoral poll in Chandigarh, not the elections named in the claim.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAshutosh Ranka (CJP) (Cockroach Janta Party)27 Sept 2026
“Himanta Biswa Sarma fears that we will reveal the truth about Assam’s schools, Kaziranga National Park, and the state’s “man-made” floods to the nation”
The claim asserts a motive — that Sarma fears the Cockroach Janta Party will reveal a hidden truth — and that such truths exist about schools and man-made floods. The record provided does not show Sarma expressing fear of the party, nor any evidence about school problems or that Assam's floods were man-made. On Kaziranga, the record shows a real public controversy over the eco-sensitive zone, but Sarma has publicly defended his government's proposal rather than concealing it. Without a document or recording from the party or an official finding, the assertion remains an unsupported allegation.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
CJP leader Ashutosh Ranka said Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma fears that CJP will reveal the truth about Assam's schools, Kaziranga National Park and the state's 'man-made' floods to the nation.
indianexpress.com, 27 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The only official document in the record, a Gauhati High Court order of 12 March 2026, noted that as of that date Assam had neither a final notification nor a draft proposal for an eco-sensitive zone around Kaziranga, so the default 10-km buffer remained operative. Media reports from August 2026 show Sarma publicly defended a proposal to reduce that zone to 1-3 km as being in line with Supreme Court guidelines, while opposition parties and conservationists criticised the move.
The Gauhati High Court, in an order of 12 March 2026, recorded that Assam had no final notification or draft proposal for the Kaziranga eco-sensitive zone as of that date, so the default 10-km zone was still operative. [5]
In August 2026, the Assam government sought an eco-sensitive zone of 1 km to 3 km around Kaziranga instead of 10 km, and Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma publicly defended this as in line with Supreme Court guidelines. [2][3][4]
Opposition parties and wildlife experts criticised the proposal, arguing that wildlife corridors to the Karbi Anglong Hills and floodplains and wetlands around Kaziranga could be harmed. [3][4]
None of the sources records Sarma saying he fears the Cockroach Janta Party, nor do they contain findings on Assam's schools or on floods being 'man-made'. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
The claim asserts a motive — that Sarma fears the Cockroach Janta Party will reveal a hidden truth — and that such truths exist about schools and man-made floods. The record provided does not show Sarma expressing fear of the party, nor any evidence about school problems or that Assam's floods were man-made. On Kaziranga, the record shows a real public controversy over the eco-sensitive zone, but Sarma has publicly defended his government's proposal rather than concealing it. Without a document or recording from the party or an official finding, the assertion remains an unsupported allegation.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi (Indian National Congress)26 Sept 2026
“Rahul Gandhi demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner of India Gyanesh Kumar over the controversy of the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and alleged the participation of the Election Commission in rigging the recent elections in India”
The demand for resignation is on record, but the factual charge to test is that the Election Commission rigged recent elections. That is an allegation, and the official record does not support it. The Supreme Court examined the SIR deletions and did not find them contrary to procedure; the Election Commission says the SIR orders were unanimous. A pending petition is not a finding of rigging, so the allegation remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and alleged that the Election Commission participated in rigging recent elections in India.
aljazeera.com, 26 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 2026 judgment in the SIR case says deletions under the Special Intensive Revision cannot be said to be contrary to Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. The Election Commission's 26 September 2026 press note says the SIR orders for states and Union territories were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. A Lok Sabha answer describes the SIR safeguards: house-to-house enumeration, a draft roll, a claims-and-objections period, and restoration of names where grievances are found valid.
Rahul Gandhi demanded that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar resign immediately over the SIR row and alleged vote-rigging against the Election Commission. [1][5]
The Supreme Court, in its 2026 judgment on the SIR, held that deletions effected under the Special Intensive Revision cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. [10]
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 states that the SIR orders for all states and Union territories were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. [12]
A Lok Sabha answer says the SIR exercise included house-to-house enumeration, a draft roll, a claims-and-objections period, and restoration of names where grievances were found valid. [9]
A Supreme Court petition seeks criminal prosecution of the Chief Election Commissioner over SIR deletions, but no ruling on that petition is shown in the record. [4]
The demand for resignation is on record, but the factual charge to test is that the Election Commission rigged recent elections. That is an allegation, and the official record does not support it. The Supreme Court examined the SIR deletions and did not find them contrary to procedure; the Election Commission says the SIR orders were unanimous. A pending petition is not a finding of rigging, so the allegation remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav25 Sept 2026
“Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav on Friday said the BJP government was making false claims regarding investment in the state.”
The claim is an allegation that the government's investment claims are false. The official record shows investment-related MoUs and some actual investment, but it does not find the claims false. Media reports raise questions about some MoUs, but they are not official findings and do not establish that the government's overall investment claims are false. Therefore the allegation is not proven by the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh was making false claims about investment in the state.
thestatesman.com · reported, 25 Sept 2026
What is actually true
A Lok Sabha answer says 108 MoUs were signed for the Uttar Pradesh Defence Industrial Corridor and ₹2,445 crore has already been invested there. The Press Information Bureau says the Inland Waterways Authority of India signed MoUs worth more than ₹6,000 crore for inland waterways in Uttar Pradesh. The Uttar Pradesh government says UPITS 2026 signed 4,400 MoUs worth about ₹6,500 crore. None of these official documents says the investment claims are false.
A Lok Sabha answer states that 108 MoUs were signed for the Uttar Pradesh Defence Industrial Corridor and that ₹2,445 crore has already been invested there. [6]
The Press Information Bureau says the Inland Waterways Authority of India signed MoUs worth more than ₹6,000 crore for inland waterways development in Uttar Pradesh. [5]
The Uttar Pradesh government says the UP International Trade Show 2026 concluded with 4,400 MoUs worth around ₹6,500 crore and potential business estimated at ₹15,500 crore. [7]
Media investigations have questioned the credentials of some firms behind Uttar Pradesh's investment MoUs, but they do not show that all investment claims are false; MoUs are described as expressions of intent, not binding commitments. [2][4]
The claim is an allegation that the government's investment claims are false. The official record shows investment-related MoUs and some actual investment, but it does not find the claims false. Media reports raise questions about some MoUs, but they are not official findings and do not establish that the government's overall investment claims are false. Therefore the allegation is not proven by the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi25 Sept 2026
“All elections rigged, laws illegal”
The claim amounts to an allegation of systemic electoral fraud and of the illegality of Parliament's laws. The record before us contains nothing that supports either part: no document, court finding, or official figure. The only official source describes the Election Commission's role neutrally, and the other sources are news reports of the speaker's own statements and rival political responses. Where an allegation of rigging or institutional illegality is made and the record contains no supporting finding, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said that all elections are rigged and laws are illegal.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com, 25 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, the body that administers elections to the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and state assemblies, is described in the official record as an autonomous constitutional authority [2]. None of the sources contains electoral data, a court order, or any commission finding that upholds the claim that elections were rigged or that laws are illegal [1][3][4][5]. The court records provided concern a defamation case and have no bearing on the substance of the electoral claim [6][7].
The Election Commission of India describes itself as an autonomous constitutional authority responsible for administering elections to the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies, and the offices of President and Vice President [2]. [2]
Rahul Gandhi's remarks, as reported, tie the claim that elections are being rigged to a dispute over the Election Commission and the SIR (statistical or electoral roll) matter, but the reports contain no official data or finding showing any election was actually rigged [1][4]. [1][4]
No source provided contains a court order, commission finding, or official figure showing that Indian elections, the 2024 Lok Sabha election, or Vidhan Sabha elections were rigged, or that laws passed by Parliament are illegal [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
The claim amounts to an allegation of systemic electoral fraud and of the illegality of Parliament's laws. The record before us contains nothing that supports either part: no document, court finding, or official figure. The only official source describes the Election Commission's role neutrally, and the other sources are news reports of the speaker's own statements and rival political responses. Where an allegation of rigging or institutional illegality is made and the record contains no supporting finding, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipke25 Sept 2026
“Yes, elections are being rigged. But when you continue to participate in rigged elections, you legitimise these elections and help maintain the illusion that they are free and fair”
The speaker states as fact that elections are being rigged. The court record that examined the voter-list revision did not support that charge, and official Election Commission data show only a tiny fraction of polling stations required repolls. The internal dissent inside the Commission concerns the revision of electoral rolls, not manipulation of election results. Because the speaker offers no document, court finding or official figure, and the record examined here contains none, the allegation is marked NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke said that elections in India are being rigged, and that Opposition parties who keep contesting them legitimise those elections and sustain the illusion that they are free and fair.
thehindu.com, 25 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, which reviewed the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, recorded that the final electoral roll was used for the Bihar assembly election and did not uphold any charge of rigging [1]. Official Election Commission data for the 2024 Lok Sabha election shows 64.64 crore votes polled and repolls at only 40 of 10,52,664 polling stations, or 0.0038 per cent [11]. Reports about dissent inside the Commission concern objections by two Election Commissioners to Special Intensive Revision decisions, not a finding that elections were rigged [6].
The Supreme Court's 2026 judgment on the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar recorded that elections were conducted on the basis of the final electoral roll published on 30 September 2025, and it did not find that those elections were rigged [1]. [1]
Election Commission data for the 2024 Lok Sabha election shows 64.64 crore votes were polled, and repolls were held at only 40 of 10,52,664 polling stations, or 0.0038 per cent, compared with 540 repolls in 2019 [11]. [11]
The Indian Express reported that two Election Commissioners recorded objections 14 times over 10 months to Special Intensive Revision decisions, but those objections were about voter-list decisions, not a finding that poll results were rigged [6]. [6]
The speaker states as fact that elections are being rigged. The court record that examined the voter-list revision did not support that charge, and official Election Commission data show only a tiny fraction of polling stations required repolls. The internal dissent inside the Commission concerns the revision of electoral rolls, not manipulation of election results. Because the speaker offers no document, court finding or official figure, and the record examined here contains none, the allegation is marked NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi24 Sept 2026
“Mr. Gandhi said the CEC should turn an approver in the alleged ‘vote chori’ issue, as that would be an “act of nationalism”.”
The suggestion that CEC Gyanesh Kumar should turn approver rests on the premise that he was involved in 'vote chori'. The official record does not establish that premise: the Election Commission describes the roll revision as a lawful claims-and-objections process, and the sources contain allegations and internal dissent, not a finding of theft. Calling the suggested step an 'act of nationalism' is an opinion, not a verifiable fact. The allegation therefore has no proof in the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said CEC Gyanesh Kumar should turn an approver in the alleged vote chori issue, calling it an act of nationalism.
thehindu.com, 24 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, in a 20 March 2025 press release, said additions and deletions to draft electoral rolls are governed by the claims and objections process under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and that all-party meetings were held at multiple levels [8]. The retrieved material records allegations of 'vote chori' by Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal, and reported internal objections by two Election Commissioners, but it contains no court or Election Commission finding that CEC Gyanesh Kumar committed or facilitated vote theft [1][2][4][7]. A Supreme Court ruling on the 2024 Chandigarh mayor election set aside that result for a presiding officer's malpractices, but it did not concern the CEC or national elections [11].
The Election Commission of India's 20 March 2025 press release states that any inclusion or deletion to the draft elector list is governed by the process of appeals under legal provisions for filing claims and objections, available to all political parties in the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [8]
The retrieved material records allegations of 'vote chori' by Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal, and reported internal objections by two Election Commissioners, but no court or Election Commission finding that CEC Gyanesh Kumar committed or facilitated vote theft. [1][2][4][7]
The Supreme Court set aside the 2024 Chandigarh mayor election result after finding the presiding officer improperly invalidated ballot papers; that ruling did not concern the Chief Election Commissioner or national elections. [11]
The suggestion that CEC Gyanesh Kumar should turn approver rests on the premise that he was involved in 'vote chori'. The official record does not establish that premise: the Election Commission describes the roll revision as a lawful claims-and-objections process, and the sources contain allegations and internal dissent, not a finding of theft. Calling the suggested step an 'act of nationalism' is an opinion, not a verifiable fact. The allegation therefore has no proof in the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi24 Sept 2026
“Elections in India are being rigged, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar acted as “deshdrohis“ (traitors) by destroying the country’s votes”
The claim rests on an allegation of rigging and a charge that three named individuals are traitors who destroyed votes. The record contains no document, court finding or official figure that supports either part. The official data show a completed election with very few repolls, and the Supreme Court found no actionable material of manipulation in the EVM-VVPAT matter it examined.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged that elections in India are being rigged and that PM Narendra Modi, HM Amit Shah and CEC Gyanesh Kumar acted as traitors by destroying the country's votes.
thehindu.com, 24 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's published General Elections 2024 data record 64.64 crore votes polled and repolls in only 40 of 10,52,664 polling stations (0.0038 per cent). In its April 2024 judgment on EVM-VVPAT verification, the Supreme Court said it did not doubt the Election Commission's fairness and integrity and found no actionable material on record showing the Commission breached its constitutional mandate. On the Special Intensive Revision row, the Election Commission said its final decisions were taken unanimously and were legally sanctioned.
The Election Commission, which runs India's elections, has published data showing 64.64 crore votes were polled in the 2024 Lok Sabha election and repolls were ordered in only 40 of 10,52,664 polling stations. [10]
In its April 2024 EVM-VVPAT judgment, the Supreme Court said it did not doubt the Election Commission's fairness and integrity, and that the petitioner had placed no actionable material showing the Commission breached its constitutional mandate. [9]
On the electoral roll revision dispute, the Election Commission said internal technical notes and written queries are standard in a multi-member body and that all final decisions relating to the SIR process were taken unanimously and were legally sanctioned. [1]
The claim rests on an allegation of rigging and a charge that three named individuals are traitors who destroyed votes. The record contains no document, court finding or official figure that supports either part. The official data show a completed election with very few repolls, and the Supreme Court found no actionable material of manipulation in the EVM-VVPAT matter it examined.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi24 Sept 2026
““I have shown it with proof, and let me tell you, there is already more than enough information to make this 100% certain — not 99%, 100% certain — that Indian elections, Lok Sabha elections, the 2024 election, Vidhan Sabha elections, are all being rigged.””
The claim is an allegation of election rigging, but the record contains no document, court finding or official figure that supports it. The Election Commission has explicitly denied the 2024 Lok Sabha rigging charge, and its official data show a completed election with a very small number of repolls. The reported internal objections concern procedures for revising voter lists, not proof that election results were rigged, so the assertion of 100 per cent certainty is not borne out by the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said he has shown proof and that there is enough information to be 100% certain that Indian elections, including the 2024 Lok Sabha election and Vidhan Sabha elections, are all being rigged.
thehindu.com, 24 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission refuted Rahul Gandhi's charge that the 2024 Lok Sabha elections were rigged, calling it 'misleading and baseless'. Its 2024 statistical reports record 64.64 crore votes polled and repolls in only 40 polling stations, 0.0038 per cent of the total, compared with 540 in 2019. The Indian Express material cited around the claim is about internal procedural objections by two Election Commissioners over voter-list revision, not evidence that all elections were rigged.
The Election Commission called the allegation that the 2024 Lok Sabha election was rigged 'misleading and baseless'. [5]
The Election Commission's published 2024 data show 64.64 crore votes were polled, and repolls took place in only 40 polling stations, 0.0038 per cent of 10.52 lakh polling stations, compared with 540 in 2019. [7]
The Indian Express report cited around the claim records 14 formal written dissents over 10 months by two Election Commissioners over procedures and voter-list revision; it does not document that the 2024 Lok Sabha or Vidhan Sabha elections were rigged. [2]
The claim is an allegation of election rigging, but the record contains no document, court finding or official figure that supports it. The Election Commission has explicitly denied the 2024 Lok Sabha rigging charge, and its official data show a completed election with a very small number of repolls. The reported internal objections concern procedures for revising voter lists, not proof that election results were rigged, so the assertion of 100 per cent certainty is not borne out by the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi24 Sept 2026
“‘PM, Amit Shah destroyed India’s democracy, will face probe’”
The claim rests on an allegation of electoral wrongdoing. The Supreme Court judgment in the election commission case discusses safeguards but does not find that the Prime Minister or Home Minister destroyed democracy. The statement that they 'will face a probe' is a prediction or demand, not a fact established by any court, agency or government order in the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said that the Prime Minister and Amit Shah have destroyed India's democracy and will face a probe.
indianexpress.com · reported, 24 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 23 September 2026 judgment in the election commission appointment case discusses the constitutional scheme for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners and the need to insulate the Election Commission from executive control, but it contains no finding that Prime Minister Modi or Home Minister Shah destroyed India's democracy. News reports quote Rahul Gandhi as saying the Prime Minister and Amit Shah 'are both going to be investigated for what has been done', but no court, agency or government document in the record shows such an investigation has been ordered.
The Supreme Court's 23 September 2026 judgment in the election commission appointment case discusses the constitutional scheme and the need to insulate the Election Commission from executive control, but it contains no finding that Prime Minister Modi or Home Minister Shah destroyed India's democracy. [8]
News reports quote Rahul Gandhi as saying the Prime Minister and Amit Shah 'are both going to be investigated for what has been done', but no court, agency or government document in the record shows such an investigation has been ordered. [1][3]
The reports describe the claim that Modi and Shah destroyed India's voting system as Rahul Gandhi's allegation, not as a finding by any official body. [3][6]
The claim rests on an allegation of electoral wrongdoing. The Supreme Court judgment in the election commission case discusses safeguards but does not find that the Prime Minister or Home Minister destroyed democracy. The statement that they 'will face a probe' is a prediction or demand, not a fact established by any court, agency or government order in the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofSaurav Das24 Sept 2026
“Nothing is going to work because the Election Commission of India is compromised.”
The claim that the Election Commission is compromised is an allegation about the body's integrity. No court order, parliamentary answer or official document in the record supports it. The Supreme Court examined the SIR and ruled on the Commission's legal powers, not on whether it is compromised. The Commission's own statement says the SIR orders were unanimous, so the allegation remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Saurav Das said nothing is going to work because the Election Commission of India is compromised.
thehindu.com, 24 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment in ADR v ECI examined the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision in Bihar and held that the Commission cannot decide citizenship, which belongs to the Ministry of Home Affairs. The judgment does not record any finding that the Commission is compromised. The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 states that the SIR order of 24 June 2025 for all States and Union Territories was issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission.
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment in ADR v ECI held that the Election Commission cannot decide citizenship under the pretext of electoral roll revision, but it did not record any finding that the Commission is compromised. [1]
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the SIR order issued on 24 June 2025 for all States and Union Territories, starting with Bihar, was issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. [10]
A PIB release of 14 May 2026 shows the Election Commission directed the Special Intensive Revision in 16 States and 3 Union Territories covering 36,73,87,831 electors. [2]
The claim that the Election Commission is compromised is an allegation about the body's integrity. No court order, parliamentary answer or official document in the record supports it. The Supreme Court examined the SIR and ruled on the Commission's legal powers, not on whether it is compromised. The Commission's own statement says the SIR orders were unanimous, so the allegation remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofArvind Kejriwal23 Sept 2026
“Kejriwal alleged that the SIR exercise had resulted in the deletion of a large number of names from electoral rolls and demanded that the entire process be cancelled.”
Kejriwal's claim rests on the words 'a large number', but no official document in the record gives any deletion count. The Election Commission describes deletions as a verified, safeguarded part of the revision, and its clarification says notices are not deletions. Without an official figure, the allegation is not proven; the demand to cancel the process is a political position, not a factual claim.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal alleged that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise deleted a large number of names from the electoral rolls and demanded the entire process be cancelled.
etvbharat.com, 23 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note, reproduced in a Lok Sabha answer, says the Special Intensive Revision is being carried out in phases to make electoral rolls accurate, and that deletions are made only after house-to-house verification by Booth Level Officers for reasons such as death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries or untraceable electors, with safeguards including a draft roll and appeals. The Commission's clarification of 20 September 2026, as reported, said system-generated SIR notices do not mean a voter's name will be deleted and no name can be deleted without a hearing and an appealable order. No official source in the record states a total number of names deleted under the SIR.
The Election Commission's press note and a Lok Sabha answer say SIR deletions are made only after Booth Level Officer verification and for specific reasons, with safeguards such as draft roll publication and appeals. [1][2]
The Election Commission clarified on 20 September 2026 that SIR notices do not mean deletion, and no name can be deleted without a hearing and an appealable order. [6]
The official record provided does not give a state-wise or total deletion figure for the SIR. [1][2]
Kejriwal's claim rests on the words 'a large number', but no official document in the record gives any deletion count. The Election Commission describes deletions as a verified, safeguarded part of the revision, and its clarification says notices are not deletions. Without an official figure, the allegation is not proven; the demand to cancel the process is a political position, not a factual claim.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav23 Sept 2026
“Samajwadi Party voters were systematically deleted from the Election Commission's voters list.”
This is an allegation of partisan deletion from electoral rolls. The official record shows a rule-bound revision process and a Supreme Court judgment upholding the deletion procedure, but it contains no data or finding that supporters of the Samajwadi Party were selected for removal. Without such evidence, the charge remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that Samajwadi Party voters were systematically deleted from the Election Commission's voters list.
devdiscourse.com, 23 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, describes the Special Intensive Revision as a house-to-house update in which names can be removed for death, migration, duplicate registration or non-response, only after notice and a speaking order, with appeals available under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. A Supreme Court judgment (2026 INSC 564) held that deletions made in the Special Intensive Revision were not contrary to the procedure under Rule 21A. Akhilesh Yadav's claim is part of the record as a statement, but no Election Commission list or court order identifies voters removed because they supported the Samajwadi Party.
Akhilesh Yadav made the allegation after a report that two Election Commissioners had objected to decisions in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. [1]
The Election Commission lists death, migration, duplicate entries and failure to return enumeration forms as grounds for removal, and says no name can be deleted without notice and a speaking order. [9][11]
A Supreme Court judgment held that deletions made pursuant to the Special Intensive Revision were not contrary to the procedure under Rule 21A. [12]
The official Election Commission documents provided do not record any deletion by party affiliation or any finding that Samajwadi Party voters were targeted. [9][11]
This is an allegation of partisan deletion from electoral rolls. The official record shows a rule-bound revision process and a Supreme Court judgment upholding the deletion procedure, but it contains no data or finding that supporters of the Samajwadi Party were selected for removal. Without such evidence, the charge remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofDhruv Rathee2 Sept 2026
“and the alleged crackdown on those documenting the crisis”
The claim asserts that a crackdown on people documenting a government-school crisis has occurred, but the retrieved official record contains no document, court finding, police record or government figure showing such a crackdown. The government sources on education discuss budget allocations, not action against documenters. Because no order, FIR, parliamentary answer or commission report is provided to support the allegation, it remains unproven in the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee states that there has been a crackdown on people documenting the crisis in India's government schools.
youtube.com, 2 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The retrieved sources do not mention any documentation of a crisis in government schools or action against those documenting it. A Ministry of Education release from February 2023 describes budget allocations and schemes such as PM SHRI and Samagra Shiksha, but says nothing about a crackdown on documenters. A Ministry of Home Affairs release from April 2025 concerns anti-Maoist operations and also does not address the claim.
None of the retrieved sources contains a court order, police record, government notice or official figure showing action against people documenting a crisis in India's government schools. [1][2][3][4]
The Ministry of Education's February 2023 release focuses on the highest-ever allocation for the ministry and schemes such as PM SHRI and Samagra Shiksha, with no mention of a crisis or crackdown on documenters. [3]
The Ministry of Home Affairs' April 2025 release concerns Naxalism and left-wing extremism, not documentation of conditions in government schools. [4]
The claim asserts that a crackdown on people documenting a government-school crisis has occurred, but the retrieved official record contains no document, court finding, police record or government figure showing such a crackdown. The government sources on education discuss budget allocations, not action against documenters. Because no order, FIR, parliamentary answer or commission report is provided to support the allegation, it remains unproven in the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipke, Cockroach Janta Party (Cockroach Janta Party)23 May 2026
“The group's founder Abhijeet Dipke said Indian officials had "taken down our iconic website" and asked why they were "so scared of cockroaches".”
The claim that Dipke made the statement is reported, but the substance — that Indian officials took down the website — is not confirmed by any official record. The website is down and X cites a legal demand, but the source of that demand is not identified. Without an official blocking order or government statement, the allegation remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Cockroach Janta Party founder Abhijeet Dipke said Indian officials took down the group's website, and asked why officials were so scared of cockroaches.
bbc.com, 23 May 2026
What is actually true
No official document in the record confirms that Indian officials ordered the Cockroach Janta Party website to be taken down. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology advisory in the record concerns VPN access to blocked betting platforms, not this website. News reports say the website is inaccessible and X displays a notice that the account was withheld 'in response to a legal demand,' but they do not identify the authority behind that demand.
The Cockroach Janta Party's website is inaccessible in India and elsewhere, and its X account shows a notice that it was withheld 'in response to a legal demand.' [1][2][3][6]
Founder Abhijeet Dipke said Indian officials had 'taken down our iconic website' and asked why they were 'so scared of cockroaches.' [2][6]
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology advisory in the record concerns VPN access to blocked betting platforms and does not mention the Cockroach Janta Party. [5]
The claim that Dipke made the statement is reported, but the substance — that Indian officials took down the website — is not confirmed by any official record. The website is down and X cites a legal demand, but the source of that demand is not identified. Without an official blocking order or government statement, the allegation remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Misleading
73 claims
Part of it is true, but the way it was said gives a wrong picture.
MisleadingDhruv Ratheechecked 12 Oct 2026
“Recently, the ministry of mines announced that ∼ 60 lakh metric tonnes of lithium, or "white gold," or "new oil," had been found in Jammu and Kashmir.”
∼ 60 lakh metric tonnes of lithium, 5.9 million tonnes
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
∼ 60 lakh metric tonnes of lithium
Dhruv Rathee said the Ministry of Mines announced that about 60 lakh metric tonnes of lithium — called 'white gold' or 'new oil' — had been found in Jammu and Kashmir.
facebook.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
5.9 million tonnes
lithium ore inferred resource, GSI, J&K, 2026
sansad.in
The Ministry of Mines told Parliament on 13 March 2023 that the Geological Survey of India (GSI) had estimated an inferred resource (G3) of 5.9 million tonnes of lithium ore in Salal-Haimna, Reasi district, Jammu and Kashmir. The same official record describes the find as lithium ore with an average grade of 583 ppm, not as 60 lakh tonnes of lithium.
The Ministry of Mines told Parliament that GSI estimated 5.9 million tonnes of lithium ore in Salal-Haimna, Reasi district, Jammu and Kashmir. [2][3]
The official record describes the find as lithium ore with an average grade of 583 ppm, not as pure lithium. [6]
The figure of 5.9 million tonnes is close to the claimed 60 lakh tonnes, but the official unit is lithium ore, not lithium. [2]
The number is roughly right: 5.9 million tonnes is about 59 lakh tonnes. But the Ministry of Mines and GSI consistently describe the find as lithium ore, not lithium. Calling it 60 lakh tonnes of lithium overstates what was found, because the ore contains lithium at an average grade of 583 ppm. The 'white gold' and 'new oil' labels are not in the official record.
“The rape-murder case in West Bengal is heartbreaking. It exposes the inhumane working conditions for doctors, the lack of their safety and the miserable state of law and order in West Bengal.”
The court record supports that doctors' safety was a serious concern and that the incident led to protests and disruption. But the record does not describe working conditions as 'inhumane' or law and order in West Bengal as 'miserable'; those are the speaker's characterisations, not findings in the orders. The claim therefore overstates what the official record shows.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee said the rape-murder case in West Bengal exposes inhumane working conditions for doctors, a lack of safety for them, and the miserable state of law and order in West Bengal.
livemint.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
In orders dated 20 August, 22 August, 9 September and 30 September 2024, the Supreme Court said it was seized of the safety and well-being of medical professionals, noted that most resident doctors had left RG Kar after the incident, directed CISF deployment and set up a National Task Force. The court did not find that working conditions were 'inhumane' or that law and order in West Bengal was 'miserable'.
The Supreme Court's 20 August 2024 order said the court was seized of matters relating to the safety and well-being of all medical professionals at their workplaces and that it was essential to create safe conditions for interns, residents and senior residents. [1]
The 22 August 2024 order recorded that CISF had been deployed at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital to ensure the safety of doctors, nurses and other medical professionals, and directed all states and union territories to be alert to safety breaches in medical establishments. [2]
The 9 September 2024 order noted resident doctors across West Bengal had been abstaining from duty for 28 days, causing severe disruptions, and said the state must create confidence in doctors that their security and safety concerns are being attended to. [3]
The 30 September 2024 order recorded that the CBI was investigating the alleged rape and murder of 9 August 2024 and financial irregularities, and that the state had brought in new officers and was carrying out safety infrastructure work. [4]
The court record supports that doctors' safety was a serious concern and that the incident led to protests and disruption. But the record does not describe working conditions as 'inhumane' or law and order in West Bengal as 'miserable'; those are the speaker's characterisations, not findings in the orders. The claim therefore overstates what the official record shows.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingAbhijeet Dipkechecked 12 Oct 2026
“Under its “Election Commission Thik Karo” campaign, the CJP said it would focus on the exclusion of more than 13 crore names from draft electoral rolls across 30 states and Union Territories during the SIR exercise.”
more than 13 crore names
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
more than 13 crore names
Abhijeet Dipke's organisation CJP said it would focus on the exclusion of more than 13 crore names from draft electoral rolls across 30 states and Union Territories during the SIR exercise.
news.abplive.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 25 July 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision is being carried out in phases, with draft rolls published and a claims and objections period before the final roll, and that no eligible elector is left out. The Supreme Court's order of 27 May 2026 records that in Bihar the final electoral roll contained 7.42 crore electors compared to 7.89 crore before the SIR, a net reduction of about 47 lakh. Media reports cite 13.37 crore draft-roll deletions across 30 states and Union Territories, but the Election Commission has rejected the 13.39 crore figure.
The Election Commission's press note of 25 July 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision is being conducted in phases, with draft rolls published and a claims and objections period before the final roll, and that no eligible elector is left out. [5]
The Supreme Court's order of 27 May 2026 records that in Bihar the final electoral roll contained 7.42 crore electors compared to 7.89 crore before the SIR, a net reduction of about 47 lakh. [7]
Indian Express reports 13.37 crore names deleted from draft rolls across 30 states and Union Territories, while Moneycontrol reports the Election Commission rejected the 13.39 crore figure. [2][1]
The claim rests on a 13-crore figure that the official record does not confirm. The Election Commission's press note describes a phased process with draft rolls and restoration safeguards, and the Supreme Court's Bihar order shows a net reduction of about 47 lakh, not 13 crore. The 13-crore figure conflates draft-stage exclusions with final deletions and omits that eligible voters can be restored through claims and objections, so the claim is misleading.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingJairam Ramesh (Indian National Congress)1 Oct 2026
“Nearly 14 crore voters have already been disenfranchised by the SIR,”
nearly 14 crore voters, 47 lakh
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
nearly 14 crore voters
Jairam Ramesh said that nearly 14 crore voters have already been disenfranchised by the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
thehindu.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
47 lakh
net reduction in Bihar electoral roll after SIR, ECI PIB, 30 Sep 2025
pib.gov.in
The Election Commission's press note on Bihar's Special Intensive Revision, published on 30 September 2025, says the final roll had about 7.42 crore electors, down from 7.89 crore before the exercise — a net reduction of about 47 lakh. It also records that 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added during the process. The Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India, examined the SIR and held that it is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate, as recorded in the PIB note of 25 July 2026.
The Election Commission's official press note on Bihar's SIR says the final electoral roll published on 30 September 2025 contained about 7.42 crore electors, compared with 7.89 crore on 24 June 2025 — a net reduction of about 47 lakh. [10]
The same press note says 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added to the draft list through Form 6 during the Bihar SIR. [10]
The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026 in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India, held that the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and consistent with its constitutional obligation under Article 324. [12][9]
The figure of nearly 14 crore deleted voters appears in statements by Congress leaders and media reports, not in the Election Commission's official press notes on the SIR phases. [1][6]
The Election Commission has stated that the SIR is meant to make rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries while ensuring no eligible elector is left out, with safeguards such as house-to-house visits, claims and objections, and appeals. [12]
The claim treats all deletions during the SIR as disenfranchisement of eligible voters. The official record shows a different picture: in Bihar, the only state for which the sources give an official before-and-after count, the net reduction was about 47 lakh, and 21.53 lakh eligible voters were added back. The 14 crore figure is not an Election Commission number; it comes from Congress leaders' statements and media reports. The Supreme Court has also upheld the SIR process as lawful.
MisleadingAbhijeet Dipke (Cockroach Janta Party)1 Oct 2026
“Dipke claimed that around 13 crore voters were deleted from electoral rolls since 2024.”
around 13 crore voters
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
around 13 crore voters
CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke claimed that around 13 crore voters were deleted from electoral rolls since 2024.
hindustantimes.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's official press note on Bihar's Special Intensive Revision (SIR), published on 30 September 2025, says 65 lakh electors were removed from the draft list and the final roll has about 7.42 crore electors, with claims and appeals available. Media reports put all-India draft-stage deletions at over 13 crore names across 30 states and Union Territories, but these are draft exclusions that can still be challenged before final rolls are published.
The Election Commission's SIR in Bihar removed 65 lakh electors from the draft list and published a final roll of about 7.42 crore on 30 September 2025. [7]
Media reports describe over 13 crore names deleted from draft electoral rolls across 30 states and Union Territories under SIR, not final deletions. [4][5]
The SIR process began in 2025; Bihar's ran from 24 June to 30 September 2025, not in 2024. [7]
Draft-stage deletions can be challenged through claims and objections before final rolls are published. [4][7]
The claim's number matches draft-stage exclusions reported in media, but calling them 'voters deleted since 2024' is misleading. These are names removed from draft rolls in a 2025-26 revision, not final deletions, and the official record for one state shows a much smaller final removal with a challenge process. The 'since 2024' framing is also inaccurate because the SIR drive began in 2025.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhi1 Oct 2026
“I believe two Election Commissioners have now given us the answer.”
The claim takes a real reported dissent and stretches it into an answer about anti-incumbency. The reported objections were about internal process, not about why the BJP keeps winning. No official Election Commission document or court order in the record contains the answer Rahul Gandhi describes. So the claim is misleading.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi says two Election Commissioners have provided the answer to why anti-incumbency does not appear to affect Narendra Modi, Amit Shah or the BJP.
youtube.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India examined the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. It recorded that the final roll published on 30 September 2025 had 7.42 crore electors, down from 7.89 crore on 24 June 2025, but it did not record any statement by two Election Commissioners that anti-incumbency had disappeared because of manipulation. Media reports say the two Election Commissioners objected on record 14 times in 10 months to steps such as being kept in the dark, adding new voters and deleting names — not on anti-incumbency.
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment on the Bihar Special Intensive Revision recorded the final electoral roll at 7.42 crore electors, down from 7.89 crore on 24 June 2025. [11]
That judgment did not record any statement by two Election Commissioners that anti-incumbency had disappeared because of electoral manipulation. [11]
The Indian Express reported that the two Election Commissioners objected on record 14 times in 10 months to steps such as being kept in the dark, adding new voters and deleting names. [6]
The line that the commissioners 'essentially said that votes don't exist in India' is Rahul Gandhi's characterisation, not a quote from either commissioner. [4]
The claim takes a real reported dissent and stretches it into an answer about anti-incumbency. The reported objections were about internal process, not about why the BJP keeps winning. No official Election Commission document or court order in the record contains the answer Rahul Gandhi describes. So the claim is misleading.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Gyanesh Kumar was chosen by Narendra Modi and Amit Shah. And now two Election Commissioners are saying that he is responsible for the chaos and the damage that has taken place in our voting system”
The first half of the claim is supported: the selection committee that picked Kumar included Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, and Rahul Gandhi dissented. But the second half misstates what the two Election Commissioners did. The reporting shows they objected to decisions being taken without them, not that they blamed Kumar for chaos or damage to the voting system. So the claim is misleading.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar was chosen by Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, and that two Election Commissioners now say Kumar is responsible for the chaos and damage to India's voting system.
ummid.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The President appointed Gyanesh Kumar as an Election Commissioner on 14 March 2024, according to a Press Information Bureau notification. Under the 2023 law, the selection committee has the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister; Amit Shah was the nominated minister and Rahul Gandhi dissented. On the second part, an Indian Express report summarised by The Telegraph says two Election Commissioners formally objected at least 14 times to decisions taken in the name of the three-member Commission bypassing them — not that they said Kumar caused chaos or damage.
A Press Information Bureau notification dated 14 March 2024 says the President appointed Gyanesh Kumar as an Election Commissioner. [3][4]
Under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, the selection committee consists of the Prime Minister as chairperson, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. [10]
Amit Shah was the nominated Cabinet Minister on the selection committee, and Rahul Gandhi submitted a dissent note opposing the appointment. [2]
The Telegraph, citing an Indian Express report, says two Election Commissioners formally objected at least 14 times to decisions taken in the name of the three-member Election Commission bypassing them. [7]
The Election Commission said differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberations and that all its orders carry full legal sanction. [6]
No source in the record shows the two Election Commissioners saying Kumar is responsible for chaos or damage to the voting system. [6][7]
The first half of the claim is supported: the selection committee that picked Kumar included Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, and Rahul Gandhi dissented. But the second half misstates what the two Election Commissioners did. The reporting shows they objected to decisions being taken without them, not that they blamed Kumar for chaos or damage to the voting system. So the claim is misleading.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Concurrently, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi addressed students in Indore, alleging that the education system has been captured by the ruling establishment and that central education budget allocations have declined.”
₹1,39,289.48 crore
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi, addressing students in Indore, alleged that the education system has been captured by the ruling establishment and that central education budget allocations have declined.
indiatoday.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
₹1,39,289.48 crore
Ministry of Education budget 2026-27, Press Information Bureau
pib.gov.in
The Press Information Bureau, the Government of India's information office, announced on 1 February 2026 that the Ministry of Education's total allocation reached ₹1,39,289.48 crore — an 8.27% increase over the previous year's budget estimate. A Rajya Sabha answer of 4 December 2024 shows the Ministry's allocation staying at 0.4% of GDP in each of 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24, and a policy analysis notes that while absolute spending on education has grown, its share of the whole Union Budget has fallen over the past 12 years. No source in the record shows the education system being 'captured' by the ruling establishment.
The Press Information Bureau reported that the Ministry of Education's total allocation for 2026-27 reached ₹1,39,289.48 crore, an 8.27% increase over the 2025-26 budget estimate, and described the school education allocation of ₹83,562 crore as the highest ever. [4]
A Rajya Sabha answer of 4 December 2024 states the Ministry of Education's budgeted allocation was 0.4% of GDP in 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24, while total spending on education by the Centre, States and Union Territories stood at 4.12% of GDP in 2021-22. [1]
A policy analysis reports that the Ministry of Education's share of the total Union Budget declined from about 4.6% to 2.5% over 12 years, even as its spending rose in absolute terms, and that the road transport sector's share grew while education's relative share fell. [2]
The Press Information Bureau described the Ministry of Education's 2023-24 allocation of ₹112,899.47 crore as the highest ever, an increase of about 13% over the 2022-23 revised estimate. [11]
The official record contradicts the claim that central education allocations 'declined' in absolute terms: they rose each year to a record ₹1,39,289.48 crore in 2026-27. What has fallen is education's relative share of the total Union Budget, a different measure that a budget analysis puts at a drop from 4.6% to 2.5% over 12 years. The assertion that the education system has been 'captured' by the ruling establishment is an allegation for which the retrieved record contains no court finding, commission report or official document.
“Faced with issues like inflation, unemployment, a lack of investment, and the failure to double farmers’ income, they are now harking back to the pre-2017 era—looking at 2022 and 2027.”
3.2%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said the BJP government faced inflation, unemployment, a lack of investment and had failed to double farmers' income.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
3.2%
unemployment rate, Economic Survey 2024-25
pib.gov.in
The Economic Survey 2024-25, presented in Parliament, says retail headline inflation softened to 4.9% in April-December 2024 and the unemployment rate for people aged 15 and above fell from 6% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24. On farmers' income, the Agriculture Ministry's written replies and PIB releases cite NSS data showing average monthly income per agricultural household rose from ₹6,426 in 2012-13 to ₹10,218 in 2018-19, not a doubling.
The Economic Survey 2024-25 says retail headline inflation softened to 4.9% in April-December 2024 and was expected to align with the target of around 4% in FY26. [10]
The same Economic Survey says the unemployment rate for people aged 15 and above declined from 6% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24. [10]
The Periodic Labour Force Survey 2023-24 puts Uttar Pradesh's unemployment rate at 3.0% for all persons. [11]
Official replies on Doubling Farmers' Income cite NSS data showing average monthly income per agricultural household rose from ₹6,426 in 2012-13 to ₹10,218 in 2018-19, and they do not state that the doubling target was met. [6][7]
The Economic Survey 2024-25 reports gross FDI inflows rose from USD 47.2 billion in the first eight months of FY24 to USD 55.6 billion in the same period of FY25, and capex grew 8.2% in July-November 2024. [10]
The Economic Survey 2023-24 says gross capital formation in agriculture grew 19.04% in 2022-23. [9]
An Economic and Political Weekly assessment of Uttar Pradesh says investment levels remain sluggish despite policy initiatives. [8]
The claim bundles several issues. The farmers' income part is supported: official data show average monthly income rose from ₹6,426 to ₹10,218, not a doubling, and the government does not claim the target was met. But the inflation and unemployment parts are misleading because official data show inflation softened to 4.9% and unemployment fell to 3.2%, not a deepening crisis. Investment indicators also rose at the all-India level, though one non-official assessment says Uttar Pradesh investment remains sluggish.
“Gandhi further alleged that their houses were demolished in 2023, but the residents continued to live in the same area.”
13 of 33
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged that Bela Estate residents' houses were demolished in 2023, but the residents continued to live in the same area.
freepressjournal.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
13 of 33
Bela Estate residents allotted alternate plots, DDA affidavit, Delhi High Court, March 2023
indiankanoon.org
The Delhi High Court's order of 27 March 2023 in Bela Estate Mazdoor Basti Samiti v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board records that the DDA told the court that 13 of 33 residents had been allotted alternate plots at Bawana and Narela, 7 were ineligible, and for 13 the DDA could not find allotment details. The DDA said some residents were either ineligible or had been allotted alternate plots but returned to the flood plains. The court directed a survey before any demolition activity. The Supreme Court's order of 15 May 2023 shows an appeal against the High Court order was pending.
The Delhi High Court's 27 March 2023 order records the DDA's affidavit that 13 of 33 Bela Estate residents were allotted alternate plots at Bawana and Narela, 7 were ineligible, and for 13 the DDA could not find allotment details. [1]
The same order directed the DDA and DUSIB to carry out a survey before conducting any demolition activity in the area. [1]
The DDA told the court that some residents were either ineligible or had been allotted alternate plots but returned to the flood plains. [1]
The Supreme Court's 15 May 2023 order shows the residents' appeal against the High Court order was pending. [3]
The claim says houses were demolished in 2023, but the record does not show any demolition in 2023. As of the High Court's March 2023 order, demolition was pending and subject to a survey, and an appeal was pending in the Supreme Court in May 2023. The DDA's statement that some residents returned to the flood plains supports that some continued to live in the area, but it describes return after being allotted alternate plots, not after a 2023 demolition. So the claim is misleading.
“Strained ties with neighbors (Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives) shifting to China”
The claim is true for Bangladesh and partly for Nepal, but it wrongly lumps Bhutan and Maldives into the same category. The record describes Bhutan as India's most reliable ally and says Maldives has reaffirmed ties with India, so the assertion that all four are strained and shifting to China overstates the situation.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee said India's ties with its neighbours Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives are strained and those countries are shifting towards China.
x.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
A December 2025 report of the Lok Sabha Committee on External Affairs says attacks on minorities in Bangladesh have strained bilateral relations. A 2024 analysis by the Observer Research Foundation, a think tank, says Nepal has a pro-China tilt and that neighbours balance India against China, but it calls Bhutan India's most reliable ally. A separate analysis says Bhutan and Maldives have reaffirmed ties with India while balancing diplomatic engagement with China.
The Lok Sabha Committee on External Affairs noted in December 2025 that attacks on minority communities in Bangladesh have strained bilateral relations. [5]
The Observer Research Foundation wrote in 2024 that Nepal has a pro-China tilt and that neighbours balance India against China, but described Bhutan as India's most reliable ally. [2]
An analysis of India's relations with Bhutan and Maldives says both countries have reaffirmed their ties with India while balancing diplomatic engagements with China. [3]
In September 2026, Rediff reported that India had significantly increased its diplomatic engagements with Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh and the Maldives. [7]
The claim is true for Bangladesh and partly for Nepal, but it wrongly lumps Bhutan and Maldives into the same category. The record describes Bhutan as India's most reliable ally and says Maldives has reaffirmed ties with India, so the assertion that all four are strained and shifting to China overstates the situation.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingDhruv Ratheechecked 1 Oct 2026
“How NEET Exam Was SOLD for ₹30 Lakhs | The Complete Trail | Dhruv Rathee”
₹30 lakhs
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
₹30 lakhs
Dhruv Rathee published a video titled 'How NEET Exam Was SOLD for ₹30 Lakhs | The Complete Trail', asserting that the NEET exam was sold for ₹30 lakhs.
bhopalsamachar.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Education told the Lok Sabha on 26 March 2025 that after NEET (UG) 2024 the CBI filed five charge sheets in the paper theft case against 45 accused [7]. The same parliamentary answer quoted the Supreme Court's 2 August 2024 order saying there was no material on record indicating a systemic leak or widespread malpractice [7]. For NEET-UG 2026, the CBI said on 15 May 2026 that students paid several lakhs of rupees to attend classes where leaked question banks were dictated, but it did not give a ₹30-lakh figure [8].
In the 2024 NEET case, accused persons admitted that the question paper was leaked about 24 hours before the exam to those who paid ₹30–32 lakh, according to an interrogation report cited in a news account [2]. [2]
In 2026, India Today reported that two Rajasthan brothers allegedly bought the NEET-UG paper from a Gurugram doctor for ₹30 lakh about a week before the exam [3]. [3]
The Supreme Court held in its 2 August 2024 order, quoted in Parliament, that sufficient material was not on record to indicate a systemic leak or systemic malpractice, and that the material did not substantiate allegations of widespread malpractice [7]. [7]
The CBI filed five charge sheets against 45 accused in the NEET (UG) 2024 paper theft case, and identified candidates who were beneficiaries of the paper theft or unfair means [7]. [7]
For NEET-UG 2026, the CBI said students paid several lakhs of rupees to attend special coaching classes where leaked question banks were dictated, but it did not say the exam was sold for ₹30 lakhs [8]. [8]
The exact ₹30-lakh figure appears in media reports about alleged deals in 2024 and 2026, not in the official record. More importantly, saying the NEET exam itself was sold overstates the matter: the Supreme Court's order quoted in Parliament found no evidence of a systemic leak in 2024, even as officials recorded paper theft and unfair-means cases. The title would need to specify that a question paper was allegedly sold, rather than the exam as a whole.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingDhruv Ratheechecked 1 Oct 2026
“a software that was never tested decided who is Indian and who isn't”
The claim contains a true element — the software was reported as untested — but it overstates what the software did. The report says the software flagged voters as suspicious, not that it decided who is Indian and who is not; the Election Commission then issued summons to some, and the final decision rests with electoral authorities under law. The official record does not show any software making citizenship decisions.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee claims that a software that was never tested decided who is Indian and who isn't, in the context of the West Bengal elections.
youtube.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
No official document in the provided record states that a software decided who is Indian and who is not. The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 order in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India concerns the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar and does not mention any software deciding citizenship. An investigative report by The Reporters' Collective says the Election Commission's software was untested and red-flagged 1.31 crore West Bengal voters as suspicious, but it also says not all those flagged received summons.
The Reporters' Collective reported that the Election Commission's software was untested and red-flagged 1.31 crore voters in West Bengal as suspicious, or 17.11% of the voting population. [3]
The same report says not all those red-flagged by the software are receiving summons from the Election Commission. [3]
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 order in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India deals with the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar and does not mention any software deciding citizenship. [9]
The claim contains a true element — the software was reported as untested — but it overstates what the software did. The report says the software flagged voters as suspicious, not that it decided who is Indian and who is not; the Election Commission then issued summons to some, and the final decision rests with electoral authorities under law. The official record does not show any software making citizenship decisions.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“For ten years you have made the youth unemployed. You snatched away reservations. You leaked the papers. You don't want to give government jobs.”
10.2%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that in ten years the government made the youth unemployed, snatched away reservations, leaked examination papers, and does not want to give government jobs.
The Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), run by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI), shows the youth unemployment rate for ages 15-29 fell from 17.8% in 2017-18 to 10.0% in 2022-23, and was 10.2% in 2023-24. The Worker Population Ratio for youth rose from 31.4% in 2017-18 to 41.7% in 2023-24. The Press Information Bureau records that paper leaks and malpractices have occurred in various parts of the country, and Parliament passed a law to curb them.
The Periodic Labour Force Survey shows the youth unemployment rate for ages 15-29 fell from 17.8% in 2017-18 to 10.0% in 2022-23. [6]
The Worker Population Ratio for youth rose from 31.4% in 2017-18 to 41.7% in 2023-24, indicating more young people in employment. [5]
The Press Information Bureau says incidents of paper leaks and malpractices have occurred in various parts of the country, and Parliament passed a law to curb them. [9]
The claim that the government made the youth unemployed over ten years is contradicted by official PLFS data, which shows youth unemployment falling and youth employment rising. Paper leaks did occur, but the record does not show the government leaked them. No source supports the allegation that reservations were snatched away or that the government does not want to give government jobs. The claim mixes a true element with unsupported and contradicted assertions, so it is misleading.
“The AAP chief also highlighted past achievements, stating that when his government was in power in Delhi, they had installed 262,000 CCTV cameras and 280,000 streetlights.”
262,000 CCTV cameras and 280,000 streetlights, 3,81,107
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
262,000 CCTV cameras and 280,000 streetlights
Arvind Kejriwal stated that when his (AAP) government was in power in Delhi, it had installed 262,000 CCTV cameras and 280,000 streetlights.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
3,81,107
LED streetlights installed in Delhi under SLNP, PIB, Dec 2023
pib.gov.in
A Press Information Bureau release of 15 December 2023 from the Ministry of Power says that under the Street Lighting National Programme, Energy Efficiency Services Limited, a central public-sector joint venture, installed 3,81,107 LED streetlights in Delhi. Media reports citing official data say Delhi has 2,74,389 CCTV cameras installed by the Public Works Department, and the Delhi government planned an audit of more than 260,000 CCTV cameras installed by PWD during the previous AAP regime.
A Press Information Bureau release of 15 December 2023 from the Ministry of Power says that under the Street Lighting National Programme, Energy Efficiency Services Limited, a central public-sector joint venture, installed 3,81,107 LED streetlights in Delhi. [4]
Media reports citing official data say Delhi has 2,74,389 CCTV cameras installed by the Public Works Department, and the Delhi government planned an audit of more than 260,000 CCTV cameras installed by PWD during the previous AAP regime. [2][7]
The official record on Delhi streetlights attributes the 3,81,107 LED streetlights to EESL under the central Street Lighting National Programme, not to the AAP government. [4]
The CCTV part is close to the record: media reports citing official data put Delhi's PWD-installed cameras at 2,74,389, and the Delhi government planned an audit of more than 260,000 cameras installed during the AAP period. But the streetlight part is not supported: the official PIB record says 3,81,107 LED streetlights in Delhi were installed by EESL under the central Street Lighting National Programme, not by the AAP government. So the claim presents a central programme's work as the AAP government's achievement.
“He claimed that the same policy was currently being implemented in Punjab and that the state's excise revenue had increased from around Rs 5,000 crore to Rs 12,000 crore.”
around Rs 5,000 crore to Rs 12,000 crore, ₹12,800 crore
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
around Rs 5,000 crore to Rs 12,000 crore
Arvind Kejriwal claimed that the Delhi excise policy's auction system is now being implemented in Punjab and that Punjab's excise revenue increased from around Rs 5,000 crore to Rs 12,000 crore.
pratidintime.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
₹12,800 crore
Punjab excise revenue target for 2026-27, DIPR Punjab
ipr.punjab.gov.in
Punjab's Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema said in an official state government release that after the 2022-23 policy the state's excise revenue jumped to ₹8,428 crore and the 2026-27 target is ₹12,800 crore [1]. He put the 2021-22 figure at ₹6,255 crore [5]. The Hindu reported actual 2025-26 collections of ₹11,782 crore [4].
Punjab Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema said excise revenue was ₹6,255 crore in 2021-22 under the previous Congress government. [5]
The official DIPR Punjab release says revenue jumped to ₹8,428 crore in 2022-23 and sets a ₹12,800 crore target for 2026-27. [1]
The Hindu reported that Punjab's excise department closed 2025-26 with ₹11,782 crore, nearly double the ₹6,254.84 crore of four years earlier. [4]
The official Punjab government release describes a 'robust policy framework' introduced in 2022-23 but does not state that it is the same as Delhi's excise policy. [1]
The revenue increase is real, but the starting point is wrong. Kejriwal said 'around Rs 5,000 crore'; the official record puts the 2021-22 base at ₹6,255 crore, about 25% higher. The current figure is roughly in line with actual ₹11,782 crore or the ₹12,800 crore target. The claim that Punjab is implementing the same policy as Delhi is not established by the official sources, which describe Punjab's own policy.
“In 2019, the Modi government slashed corporate tax rates, resulting in a revenue loss of ₹1.45 lakh crore in 2019-20 alone. Over the past five years, the government's revenue loss due to corporate tax cuts amounts to ₹9 trillion.”
₹1.45 lakh crore in 2019-20; ₹9 trillion over five years, ₹1.45 lakh crore
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
₹1.45 lakh crore in 2019-20; ₹9 trillion over five years
Dhruv Rathee said the Modi government's 2019 corporate tax rate cuts caused a revenue loss of ₹1.45 lakh crore in 2019-20 and ₹9 trillion over five years.
jotosob.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
₹1.45 lakh crore
revenue impact of corporate tax reforms, Finance Ministry, June 2020
pib.gov.in
The Finance Ministry's Press Information Bureau release of 7 June 2020 estimated the revenue impact of the corporate tax reforms at ₹1.45 lakh crore for 2019-20. A Rajya Sabha answer from the Ministry of Finance notes that corporate tax collections recovered to ₹7.12 lakh crore in 2021-22, higher than in 2018-19. No official source in the record states a five-year revenue loss of ₹9 trillion; a report citing a Parliament reply puts the concessional corporate tax regime's revenue impact at about ₹5.39 lakh crore over six years.
The Finance Ministry's 7 June 2020 PIB release estimated the revenue impact of the corporate tax reforms at ₹1.45 lakh crore for 2019-20. [3]
The 2019 Taxation Laws (Amendment) Ordinance provided a concessional corporate tax regime of 22% for existing domestic companies. [3]
A Rajya Sabha answer said corporate tax collections in 2021-22 were ₹7.12 lakh crore, higher than the 2018-19 collection. [1]
A report citing a Parliament reply put the concessional corporate tax regime's revenue impact at about ₹5.39 lakh crore over six years, not ₹9 trillion. [4]
The first figure is accurate: the Finance Ministry itself estimated ₹1.45 lakh crore for 2019-20. But the five-year ₹9 trillion figure, which is ₹9 lakh crore, is not supported by the record. The only multi-year breakdown in the sources totals about ₹5.39 lakh crore over six years, and official data shows corporate tax collections recovered above pre-cut levels by 2021-22. The claim therefore mixes a correct one-year estimate with an inflated five-year total.
Abhijeet Dipke stated that 13 crore votes were deleted in connection with the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
msn.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
No Election Commission press note in these sources gives an all-India figure of 13 crore deletions. The only official state-level figure is Bihar's final roll: 65 lakh electors removed from the draft list and 3.66 lakh ineligible electors removed later, leaving about 7.42 crore electors. A government note on the nationwide exercise says data is published by the Commission but provides no such total, and the Supreme Court on 27 May 2026 held the SIR process within the Commission's statutory mandate.
The Election Commission's press note for Bihar states 65 lakh electors were removed from the draft list and 3.66 lakh ineligible electors were removed later, leaving a final roll of about 7.42 crore. [4]
Media reports citing figures say the first two phases of SIR deleted 7.8 crore names, while another 5.43 crore voters were issued notices demanding documents to retain their names, making about 13.23 crore deleted or at risk. [1]
The Supreme Court ruled on 27 May 2026 that the Special Intensive Revision is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and consistent with its constitutional obligation. [9][10]
The claim that 13 crore votes were deleted is misleading because the 13-crore figure includes voters who were only sent notices asking for documents, not actually removed. The deletion count alone was about 7.8 crore, and the Election Commission's own published data for Bihar shows a much smaller number of removals. While about 13.2 crore voters were affected in total, calling them all deleted overstates the Commission's action.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingSaurav Daschecked 30 Sept 2026
“pointing to reports of approximately 13 crore voters being deleted in the past 18 months through SIR”
approximately 13 crore voters
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
approximately 13 crore voters
Saurav Das said approximately 13 crore voters were deleted in the past 18 months through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
news9live.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's final figures for Bihar's Special Intensive Revision, published on 30 September 2025, show 65 lakh electors removed from the draft list, with the final roll containing about 7.42 crore electors, down from 7.89 crore before the exercise. In July 2026 the Commission said the SIR is carried out in phases, with draft rolls followed by claims, objections and appeals before deletions are finalised, and that names are restored where grievances are found valid. The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment held that deletions under the SIR were not contrary to Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules.
Media reports that cite Election Commission data describe the 13.3 crore figure as names missing from draft electoral rolls across 30 states and union territories, not as final deletions of voters. [2][7]
In Bihar's completed SIR, official final figures show 65 lakh electors were removed from the draft list, and the final roll had about 7.42 crore electors, compared with 7.89 crore before the exercise. [8]
The Election Commission's process includes a claims and objections period after the draft roll, appeals, and restoration of names where grievances are found valid; one report says 38 lakh appeals were pending, including 22.21 lakh filed by deleted voters seeking restoration. [10][1]
The official PIB note and Supreme Court documents in the record do not provide a national total of 13 crore final voter deletions. [10][11]
The 13 crore number is drawn from draft-roll exclusions during an ongoing revision, not from a final count of voters who have lost their place on the rolls. The Election Commission's own published process shows that draft exclusions can be reversed through claims, objections and appeals before the final roll is published. Using the draft-roll figure as if it were a final deletion count therefore overstates what the record shows.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingArvind Kejriwalchecked 30 Sept 2026
““The entire SIR process, through which over 13 crore names were deleted, is illegal; the SIR process must be scrapped.”
The 13-crore number is supported by reporting, but it is a draft-roll count, not proof that 13 crore voters were permanently removed. The Election Commission's published procedure and Bihar's final roll data include verification, appeals and restoration, so a blanket claim that the whole process is illegal leaves out that context. The demand to scrap SIR is a political position, not a factual finding.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal said that over 13 crore names were deleted through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, called that process illegal and demanded it be scrapped.
thenewsmill.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Media reports say more than 13 crore names were struck off draft voter rolls across 30 states and union territories during the Special Intensive Revision, a voter-list clean-up. The Election Commission's press note describes the exercise as a phased statutory process with house-to-house verification, a draft roll, claims and objections, appeals, and restoration where a valid objection is raised. Bihar's published final SIR data shows 65 lakh names removed from the draft list but 21.53 lakh eligible electors added, leaving about 7.42 crore in the final list.
Media reports record that more than 13 crore names were struck off draft electoral rolls across 30 states and union territories during the SIR exercise. [2][5][6]
The Election Commission's press note describes SIR as a phased statutory revision with house-to-house verification, publication of a draft roll, claims and objections, appeals to the District Magistrate and Chief Electoral Officer, and restoration where a grievance is found valid. [7][9]
Bihar's published final SIR data shows 65 lakh names removed from the draft list, 21.53 lakh eligible electors added, and a final roll of about 7.42 crore, showing draft removals are not the same as final deletions. [4]
A Parliament answer from the Ministry of Law and Justice refers to a Supreme Court judgment dated 27 May 2026 in the SIR case and states that grievances found valid are restored before the roll is finalised. [10]
The 13-crore number is supported by reporting, but it is a draft-roll count, not proof that 13 crore voters were permanently removed. The Election Commission's published procedure and Bihar's final roll data include verification, appeals and restoration, so a blanket claim that the whole process is illegal leaves out that context. The demand to scrap SIR is a political position, not a factual finding.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Rahul Gandhi claims 727 voters removed from Delhi's Bela Estate, Election Commission clarifies”
The claim is broadly supported in substance: the Election Commission does confirm a mass removal of names at Bela Estate. However, two load-bearing specifics are wrong or incomplete. First, Rahul Gandhi said 727 voters were removed, but the Election Commission's official count is 728. Second, the claim presents these as final removals of voters, when the record shows this is a draft roll, the removals happened because homes were demolished, and eligible residents can be restored through Form 6 before the roll is finalised. The removal is not shown to be vote theft.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi claimed that 727 voters were removed from Delhi's Bela Estate.
indiatvnews.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Rahul Gandhi alleged that 727 of 728 residents of Bela Estate were removed from the electoral roll after the Special Intensive Revision. The Election Commission said the area falls under polling station number 38 and that 728 electors were deleted from the draft electoral roll after homes there were demolished. It added that special camps were held and eligible persons can file Form 6 to be added back before the final roll is published.
Rahul Gandhi alleged that 727 of 728 residents of Bela Estate had been removed from the electoral roll after the Special Intensive Revision. [1][4][5]
The Election Commission said Bela Estate falls under polling station number 38 and 728 electors were deleted from the electoral roll. [1]
Delhi election authorities said the names were removed because the residents' homes had been demolished. [4]
The Election Commission said special camps were organised on September 18 and 20, and eligible persons whose names are missing from the draft electoral roll can file Form 6 to seek inclusion. [1]
As per the Election Commission's press note, deletions during the Special Intensive Revision are followed by publication of a draft roll, a statutory period for claims and objections, and restoration of valid names before the final roll. [10]
The claim is broadly supported in substance: the Election Commission does confirm a mass removal of names at Bela Estate. However, two load-bearing specifics are wrong or incomplete. First, Rahul Gandhi said 727 voters were removed, but the Election Commission's official count is 728. Second, the claim presents these as final removals of voters, when the record shows this is a draft roll, the removals happened because homes were demolished, and eligible residents can be restored through Form 6 before the roll is finalised. The removal is not shown to be vote theft.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“727 of 728 names deleted: Rahul Gandhi claims vote theft in Delhi slum”
The 727-of-728 figure is accurate only for the draft electoral roll, not a final deletion. The claim omits that the roll is still open for claims and objections, that officials said homes were demolished, and that eligible voters can be restored. The official record does not support the 'vote theft' characterisation; the Supreme Court found the deletions followed procedure.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged vote theft, saying that 727 of 728 names were deleted in a Delhi slum (Bela Estate).
msn.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, said the Bela Estate names were placed on the ASDD list after verification of addresses and status, and Delhi election officials said homes in the area had been demolished. The Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment, held that deletions under the Special Intensive Revision followed the procedure under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules.
The draft electoral roll for Bela Estate showed only one of 728 names, a deletion rate of nearly 99.8% at that polling booth. [5]
Delhi election officials said the names were excluded because homes in the area had been demolished, and eligible voters can seek inclusion again during the claims and objections period. [2]
The Election Commission said voters missing from the roll can apply for inclusion if they meet eligibility requirements, and the names were placed on the ASDD list after verification of addresses and status. [4]
The Supreme Court held that deletions under the Special Intensive Revision followed the procedure under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. [11]
The 727-of-728 figure is accurate only for the draft electoral roll, not a final deletion. The claim omits that the roll is still open for claims and objections, that officials said homes were demolished, and that eligible voters can be restored. The official record does not support the 'vote theft' characterisation; the Supreme Court found the deletions followed procedure.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“He claimed that the share of education in the Union Budget had decreased from 4.6% in 2014 to 2.6% in 2026, and alleged that funds meant for education were diverted to benefit certain business interests.”
The numerical half of the claim is broadly supported: the Education Ministry's share of the Union Budget did decline from about 4.6 per cent to roughly 2.5-2.6 per cent, though the 4.6 per cent baseline is 2013-14, not the 2014-15 budget year. However, the allegation that education funds were diverted to benefit certain business interests is not supported by any document in the record. The sources show a shift in allocation priorities — education's relative share fell while road transport's share grew — but this is a description of how the Union Budget was divided, not evidence that money meant for education was siphoned to businesses. The claim is therefore misleading because it attaches a corruption allegation to a factual decline in relative budget share without any supporting record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi claimed that the share of education in the Union Budget decreased from 4.6% in 2014 to 2.6% in 2026, and alleged that education funds were diverted to benefit certain business interests.
thequint.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Union Budget analyses put the Education Ministry's share at 4.6 per cent in 2013-14 and 2.5 per cent in 2025-26. The official 2026-27 Expenditure Budget shows the Ministry of Education at ₹1,39,289 crore out of a Union total of ₹53,47,315 crore, which works out to about 2.6 per cent. The same record explains that a Budget share can fall when education spending rises in rupee terms but total Union expenditure grows faster; it also shows the Road Transport and Highways Ministry's share grew from 1.8 per cent to 5.8 per cent over the same period, but no document shows funds earmarked for education being diverted.
The share of the Ministry of Education in total Union expenditure fell from about 4.6 per cent in 2013-14 to 2.5 per cent in 2025-26. [2][3]
The official 2026-27 Expenditure Budget shows Ministry of Education outlay of ₹1,39,289 crore against a grand total of ₹53,47,315 crore, a share of roughly 2.6 per cent. [6]
A Budget share can fall even when education spending rises in rupee terms, if total Union expenditure grows faster; the record describes the decline as a question of relative priority, not diversion of funds. [1][2]
While education's relative share declined, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways' share rose from 1.8 per cent to 5.8 per cent over roughly the same 12-year period. [2][3]
The numerical half of the claim is broadly supported: the Education Ministry's share of the Union Budget did decline from about 4.6 per cent to roughly 2.5-2.6 per cent, though the 4.6 per cent baseline is 2013-14, not the 2014-15 budget year. However, the allegation that education funds were diverted to benefit certain business interests is not supported by any document in the record. The sources show a shift in allocation priorities — education's relative share fell while road transport's share grew — but this is a description of how the Union Budget was divided, not evidence that money meant for education was siphoned to businesses. The claim is therefore misleading because it attaches a corruption allegation to a factual decline in relative budget share without any supporting record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026
“It is shocking that as many as 13.3 crore voters have blatantly been removed from voter list,”
13.3 crore voters
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
13.3 crore voters
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said in September 2026 that 13.3 crore voters had been blatantly removed from the voter list.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press release of 30 September 2025 on Bihar's completed Special Intensive Revision (SIR) shows 65 lakh names were removed from the draft list, but 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added, leaving a final roll of about 7.42 crore against 7.89 crore before the exercise — a net reduction of about 47 lakh. Media reports say over 13 crore names have been deleted from draft rolls in 30 States/Union Territories so far, and that those incorrectly deleted can apply for inclusion in the final roll over the next month.
The Election Commission's 30 September 2025 press release on Bihar's SIR says 65 lakh names were removed from the draft list, 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added, and the final roll had about 7.42 crore electors against 7.89 crore before the exercise — a net reduction of about 47 lakh. [9]
Indian Express reported that the SIR has led to over 13 crore names being deleted from draft rolls in 30 States/Union Territories so far, with Delhi's draft roll dropping from 1.45 crore to 97.53 lakh and Maharashtra's from 9.78 crore to 7.71 crore; Deccan Herald put the figure at 13.3 crore names wiped out of draft voter lists. [1][5]
Those incorrectly deleted in the draft roll can apply for inclusion in the final roll over the next month, and 93% of appeals decided by tribunals resulted in the eventual inclusion of voters. [1][2]
The number is not invented: media reports show over 13 crore names deleted from draft rolls. But the claim presents these draft deletions as if 13.3 crore voters have been finally removed from the voter list. The Election Commission's own Bihar data shows the final net reduction was much smaller than the draft deletions, and those incorrectly deleted can be restored. That omission makes the claim misleading.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingIndian National Congress (Congress Working Committee) (Indian National Congress)29 Sept 2026
“The Congress Working Committee demanded restoration of 130 million deleted voters in the electoral rolls and a halt to the special intensive revision or SIR.”
130 million voters
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
130 million voters
The Congress Working Committee demanded that 130 million voters deleted from the electoral rolls be restored and that the special intensive revision (SIR) be halted.
hindustantimes.com, 29 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 25 July 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision is being carried out in phases with safeguards so that no eligible elector is left out: draft rolls are published, claims and objections are invited, and names are restored where valid before the final roll. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026, held that the exercise is within the Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and not contrary to the prescribed procedure.
A press note issued through PIB on 25 July 2026 states that the Special Intensive Revision includes a draft roll, a statutory period for claims and objections, and publication of the final roll after verification, with safeguards against wrongful deletion. [3]
The same note records that the Supreme Court, in a judgment dated 27 May 2026, upheld the legality of the SIR as within the Election Commission's statutory mandate and its Article 324 obligation to ensure free and fair elections. [3]
The widely reported figure of over 13 crore deletions concerns draft electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories, not the final electoral rolls. [8]
The revision schedule provides for disposal of claims and objections and checking of electoral roll health before the final roll is published on the notified date. [7]
The Supreme Court's judgment says the deletions effected pursuant to the SIR cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. [10]
The Congress demand rests on the number 130 million 'deleted voters'. That number matches reporting of over 13 crore names removed at the draft-roll stage, before the claims-and-objections period and final roll. Calling those 130 million final deletions overstates what the Election Commission's process shows, since eligible voters can be restored. The legality of the SIR itself has been upheld by the Supreme Court, so the factual basis for the number as permanent deletion is misleading.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingSaurav Das28 Sept 2026
“The Supreme Court ENSURED that the SIR happened in Bengal in whatever manner barely months before the election. When the consequences of mass voters deletions became impossible to ignore, Justice Joymalya Bagchi in that bench made an extraordinary observation that those unable to vote “this time” could vote “next time”,”
The claim's first part is substantially supported: the Supreme Court ordered or entrusted the SIR-related process and the exercise began in West Bengal in late February 2026, shortly before April polling. However, the attributed quotation to Justice Bagchi about voting 'next time' is not found in the official 13 April orders or the contemporaneous media report, which instead record different remarks. Pairing the true fact with an unsupported quotation gives a misleading impression of what the court actually said.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Saurav Das said the Supreme Court ensured the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls took place in West Bengal barely months before the election, and that Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that voters unable to vote 'this time' could vote 'next time' once the consequences of mass voter deletions became impossible to ignore.
awazthevoice.in, 28 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 13 April 2026 order notes that the SIR exercise commenced in West Bengal in the last week of February 2026 'in compliance of the orders passed by this Court', and polling was set for 23 and 29 April 2026. The same order records the Bench's appreciation for the task and states that if an appeal is allowed, directions for inclusion or exclusion would be effectuated before polling. Frontline's account of the 13 April hearing quotes Justice Bagchi as saying the Election Commission had 'deviated' from its Bihar position, not as telling excluded voters to vote next time.
The SIR exercise in West Bengal commenced in the last week of February 2026 in compliance with Supreme Court orders, a few weeks before polling on 23 and 29 April 2026. [4][6]
The Supreme Court's 13 April 2026 order records appreciation for the task and says allowed appeals for inclusion or exclusion would be effectuated before polling; it contains no observation that those unable to vote 'this time' could vote 'next time'. [4][6]
Frontline's report of Justice Bagchi's remarks on 13 April says he stated the Election Commission had 'deviated' from its position in the Bihar SIR litigation, not that excluded voters could vote next time. [1]
The claim's first part is substantially supported: the Supreme Court ordered or entrusted the SIR-related process and the exercise began in West Bengal in late February 2026, shortly before April polling. However, the attributed quotation to Justice Bagchi about voting 'next time' is not found in the official 13 April orders or the contemporaneous media report, which instead record different remarks. Pairing the true fact with an unsupported quotation gives a misleading impression of what the court actually said.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingDhruv Rathee25 Sept 2026
“India's Worst Himalayan Disaster”
The claim uses a superlative. The record supports that Kedarnath 2013 was among the worst Himalayan disasters, but not that it was the worst. Without an official comparative ranking of all Himalayan disasters, the stronger claim overstates what the record shows.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee claims that the 2013 Kedarnath disaster is India's worst Himalayan disaster.
youtube.com, 25 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM), a Ministry of Home Affairs body, has published material on the 2013 Uttarakhand disaster. The sources in the record describe the Kedarnath disaster as one of the worst or most devastating natural disasters in India's recent history. They do not provide a comparative ranking that makes it the single worst Himalayan disaster.
The 2013 Kedarnath disaster was a cloudburst and flash flood in Uttarakhand in June 2013. [1][2][3]
Several sources describe it as one of the worst or most devastating natural disasters in India's recent history, not as the single worst. [1][2][3][6][7]
The National Institute of Disaster Management, a Ministry of Home Affairs body, has published material on the Uttarakhand disaster of 2013, but the record does not rank it as India's worst Himalayan disaster. [4]
The claim uses a superlative. The record supports that Kedarnath 2013 was among the worst Himalayan disasters, but not that it was the worst. Without an official comparative ranking of all Himalayan disasters, the stronger claim overstates what the record shows.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingAkhilesh Yadav25 Sept 2026
“Numerous murders are taking place every day in the state, he said, adding that crimes against women and daughters are increasing.”
65,743
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said numerous murders take place every day in Uttar Pradesh and that crimes against women and girls are increasing.
thestatesman.com, 25 Sept 2026
What is actually true
65,743
crimes against women in Uttar Pradesh, NCRB data in Rajya Sabha answer, 2022
sansad.in
The National Crime Records Bureau, which publishes official crime statistics, reported in data cited in a Rajya Sabha answer of 6 August 2025 that Uttar Pradesh registered 65,743 crimes against women in 2022, up from 56,083 in 2021 but below 59,853 in 2019. NCRB 2024 data reported by media show 66,398 cases in 2024, nearly unchanged from 66,381 in 2023, while murders of women fell from 702 to 668 and dowry deaths halved.
NCRB data cited in a Rajya Sabha answer of 6 August 2025 show Uttar Pradesh registered 59,445 crimes against women in 2018, 59,853 in 2019, 49,385 in 2020, 56,083 in 2021 and 65,743 in 2022. [8]
NCRB 2024 data reported by media show 66,398 crimes against women in Uttar Pradesh in 2024, nearly unchanged from 66,381 in 2023; murders of women fell from 702 to 668 and dowry deaths halved. [2][5]
NCRB data put Uttar Pradesh's murder rate at 1.3 per lakh population, and the state ranked 24th in rape cases and 17th in overall crimes against women. [6]
Uttar Pradesh reported the highest number of crimes against women in 2023 at 66,381. [7]
The claim that crimes against women are increasing is misleading: the latest NCRB data show the total was nearly flat from 2023 to 2024 and major categories such as murders of women, dowry deaths and outrage of modesty fell. The official parliamentary data also show fluctuations rather than a steady rise. The 'numerous murders every day' part is vague and not supported; the murder rate is 1.3 per lakh and murders of women declined.
“This has been a sustained effort: toppling governments in Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka, engineering overnight floor-crossings in Goa, buying MLAs and MPs, and splitting parties,”
The claim is partly accurate: there are documented floor-crossings in Goa and party switching by the BJP, and Karnataka saw a hung assembly resolved by a BJP-led coalition. But the claim adds two elements not supported by the record — that legislators were bought with money and that Madhya Pradesh was toppled as part of a sustained effort. The sources describe defections, not purchases, and the only Madhya Pradesh toppling in the record is a 1992 dismissal with a different cause. Because these unsupported specifics change the meaning, the claim is misleading.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke claimed there has been a sustained effort to topple governments in Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka, engineer overnight floor-crossings in Goa, buy MLAs and MPs, and split parties.
ndtv.com, 24 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Moneycontrol and Counterview report that after the Karnataka loss, 10 of 15 Congress MLAs in Goa switched to the BJP, and the BJP gained 7 MPs and 22 MLAs through party switching. The South First also recounts governors inviting short-of-majority parties in Karnataka and Goa. But none of these reports document payments to legislators, and the only Madhya Pradesh toppling in the record is the 1992 dismissal after the Babri Masjid demolition, not a recent defection-driven fall.
Moneycontrol reported that after losing Karnataka, 10 of 15 Congress MLAs in Goa broke away to merge with the BJP, shifting political focus to Madhya Pradesh. [4]
Counterview reported that the BJP gained 7 MPs and 22 MLAs through party switching, including 8 Congress MLAs in Goa and single MLA defections in Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka; the report describes these as defections and party switches, not cash purchases. [8]
The retrieved reports on Goa and Karnataka describe defections and mergers, but none documents payments or 'buying' of legislators with money. [4][8]
The South First recounted that after the 2018 Karnataka hung verdict, a short-of-majority BJP-led coalition was sworn in and later proved its majority on the floor of the House. [7]
The only toppling of a Madhya Pradesh government found in the provided record is the 1992 dismissal of the Assembly after the Babri Masjid demolition, not a recent defection-driven ouster. [3]
The claim is partly accurate: there are documented floor-crossings in Goa and party switching by the BJP, and Karnataka saw a hung assembly resolved by a BJP-led coalition. But the claim adds two elements not supported by the record — that legislators were bought with money and that Madhya Pradesh was toppled as part of a sustained effort. The sources describe defections, not purchases, and the only Madhya Pradesh toppling in the record is a 1992 dismissal with a different cause. Because these unsupported specifics change the meaning, the claim is misleading.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingAkhilesh Yadav23 Sept 2026
“He said that in several instances, more than 100 votes were cancelled based on a single person’s signature - far beyond the permitted limit - and that signatures of individuals who could not even write their names were allegedly forged to delete names of Muslim and Samajwadi Party voters.”
The claim is not baseless: independent reports show mass Form 7 objections by a handful of people and forged signatures, with Muslim voters heavily targeted. But the specific assertion that more than 100 votes were cancelled on a single person's signature is not supported; the documented cases are objections or applications, and in Uttar Pradesh the only reported forgery figure is 16 voters. No source establishes a permitted limit or shows that signatures of people who cannot write were forged to delete SP voters. The official record describes deletions as being made after booth-level verification under set categories.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said that in several instances more than 100 votes were cancelled on the basis of a single person's signature, far beyond the permitted limit, and that signatures of people who could not write their names were forged to delete Muslim and Samajwadi Party voters during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
hindustantimes.com, 23 Sept 2026
What is actually true
In Karnataka, seven people filed 96% of the 1,373 deletion applications in Babaleshwar on one day and ten people filed 97% of the 384 applications in Bhalki, almost entirely seeking removal of Muslim names; these were objections, not confirmed cancellations. The Election Commission's SIR press note says deletions are made only after booth-level verification and fall into death, permanent shift, duplicate or untraceable categories. For Uttar Pradesh, the draft roll removed 2.8 crore names as shifted, dead and duplicate, and the specific forgery allegation reported was 16 voters in Sakaldiha whose names were deleted after allegedly forged signatures were submitted in the name of an SP MLA.
In Karnataka, seven individuals filed 96% of the 1,373 deletion applications in Babaleshwar and ten filed 97% of the 384 applications in Bhalki, nearly all targeting Muslims; these were Form 7 objections, not confirmed cancellations. [8]
In Uttarakhand, 35 people said an unknown person used their name, EPIC number and a forged signature to file Form 7 deletion requests against mostly Muslim voters. [1]
For Uttar Pradesh, the draft roll showed 2.8 crore names removed as shifted (2.1 crore), dead (46.2 lakh) and duplicate (25.4 lakh), and the reported forgery case involved 16 voters in Sakaldiha using an SP MLA's name. [4]
The Election Commission's SIR press note states deletions are carried out only after due verification by Booth Level Officers and fall under death, permanent shifting, duplicate or untraceable categories; no permitted limit on deletions per signature is specified. [9]
The claim is not baseless: independent reports show mass Form 7 objections by a handful of people and forged signatures, with Muslim voters heavily targeted. But the specific assertion that more than 100 votes were cancelled on a single person's signature is not supported; the documented cases are objections or applications, and in Uttar Pradesh the only reported forgery figure is 16 voters. No source establishes a permitted limit or shows that signatures of people who cannot write were forged to delete SP voters. The official record describes deletions as being made after booth-level verification under set categories.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhi22 Aug 2026Pune
Every year, around 4 lakh girls are killed before they are born.
A real harm is given a round number that is not the current official count.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
4 lakh girls killed before birth every year
Pune rally · 22 August 2026, 22 Aug 2026
What is actually true
Sex-ratio-at-birth problems are documented. A current official annual total of 4 lakh is not what SRS or Census publish as that sentence.
Sex-ratio-at-birth problems are documented in SRS, Census and NFHS. That harm is real.
A current official annual total of “around 4 lakh girls killed before they are born” is not what SRS or Census publish as that sentence.
Missing-women estimates in research papers use models and older years. They are not this year’s official count in the form spoken on stage.
60% of our girls cannot go outside the house alone.
A restricted survey item is stated as a national 60%.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
60% of girls cannot go out alone
Pune rally · 22 August 2026, 22 Aug 2026
What is actually true
NFHS publishes mobility questions for specific ages and places. 60% of “our girls” is not that table.
NFHS publishes mobility questions — for example whether a woman can go to the market, a health facility or outside the village alone — for defined ages and marital statuses.
“60% of our girls cannot go outside the house alone” is not that table. “Girls” and “outside the house” are not the NFHS wording or universe.
Some NFHS mobility items show large restrictions. They must be quoted with the question and the denominator.
In a crowd of roughly 3,000 of the best students, only about 1 can become an IAS officer, only about 30 can get into IIT, and only about 180 can become doctors through NEET.
The sentence presents a made-up classroom as if it were official selection data.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
1 IAS, 30 IIT, 180 NEET doctors from a crowd of 3,000
Kota rally · 17 June 2026, 17 Jun 2026
What is actually true
Three different exams mixed into one hypothetical crowd. Final-round IIT allotments are in the tens of thousands, not 30. MBBS seats are above 1 lakh, not 180 from a local crowd.
The line mixes three different national examinations — the civil services, JEE/IIT allotment, and NEET — into one imaginary crowd of 3,000 “best students”. Those papers do not share a single official classroom, city, or year.
IIT admissions are not “about 30” seats. Final-round Joint Seat Allocation for the IITs is in the tens of thousands, published by the Joint Seat Allocation Authority and the Ministry of Education, not by a Kota hall count.
Undergraduate medical intake is not “about 180” doctors from a local crowd. NTA and the Ministry of Education publish NEET participation and MBBS seat counts in the lakh range, not a 180-seat local pipeline.
IAS selection is a multi-stage Union Public Service Commission process with its own vacancy list. It cannot be read off as “1 in 3,000 of the best students” in one coaching city.
The sentence presents a made-up classroom as if it were official selection data.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 12 Oct 2026
“Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Friday (Jul 17) launched a sharp attack on the Centre over repeated examination paper leaks, alleging that India’s education system has reached a stage where leaked question papers are being sold at fixed prices and advanced technology is being misused to manipulate recruitment and entrance exams.”
₹40 lakh for NEET UG 2026, ₹15 lakh for IIT-JEE 2021, ₹1.02 crore
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
₹40 lakh for NEET UG 2026, ₹15 lakh for IIT-JEE 2021
Rahul Gandhi alleged that India’s education system has reached a stage where leaked question papers are being sold at fixed prices and advanced technology is being misused to manipulate recruitment and entrance exams.
wionews.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
₹1.02 crore
attached from main accused in UP paper-leak case, ED, June 2024
enforcementdirectorate.gov.in
The Enforcement Directorate, which investigates financial crimes, said in a June 2024 press release that its investigation found question papers for the UP Police Constable Recruitment Examination-2023 and the UPPSC RO/ARO Exam-2023 were leaked and provided to aspirants for money before the exam date, and it attached ₹1.02 crore belonging to the main accused [7]. The government itself told Parliament that paper leaks and malpractices have occurred across the country, and the Lok Sabha passed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024 to curb them [8]. No official record in the retrieved sources states the fixed prices Gandhi listed or confirms that advanced technology is being misused.
The Enforcement Directorate's June 2024 press release says its investigation found question papers for the UP Police Constable Recruitment Examination-2023 and the UPPSC RO/ARO Exam-2023 were leaked and provided to aspirants for money before the exam date, and ₹1.02 crore belonging to the main accused was attached [7]. [7]
The government told the Lok Sabha that paper leaks and malpractices have occurred in various parts of the country, and Parliament passed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024 to curb them [8]. [8]
The fixed prices Rahul Gandhi cited — ₹40 lakh for NEET UG 2026, ₹15 lakh for IIT-JEE 2021, ₹10 lakh for Bihar Teacher Recruitment 2024 — come from a chart he displayed, not from any official record [3]. [3]
A Times Now investigation found that papers being sold on Telegram as leaked NEET 2026 papers were fake and the channels demanding money were scams [6]. [6]
The general phenomenon Gandhi describes is real: the Enforcement Directorate's own investigation found leaked question papers were provided to aspirants for money in specific Uttar Pradesh exams, and the government has acknowledged leaks across the country. But the specific 'fixed prices' he listed and the claim that advanced technology is being misused are not confirmed by any official record — the prices come only from his own chart. One investigation into online paper sales found the papers being hawked were fake, which is context that changes how the fixed-price claim reads.
“Education's share in the Union budget has rapidly fallen in last 10 years.”
The claim that education's share of the Union Budget has fallen is supported by an independent analysis showing a decline from 4.6% to 2.5%, but the official Union Budget documents that would state this share are not among the retrieved sources. The PIB releases only provide absolute allocation figures, which have increased year on year, so they do not directly address the share. Because no official document confirms the specific trend, the claim is rated MISSING_CONTEXT rather than ACCURATE.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said education's share in the Union budget has rapidly fallen over the last 10 years.
freepressjournal.in, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The PIB press release for Budget 2025-26 states the Ministry of Education's total allocation was ₹1,28,650 crore, a 6.22% increase over BE 2024-25, and the 2026-27 release states ₹1,39,289.48 crore, an 8.27% increase. These official figures show absolute increases but do not state education's share of the Union Budget. An independent analysis by econiti.org reports the share fell from 4.6% in 2013-14 to 2.5% in 2025-26.
The Ministry of Education's allocation in the 2025-26 Union Budget was ₹1,28,650 crore, a 6.22% increase over the budget estimate for 2024-25, according to a PIB press release. [3]
The 2026-27 allocation is ₹1,39,289.48 crore, an 8.27% increase over BE 2025-26, according to a PIB press release. [7]
An econiti.org analysis says education's share of the Union Budget fell from 4.6% in 2013-14 to 2.5% in 2025-26, halving in relative terms across 12 years. [1]
The claim that education's share of the Union Budget has fallen is supported by an independent analysis showing a decline from 4.6% to 2.5%, but the official Union Budget documents that would state this share are not among the retrieved sources. The PIB releases only provide absolute allocation figures, which have increased year on year, so they do not directly address the share. Because no official document confirms the specific trend, the claim is rated MISSING_CONTEXT rather than ACCURATE.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
“CJP's Abhijeet Dipke demands CEC Gyanesh Kumar's resignation within 48 hours over alleged voter deletions, warning of nationwide agitation if demands are not met.”
The claim that voter deletions had taken place is accurate as far as it goes: court orders and the Election Commission's own process show deletions occurred. But the claim omits that the Election Commission says deletions are part of a legal revision process with claims and objections, and court records show some deletions were due to duplicate entries or after notice. The demand for the CEC's resignation is a political demand, not a factual claim, and no official body has found the deletions wrongful.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Cockroach Janta Party's Abhijeet Dipke alleged that voter deletions had taken place and demanded that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar resign within 48 hours over them.
msn.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, said in a March 2025 press note that any inclusion or deletion in the electoral roll is governed by the process of appeals under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Telangana High Court orders from 2026 record individual deletions, including one where a name was deleted from one place because it appeared twice. No official body has found that the deletions were wrongful or that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar should resign.
The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision includes deletion of names, and its March 2025 note says inclusions and deletions are governed by legal appeals. [9]
A Telangana High Court order of 23 July 2026 records a voter's name deleted from one place because it appeared at two places in the same constituency. [10]
An Andhra Pradesh High Court order of 2 February 2024 records orders deleting names from electoral rolls after notices under Rules 19 and 20. [12]
The Election Commission capped Form 7 deletion applications at 10 per person after reports of bulk objections, and media reported living electors marked dead in Karnataka. [2][3]
Oneindia reported that CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke demanded the CEC resign within 48 hours and threatened nationwide agitation. [13]
The claim that voter deletions had taken place is accurate as far as it goes: court orders and the Election Commission's own process show deletions occurred. But the claim omits that the Election Commission says deletions are part of a legal revision process with claims and objections, and court records show some deletions were due to duplicate entries or after notice. The demand for the CEC's resignation is a political demand, not a factual claim, and no official body has found the deletions wrongful.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingCockroach Janta Partychecked 12 Oct 2026
“MSP benefits do not reach all marginal farmers.”
The claim is a general statement about reach. The official record shows MSP access is conditional: only registered farmers with valid land records can sell at MSP, and 1.84 crore farmers benefited in 2024-25. That supports the idea that not every marginal farmer is covered, but no official document in the sources states how many marginal farmers are left out or confirms the claim directly. The government's own note says it aims to reach all farmers, so the claim needs that context.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
The Cockroach Janta Party says that Minimum Support Price (MSP) benefits do not reach all marginal farmers.
cockroachjanata.org · reported, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare's PM-AASHA note of 21 August 2026 says the government has taken initiatives to ensure MSP benefits reach all farmers, including small and marginal farmers, but only registered farmers with valid land records are eligible. A PIB note of 10 October 2025 says procurement is done directly from pre-registered farmers and that 1.84 crore farmers benefited from MSP procurement in 2024-25.
The PM-AASHA note of 21 August 2026 says only registered farmers with valid land records are eligible for MSP procurement. [1]
A PIB note of 10 October 2025 says MSP procurement is done directly from pre-registered farmers and 1.84 crore farmers benefited in 2024-25. [2]
The same PM-AASHA note says the government has taken initiatives to ensure MSP benefits reach all farmers, including small and marginal farmers. [1]
The claim is a general statement about reach. The official record shows MSP access is conditional: only registered farmers with valid land records can sell at MSP, and 1.84 crore farmers benefited in 2024-25. That supports the idea that not every marginal farmer is covered, but no official document in the sources states how many marginal farmers are left out or confirms the claim directly. The government's own note says it aims to reach all farmers, so the claim needs that context.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingDhruv Ratheechecked 12 Oct 2026
“India launched Operation Sindoor—nine precise cross-border actions on 7 May”
nine precise cross-border actions, 9 terror camps
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
nine precise cross-border actions
Dhruv Rathee said India launched Operation Sindoor, consisting of nine precise cross-border actions, on 7 May.
open.spotify.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
9 terror camps
terror camps targeted in Operation Sindoor, MEA, 2026
mea.gov.in
The Ministry of External Affairs says multi-agency intelligence provided confirmation of nine major camps targeted in Operation Sindoor. PIB says Operation Sindoor destroyed nine major terror launchpads. The official PIB document also records the first press briefing on 7 May 2025, but does not state the date the operation was launched.
The Ministry of External Affairs confirms that nine major camps were targeted in Operation Sindoor. [3]
PIB says India launched Operation Sindoor to destroy terror bases and eliminated nine terror camps. [1][5]
ORF reports the operation began on the night of 6-7 May 2025; Firstpost says strikes took place at 1.44 am on 7 May. [2][4]
The claim is largely accurate: official records confirm Operation Sindoor and nine terror camps, and the date 7 May is consistent with the first press briefing and reporting. However, the official documents retrieved do not explicitly state the launch date as 7 May; that date comes from non-official sources. Since the official record does not confirm every specific, the verdict is MISSING_CONTEXT rather than ACCURATE.
“"The BJP government gave a Bharat Ratna to (MS) Swaminathan but is not ready to do what he worked his entire life for. Swaminathan ji in his report said farmers should have the legal right on MSP. The BJP government is unable to give this," said Rahul Gandhi.”
The Bharat Ratna part is confirmed by the official PIB announcement. But the claim that Swaminathan's report recommended a legal right on MSP is not established by any official document in the retrieved record; the report itself is absent. Media reporting adds that the Congress promised legal MSP and that the UPA government had not accepted the Swaminathan Commission recommendations in 2010, context the claim omits. So the claim is not fully accurate and leaves out that context.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said the BJP government gave a Bharat Ratna to MS Swaminathan but is not ready to do what he worked his entire life for, and is unable to give farmers the legal right on MSP that Swaminathan's report recommended.
indiatoday.in, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
A Press Information Bureau release of 9 February 2024 says the Government of India conferred the Bharat Ratna, the highest civilian award, on Dr M.S. Swaminathan [5][6]. The retrieved record contains no Swaminathan Commission report or official document stating that the report recommended a legal right on MSP. Media reporting says the Congress promised a legal MSP guarantee 'as per the Swaminathan Commission' and that the UPA government had not accepted the recommendations in 2010 [8].
The Press Information Bureau announced on 9 February 2024 that the Government of India was conferring the Bharat Ratna on Dr M.S. Swaminathan. [5][6]
Hindustan Times reported that the Congress promised a legal MSP guarantee 'as per the Swaminathan Commission' and that the UPA government had not accepted the recommendations in 2010. [8]
The PIB announcement does not mention any legal right on MSP. [5][6]
The Bharat Ratna part is confirmed by the official PIB announcement. But the claim that Swaminathan's report recommended a legal right on MSP is not established by any official document in the retrieved record; the report itself is absent. Media reporting adds that the Congress promised legal MSP and that the UPA government had not accepted the Swaminathan Commission recommendations in 2010, context the claim omits. So the claim is not fully accurate and leaves out that context.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingPawan Khera, Congress (Indian National Congress)checked 12 Oct 2026
“What do you have to say about the act of war Pakistan has been carrying out against us for years?”
The claim uses 'act of war' as if it is an established description of Pakistan's conduct. The official record describes Pakistan's actions as cross-border terrorism, not as an act of war, and the 'act of war' phrase in the sources is Pakistan's warning about India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. So the underlying accusation of terrorism is present, but the legal label 'act of war for years' is not confirmed and omits that the term comes from Pakistan's warning.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Pawan Khera said Pakistan has been carrying out an act of war against India for years, in response to Pakistan's warning that diverting Indus waters would be treated as an act of war.
thenewsmill.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Press Information Bureau's 14 May 2025 release on Operation Sindoor says India acted after the 22 April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack and suspended the Indus Waters Treaty until Pakistan 'credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism'. It describes Pakistan's actions as terrorism and terror bases, not as an act of war. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, at the UN, warned that diverting Indus waters would be treated as an act of war.
The PIB release says India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty after the April 2025 Pahalgam attack, citing Pakistan's support for cross-border terrorism. [1]
Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif warned at the UN that diverting Indus waters would be treated as an act of war. [5]
The PIB release describes Pakistan's actions as terrorism and terror bases, not as an act of war. [1]
The claim uses 'act of war' as if it is an established description of Pakistan's conduct. The official record describes Pakistan's actions as cross-border terrorism, not as an act of war, and the 'act of war' phrase in the sources is Pakistan's warning about India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. So the underlying accusation of terrorism is present, but the legal label 'act of war for years' is not confirmed and omits that the term comes from Pakistan's warning.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingAam Aadmi Partychecked 12 Oct 2026
“We have been saying that Gujarat has emerged as a major gateway for drugs in the country.”
The claim is a characterisation about Gujarat's role nationally. The official record confirms significant drug seizures and notes that Gujarat's long coastline and ports create trafficking challenges, but it does not rank Gujarat against other states or call it 'a major gateway for the country'. Without that official comparison or label, the assertion is not fully established.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP asserted that Gujarat has emerged as a major gateway for drugs in the country.
babushahi.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
A Home Ministry reply in Rajya Sabha on 13 December 2023 says Gujarat has vast maritime borders that pose challenges to containing maritime trafficking, and it lists NCRB drug seizure data under the NDPS Act for 2018-2022. A PIB release of 15 November 2024 records a joint seizure of about 700 kg of methamphetamine in Gujarat's territorial waters. Neither document, nor the April 2025 Rajya Sabha reply on Gujarat seizures, describes Gujarat as a major gateway for drugs or compares its role with other states.
A Rajya Sabha answer from the Home Ministry states that Gujarat has vast maritime borders that pose challenges before law enforcement agencies to contain maritime trafficking of drugs. [3]
The same answer includes National Crime Records Bureau data on drug-wise seizures under the NDPS Act in Gujarat from 2018 to 2022, including cannabis-based, opium-based and psychotropic drugs. [3]
A PIB release of 15 November 2024 says the Narcotics Control Bureau, Indian Navy and Gujarat Police ATS together seized about 700 kg of methamphetamine from a vessel in India's territorial waters. [4]
An April 2025 Rajya Sabha answer gives quantities of prohibited narcotic drugs seized in Gujarat from 2022 to January 2025 and lists government measures against trafficking, but does not use the term 'major gateway'. [6]
Some Gujarat news reports describe the state as a major drug hub or transit route, citing more than 1.3 lakh kg of narcotics seized over 2020-2025. [2]
The claim is a characterisation about Gujarat's role nationally. The official record confirms significant drug seizures and notes that Gujarat's long coastline and ports create trafficking challenges, but it does not rank Gujarat against other states or call it 'a major gateway for the country'. Without that official comparison or label, the assertion is not fully established.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)12 Oct 2026
“Modi-ji enacted a law in 2023 granting legal protection to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. They were given immunity not even enjoyed by the President of India or the Chief Justice of the country,”
The first part of the claim is supported: the 2023 Act exists and Section 16 grants protection from court proceedings for official acts. But the comparison to the President and the Chief Justice is not established by any official document in the record; it is the petitioner's argument and an oral observation by a bench. The protection is also limited to acts in discharge of official duty and is under challenge, which the claim omits. That missing context changes how the comparison reads.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Mallikarjun Kharge said that Modi enacted a law in 2023 granting legal protection to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, giving them immunity not enjoyed by the President of India or the Chief Justice.
ndtv.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Parliament passed the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023; a Supreme Court order records it was brought into effect on 2 January 2024. Section 16, as quoted in reporting, bars any court from entertaining or continuing civil or criminal proceedings against a CEC or EC for acts done in discharge of official duty. The Supreme Court has issued notice on a challenge to Section 16 but refused to stay it, and a bench has orally observed the protection is greater than judges' — but no final ruling compares it to the President or Chief Justice.
Parliament enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, and a Supreme Court order records it was brought into effect on 2 January 2024. [7][9]
Section 16 of the Act says no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against a person who is or was a Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner for any act, thing or word done or spoken in the discharge of official duty. [5]
The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging Section 16 but refused to stay the provision. [5]
The argument that this immunity was not granted even to the President, Governors or judges was made by the petitioner Lok Prahari, not by a court. [5][6]
A Supreme Court bench orally remarked that the CEC and Election Commissioners enjoy greater legal immunity than even judges, but no final order in the sources settles that comparison. [4]
The first part of the claim is supported: the 2023 Act exists and Section 16 grants protection from court proceedings for official acts. But the comparison to the President and the Chief Justice is not established by any official document in the record; it is the petitioner's argument and an oral observation by a bench. The protection is also limited to acts in discharge of official duty and is under challenge, which the claim omits. That missing context changes how the comparison reads.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“In a post on social media platform X, Rahul Gandhi said while Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar "will go", the ...”
727 voters
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
727 voters
Rahul Gandhi, in a post on social media platform X, flagged 727 voter exclusions in Delhi and said Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar "will go".
ndtv.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, said in a 20 March 2025 press note that any addition or deletion to the draft electoral roll is governed by claims and objections under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Reporting of the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer's figures says 47.7 lakh of Delhi's 1.45 crore electors were excluded from the draft roll after the Special Intensive Revision, and eligible voters can file Form 6 by 30 September; the final roll is due on 4 November.
The Election Commission of India's 20 March 2025 press note says inclusions and deletions to the draft electoral roll are governed by the claims and objections process under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [9]
Reporting of the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer's figures says 47.7 lakh of Delhi's 1.45 crore electors were excluded from the draft roll after the Special Intensive Revision, and eligible voters can file Form 6 by 30 September. [7]
News reports say Rahul Gandhi alleged 727 or 728 voters were deleted from Delhi's Bela Estate after the Special Intensive Revision. [1][2]
Separate reporting on the electoral records put the earlier number of registered voters at the Bela Estate polling part at 729, of whom 728 were excluded, leaving one voter, a discrepancy with the figures cited by Gandhi. [4]
The official record confirms that Delhi's draft electoral roll excluded a large number of electors after the Special Intensive Revision, so the broad claim of voter exclusions is not baseless. But the specific 727 figure is not confirmed: reporting on the electoral records says 728 of 729 voters were excluded at Bela Estate, not 727 of 728. The poll body also says the draft roll is not final and eligible voters can be added through Form 6, which changes how the exclusions read. The 'will go' statement is a prediction, not a factual claim that can be checked.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingDhruv Ratheechecked 1 Oct 2026
““One was a Muslim, one a Christian, and the remaining were Hindus.””
one Muslim, one Christian, and the remaining were Hindus
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
one Muslim, one Christian, and the remaining were Hindus
Dhruv Rathee said that of the 26 male victims killed in the 22 April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack in Anantnag, Jammu & Kashmir, one was Muslim, one Christian, and the remainder were Hindus.
thecommunemag.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Press Information Bureau (PIB), the government's official publicity office, said in a 14 May 2025 note that the 22 April 2025 Pahalgam attack killed 26 innocent civilians, mostly Hindu tourists [6]. Home Minister Amit Shah's 29 July 2025 Lok Sabha statement also records 26 people killed but gives no religion-wise breakdown [5]. No official list in the provided record states how many of the dead were Muslim, Christian or Hindu.
The PIB's 14 May 2025 note says the Pahalgam attack killed 26 innocent civilians, mostly Hindu tourists. [6][7]
Wikipedia's entry says the attackers targeted Hindu tourists, though a Christian tourist and a local Muslim pony ride operator were also killed. [1][3]
The same Wikipedia entry also says an initial list verified by local officials showed 25 of the 26 killed were Hindus and one was a local Muslim pony operator. [1]
News18 reported that of the 26 victims, 25 were non-Muslims, primarily Hindus, and the lone Muslim fatality was a local horse operator. [4]
The official record confirms the total of 26 dead and that most were Hindu tourists, but it does not support the precise breakdown Rathee gave. Media reports conflict: one says a Christian tourist was killed, while an initial verified list said 25 Hindus and one Muslim. Because the exact religious composition is not established by the official record and the available reports disagree, the claim needs that missing context.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingDhruv Ratheechecked 1 Oct 2026
“In the GST Council meeting held on December 21, 2024, crucial tax decisions affected everyday items like popcorn and vehicles, dramatically impacting India's middle class.”
18%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee said that in the GST Council meeting held on December 21, 2024, crucial tax decisions affected everyday items like popcorn and vehicles, dramatically impacting India's middle class.
youtube.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
18%
GST on old/used vehicles, 55th Council, 21 Dec 2024
cbic-gst.gov.in
The Ministry of Finance's 21 December 2024 press release on the 55th GST Council meeting says the Council recommended increasing GST from 12% to 18% on the sale of all old and used vehicles, including EVs, with GST applicable only on the margin. It also clarified popcorn rates: 5% for ready-to-eat salted/spiced popcorn sold not pre-packaged or labelled, 12% if pre-packaged and labelled, and 18% for caramel popcorn.
The 55th GST Council met on 21 December 2024 in Jaisalmer, chaired by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. [5][6]
The Council recommended raising GST on old and used vehicles, including EVs, from 12% to 18%, but only on the margin between purchase price and selling price. [5][6]
The Council clarified popcorn GST: 5% for ready-to-eat salted/spiced popcorn sold not pre-packaged or labelled, 12% if pre-packaged and labelled, and 18% for caramel popcorn. [5][6]
The official press release describes the popcorn change as a clarification to settle interpretation disputes; it does not state that the decisions dramatically impact India's middle class. [5][6]
The meeting and the popcorn and vehicle decisions are real, so the first part of the claim is accurate. But the official record does not support the 'dramatically impacting India's middle class' part. The vehicle rate increase applies only to old and used vehicles and only on the margin, not the full sale price, and the popcorn rates are clarifications of existing classification, not a new tax on all popcorn. That context is missing from the claim.
MisleadingSanjay Singh (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
““As far as the impeachment of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is concerned, we have already signed it. If an impeachment motion against Gyanesh Kumar is brought in Parliament and any action is taken, we will join hands with all the opposition parties and fight this battle together.””
130 Lok Sabha and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP MP Sanjay Singh said AAP has already signed an impeachment motion against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and that if such a motion is brought in Parliament the party will join hands with all opposition parties.
editorji.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
130 Lok Sabha and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs
signed notices to remove CEC, official bulletins, April 2026
ddnews.gov.in
Parliament's official bulletins said the Rajya Sabha Chairman and Lok Sabha Speaker refused to admit the impeachment notices against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on 6 April 2026. The notices were signed by 130 Lok Sabha members and 63 Rajya Sabha members, but they do not list signatories by party.
The Rajya Sabha Chairman and Lok Sabha Speaker rejected the impeachment motion notice against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. [2][14]
The Lok Sabha notice was signed by 130 members and the Rajya Sabha notice by 63 members. [2][5][14]
At least 193 opposition MPs signed the notice seeking the CEC's removal. [13]
The available parliamentary records do not identify AAP or its MPs among the signatories. [2][5][14]
The record confirms that opposition MPs moved and signed impeachment notices against the CEC, so the general claim of an impeachment push is accurate. But the notices were rejected by both presiding officers, which the claim does not mention, and no source lists AAP as a signatory. The specific assertion that AAP has already signed is therefore not established by the record.
“If 15-20 lakh youths are unemployed, it is not good for any state, he said.”
15-20 lakh youths, 3.3%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
15-20 lakh youths
Abhijeet Dipke said that 15-20 lakh youths are unemployed, which is not good for any state.
freepressjournal.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
3.3%
Maharashtra unemployment rate, age 15+, PLFS 2023-24
pib.gov.in
The Ministry of Labour & Employment's Periodic Labour Force Survey data put Maharashtra's unemployment rate for persons aged 15 and above at 3.3% in 2023-24, down from 4.8% in 2017-18. The sources do not state an official count of 15–20 lakh unemployed youths for Maharashtra. Other reported figures include over 71 lakh youth registered as job-seekers with government employment offices in 2025 and 17.76 lakh applications for 17,471 police constable posts.
The Periodic Labour Force Survey reports Maharashtra's unemployment rate among persons aged 15 and above fell from 4.8% in 2017-18 to 3.3% in 2023-24. [2]
An unofficial data article says more than 71 lakh youth were registered as job-seekers with Maharashtra government employment offices in 2025. [6]
Maharashtra Police received 17.76 lakh applications for 17,471 constable posts, indicating a very large number of job applicants in the state. [8]
The speaker's broad point about youth unemployment is consistent with evidence that large numbers of young people in Maharashtra are seeking work. But the specific figure of 15–20 lakh unemployed youths does not appear in official PLFS data, which report only unemployment rates for the state. The number may also understate the reported scale of youth job-seeking, since one data report gives over 71 lakh registered job-seekers.
“केजरीवाल ने दावा किया कि पिछले कुछ वर्षों में बड़ी संख्या में विधायक पाला बदल चुके हैं और इसके पीछे राजनीतिक दबाव, जांच एजेंसियों तथा पैसे के इस्तेमाल जैसे आरोप लगते रहे हैं।”
193
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal claimed that in recent years a large number of MLAs have defected, and allegations of political pressure, investigative agencies, and use of money have persisted behind it.
deshbandhu.co.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
193
ED cases against MPs, MLAs and political leaders in ten years, Rajya Sabha answer, March 2025
sansad.in
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), an election watchdog, reported in September 2026 that 111 sitting MPs and MLAs changed parties after being elected since 2022; 78 of them were MLAs. On the Enforcement Directorate, a Rajya Sabha reply of 18 March 2025 put the number of cases registered against MPs, MLAs and political leaders in ten years at 193, with only two convictions, and said the agency does not keep party-wise data or distinguish cases by political affiliation. Neither the ADR analysis nor the official reply links the party switches to political pressure, investigative agencies or money.
ADR counted 111 sitting MPs and MLAs who changed parties after winning elections since 2022; 78 of them were MLAs, along with 26 Lok Sabha and 7 Rajya Sabha MPs. [5][8]
A Rajya Sabha answer said the Enforcement Directorate registered 193 cases against MPs, MLAs, MLCs and political leaders or anyone affiliated with a political party between 2015-16 and February 2025, with two convictions and no acquittals on merit. [6]
The same answer said the ED does not maintain party-wise data on these cases and stated the ED does not distinguish cases based on political affiliation, religion or otherwise. [6]
The ADR report describes which parties gained and lost lawmakers, but it does not present evidence that political pressure, investigative agencies or money caused the switches. [5][8]
The factual core of the claim — that a large number of MLAs switched parties — matches ADR's count of 78 MLAs since 2022. But the claim also says political pressure, investigative agencies and money were behind this, and that is not shown by the provided record. The official Rajya Sabha reply on ED cases against legislators gives no party-wise data and states the agency does not act by political affiliation, while the ADR study lists recipients, not causes. So the defection count is supported, but the causal allegations remain unproven.
“Due to lack of jobs & opportunities in the state, Goan youth migrating to different states and also abroad.”
The claim reflects a real trend reported in Goa: limited opportunities have pushed Goans to look beyond the state and move abroad [9][3]. But it leaves out that many jobs in Goa are filled by outsiders because Goan youth often prefer government or white-collar jobs, and that unemployment is described as underemployment, skill mismatch and a shortage of quality jobs rather than a simple absence of jobs [4]. Official data do not measure Goa-specific youth migration, and the sources do not show data on movement to other Indian states specifically [6][9][3].
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke said that because of a lack of jobs and opportunities in Goa, Goan youth are migrating to other states and abroad.
x.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Labour and Employment told Parliament that migration of workers between states is continuous and dynamic, and it did not provide state-wise data on people who migrated for work after January 2021 [6]. The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation's Periodic Labour Force Survey shows the national youth unemployment rate fell from 17.8% in 2017-18 to 10.0% in 2022-23 [5].
The Ministry of Labour and Employment told Parliament that migration of workers from one state to another is a continuous process and dynamic in nature, and it did not give state-wise data on migrants after January 2021 [6]. [6]
The Periodic Labour Force Survey shows the national youth unemployment rate declined from 17.8% in 2017-18 to 10.0% in 2022-23 [5]. [5]
An Incredible Goa article says Goa's unemployment rate was the third highest in the country and that many youth travelled outside the country in search of employment [3]. [3]
A Goan op-ed says Goa has created many jobs but they are largely filled by people from outside Goa because Goans are not ready to take them; it describes unemployment as underemployment, skill mismatch and shortage of quality jobs acceptable to aspiring youth [4]. [4]
An Incredible Goa article on migration says limited or poorly paid employment opportunities and frustration with unemployment pushed many Goans to look beyond their home state, and thousands have moved abroad [9]. [9]
The claim reflects a real trend reported in Goa: limited opportunities have pushed Goans to look beyond the state and move abroad [9][3]. But it leaves out that many jobs in Goa are filled by outsiders because Goan youth often prefer government or white-collar jobs, and that unemployment is described as underemployment, skill mismatch and a shortage of quality jobs rather than a simple absence of jobs [4]. Official data do not measure Goa-specific youth migration, and the sources do not show data on movement to other Indian states specifically [6][9][3].
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingAbhijeet Dipkechecked 1 Oct 2026
“Trust in judiciary, EC eroded”
The claim states an erosion of trust as a settled fact, but the retrieved record contains only media commentary, not an independent survey or official measure of public trust. The body at the centre of the claim, the Election Commission, publicly asserts that trust remains intact. The court record does not address the question, so the erosion is asserted rather than demonstrated.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke said that trust in the judiciary and the Election Commission has eroded.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, at a media conference on 17 July 2026, said the highest-ever poll participation in recent Assembly elections was proof of the trust Indian electors have in the electoral system [12]. The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment on the Special Intensive Revision upheld the Commission's mandate and made no finding about eroded public trust [7][8]. In contrast, several opinion pieces and editorials state that trust in the Election Commission has eroded, and one describes courts as having remained 'mute spectators' and 'collaborators' in the controversy [1][3][4][5].
A Hindustan Times commentary says 'People's trust in the EC has eroded' and notes opposition claims of partisanship against the Chief Election Commissioner. [1]
Frontline and Asian Age pieces use phrases such as 'erosion of public trust', 'trust eroded', and one says courts remained mute spectators and became collaborators in the Election Commission controversy. [3][4]
The Election Commission said on 17 July 2026 that the highest-ever poll participation in recent Assembly elections was proof of electors' trust in the electoral system. [12]
The claim states an erosion of trust as a settled fact, but the retrieved record contains only media commentary, not an independent survey or official measure of public trust. The body at the centre of the claim, the Election Commission, publicly asserts that trust remains intact. The court record does not address the question, so the erosion is asserted rather than demonstrated.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingArvind Kejriwalchecked 1 Oct 2026
“The AAP leader further alleged that the Election Commission was being run by the CEC without adequate participation of the other two commissioners.”
Kejriwal's statement describes the Commission as run by the CEC without adequate participation of the other two Commissioners. That is not what the Election Commission's own record says: its press note describes key SIR decisions as unanimous. But independent reporting documents repeated internal objections by the two Election Commissioners, including over orders issued without their knowledge, so the claim is disputed rather than settled one way.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal alleged that the Election Commission was being run by CEC Gyanesh Kumar without adequate participation of the other two commissioners.
hindustantimes.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, said in a press note on 26 September 2026 that the Special Intensive Revision orders of 24 June 2025 and schedules of 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. But The New Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times over 10 months, and that Sandhu flagged communications being issued in the Commission's name without approval from the full Commission. The Hindu also reported that the two Commissioners had flagged anomalies in the SIR process.
An Election Commission press note of 26 September 2026 states that SIR orders and schedules were issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. [9]
The New Indian Express reported Sandhu and Joshi raised objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months, with Sandhu flagging communications issued in the Election Commission's name without full Commission approval. [1]
The Hindu reported that the two Election Commissioners had flagged many anomalies in the ongoing SIR process over the last 10 months. [7]
Kejriwal's statement describes the Commission as run by the CEC without adequate participation of the other two Commissioners. That is not what the Election Commission's own record says: its press note describes key SIR decisions as unanimous. But independent reporting documents repeated internal objections by the two Election Commissioners, including over orders issued without their knowledge, so the claim is disputed rather than settled one way.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingSaurav Daschecked 30 Sept 2026
“Now just imagine how insulting this is. If BJP governments had put this much energy into addressing the real problems of Anganwadi workers, such as extremely low salaries (Rs 5,000 to 10,000), heavy workload, shortage of staff, lack of social security or health facilities, and Anganwadi centres operating in dilapidated buildings, then perhaps these women would not have needed anyone to order them to praise them.”
Rs 5,000 to 10,000
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rs 5,000 to 10,000
Saurav Das said Anganwadi workers face extremely low salaries of Rs 5,000 to 10,000, heavy workload, staff shortage, lack of social security or health facilities, and Anganwadi centres operating in dilapidated buildings.
news.abplive.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The parliamentary answers retrieved on facilities at Anganwadi (Lok Sabha questions 425 and 3392) are truncated and state no figure in the text provided, so no official document in the retrieved record states the honorarium range or addresses workload, staffing, social security or building condition. Non-official material shows a more varied pay picture: a news report says West Bengal notified a ₹5,000 monthly hike bringing Anganwadi workers to ₹14,000 from 1 August 2026, and a state-wise comparison lists ₹15,000 in Maharashtra, ₹13,000 in Karnataka and ₹10,000 in Uttar Pradesh.
A news report states the West Bengal government notified a flat ₹5,000 a month increase for Anganwadi workers, bringing their pay to ₹14,000 per month effective 1 August 2026. [3]
A 2026 state-wise comparison article lists Anganwadi worker pay at ₹15,000 in Maharashtra, ₹13,000 in Karnataka and ₹10,000 in Uttar Pradesh. [5]
Anganwadi workers in most states are classified as honorary workers paid through the Integrated Child Development Services scheme, not as regular government employees. [4]
The retrieved Lok Sabha answers on facilities at Anganwadi do not state a figure on honorarium, workload, staffing, social security or building condition in the text provided. [1][2]
The salary range in the claim captures only part of the picture. Non-official sources show some states pay at or below ₹10,000 a month, but several now pay above the claimed top end — Karnataka ₹13,000, Maharashtra ₹15,000 and West Bengal ₹14,000 after a 2026 hike. The other parts of the claim — heavy workload, staff shortage, lack of social security or health facilities, and dilapidated buildings — are not supported by any retrieved source. The official parliamentary answers that would normally state the honorarium schedule and staffing data are truncated in the retrieved text.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingSaurav Daschecked 30 Sept 2026
“CJP Live Updates: ‘System Is Broken And Corrupt’: Saurav Das Calls For Change”
The claim is a subjective generalisation. While official sources acknowledge corruption in specific sectors like the public distribution system and outline anti-corruption measures, they do not support a sweeping statement that the system as a whole is broken and corrupt. The statement omits that these are targeted findings with official responses, not evidence of systemic breakdown. Therefore the claim is missing context rather than accurate or false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Saurav Das said the system is broken and corrupt and called for change.
timesnownews.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Consumer Affairs told the Rajya Sabha that there have been complaints about irregularities and corruption in the public distribution system, and the government has taken measures such as computerisation. The Government of India has also listed measures to combat corruption across departments. However, no official document in the provided record supports the assertion that the entire system is broken and corrupt; the documents show specific instances and official responses.
The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution told the Rajya Sabha that there have been complaints about irregularities in the Targeted Public Distribution System including corruption, and the government has taken measures like computerisation. [3]
The Government of India has stated it has taken several measures to combat corruption, including discontinuing interviews for Group 'B' and 'C' posts and amending service rules on disciplinary timelines. [1][2]
Media reports record Saurav Das saying the electoral system is corrupt and broken, but these reports do not provide independent evidence that the entire system is broken and corrupt; they only report his opinion. [11][12]
The claim is a subjective generalisation. While official sources acknowledge corruption in specific sectors like the public distribution system and outline anti-corruption measures, they do not support a sweeping statement that the system as a whole is broken and corrupt. The statement omits that these are targeted findings with official responses, not evidence of systemic breakdown. Therefore the claim is missing context rather than accurate or false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
““Having a house or not has no connection to the right to vote. These people have been living here for decades. They have already voted in the 2024 Lok Sabha election and the 2025 Delhi election,””
The claim that the residents lived there for decades and voted in the 2024 Lok Sabha and 2025 Delhi elections is not confirmed by the official record. What the record shows is that they were on the electoral roll at Bela Estate and were then removed from the draft roll in the Special Intensive Revision. The Election Commission's stated reason was demolished homes, and the process has legal safeguards. The claim leaves out the Election Commission's action and the reason it gave.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said that not having a house has no connection to the right to vote, and that the Bela Estate JJ cluster residents have lived there for decades and have already voted in the 2024 Lok Sabha election and the 2025 Delhi election.
thehindu.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 25 July 2026 on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) says the exercise is meant to make electoral rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries while ensuring no eligible elector is left out, with safeguards such as door-to-door visits, recorded reasons for deletion, claims and objections, and appeals. It also records that the Supreme Court upheld the SIR process on 27 May 2026. News reports on Bela Estate say 728 of the 729 voters at the cluster's polling part were dropped from the draft roll, and the Election Commission linked the deletions to demolished homes.
The Election Commission's SIR press note says the revision is being done with safeguards so that no eligible elector is left out. [5]
The Supreme Court held on 27 May 2026 that the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate. [5]
News reports say 728 of 729 voters at Bela Estate were dropped from the draft roll, leaving only one voter. [1][2]
The Election Commission linked the Bela Estate deletions to demolished homes, according to the report. [2]
The Election Commission's 2024 Lok Sabha data is aggregate and does not show whether Bela Estate residents voted. [3]
The claim that the residents lived there for decades and voted in the 2024 Lok Sabha and 2025 Delhi elections is not confirmed by the official record. What the record shows is that they were on the electoral roll at Bela Estate and were then removed from the draft roll in the Special Intensive Revision. The Election Commission's stated reason was demolished homes, and the process has legal safeguards. The claim leaves out the Election Commission's action and the reason it gave.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“He tweeted the video with a Hindi post where he wrote that 728 people live in the region and that after the SIR, only one name remains on the voter list while the other 727 names have been struck off.”
728 people live in Bela Estate; only one name remains, 727 s
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
728 people live in Bela Estate; only one name remains, 727 s
Rahul Gandhi said in a Hindi post that 728 people live in Bela Estate, Delhi, and that after the SIR only one name remains on the voter list while the other 727 names have been struck off.
indiatoday.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 25 July 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision in Delhi is being carried out with safeguards and that deletions are made only for death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries or untraceable electors. ThePrint reports that the polling station covering Bela Estate had 909 voters in January 2025 and 729 in August 2026, and that two named Bela Estate residents were listed as 'permanently shifted' in the Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi's ASDD list and have submitted Form 6 for re-registration.
The Election Commission's 25 July 2026 press note says SIR deletions are made only after verification for death, permanent shifting of residence, duplicate entries or untraceable electors, and that affected voters can file claims and objections. [6][8]
ThePrint reported that the polling station covering Bela Estate had 909 voters in January 2025 and 729 voters in August 2026, not one, though the JJ cluster of Bela Estate was left with one voter. [4]
ThePrint also reported that two named Bela Estate residents were listed as 'permanently shifted' in the Chief Electoral Officer Delhi's ASDD list and have submitted Form 6 for registration as new voters. [4]
The core event is corroborated in reporting, but Rahul Gandhi's numbers are not confirmed in any Election Commission document in the record. The fuller picture shows a polling station with 729 voters, not a single name, and election officials explaining the deletions through the ASDD list as 'permanently shifted', with residents able to file Form 6. That context changes how the 'only one name remains' claim reads.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“This government is deaf to your pain and will only listen when it's under pressure”
The statement is a political judgement about the government's motives, not a measurable factual claim. The official record shows both sides: crimes against women have increased and systemic problems remain, but the government has also created many schemes and laws. The think-tank source supports the view that reform slows when public pressure fades, but no official finding states that the government is deaf to women's pain or acts only under pressure. The claim omits existing measures, so it needs that context.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said the government is deaf to people's pain over crimes against women and will only listen when it is under public pressure.
newindianexpress.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
National Crime Records Bureau figures tabled in a Rajya Sabha answer on 23 July 2025 show registered crimes against women rose from 3,78,236 in 2018 to 4,45,256 in 2022. A parliamentary standing committee reported in March 2021 that such crimes are often not registered at police stations and conviction rates are low. At the same time, the Ministry of Women and Child Development has listed many responses: One Stop Centres, Women Helpline 181, emergency number 112, fast-track courts and laws such as the 2013 workplace sexual harassment Act.
National Crime Records Bureau data tabled in Rajya Sabha show crimes against women registered in India rose from 3,78,236 in 2018 to 4,45,256 in 2022. [4]
A parliamentary standing committee noted in 2021 that crimes against women and children are often not registered at police stations and the conviction rate is low. [7]
The Ministry of Women and Child Development has documented measures including One Stop Centres, Women Helpline 181, the 112 emergency system, fast-track courts and legislation such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the 2013 workplace sexual harassment law. [4][5][6]
A policy analysis says institutional reform on women's safety loses urgency once public attention fades, which partly supports the idea that public pressure drives action. [2]
The statement is a political judgement about the government's motives, not a measurable factual claim. The official record shows both sides: crimes against women have increased and systemic problems remain, but the government has also created many schemes and laws. The think-tank source supports the view that reform slows when public pressure fades, but no official finding states that the government is deaf to women's pain or acts only under pressure. The claim omits existing measures, so it needs that context.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026
“10 महीने में चुनाव आयोग के दो निर्वाचन आयुक्तों ने गलत फैसलों पर 14 आपत्तियां दर्ज कराईं। लेकिन, कुछ नहीं हुआ।”
The number of objections and the identity of the two Election Commissioners are supported by the record, so that part of the claim is accurate. But the record does not show an official finding that the decisions were 'wrong'; the Commission said they were unanimous. The claim that 'nothing happened' also leaves out the Commission's public response and its 26 September press note, though no source shows that any objected-to decision was reversed. The omission of that response is why the claim is better read with context rather than accepted or rejected outright.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said that in 10 months two election commissioners of the Election Commission filed 14 objections against wrong decisions, but nothing happened.
bhaskar.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
An Indian Express investigation, reported by multiple outlets, found that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded at least 14 formal objections over 10 months to orders issued in the Election Commission's name without their knowledge or approval. In response, the Commission said all its decisions, including those on the Special Intensive Revision, were unanimous and that the concerns did not change final decisions. On 26 September 2026, the full Commission issued a press note stating that directions by Commissioners must be complied with and that some work-redistribution orders had not actually been implemented.
Two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, recorded at least 14 formal objections over 10 months to orders issued in the Election Commission's name without their knowledge or approval. [1]
The objections concerned electoral roll management, including registration and deletion of voters, changes to Form 6, appeals against voters included during the Special Intensive Revision in West Bengal, and software issues in Goa. [1]
The Election Commission said its decisions, including those on the Special Intensive Revision, were unanimous and that the concerns raised by the two commissioners did not alter the Commission's final decisions. [6]
The full Commission later issued a press note on 26 September 2026 stating that all directions issued by Commissioners must be meticulously complied with and that some work-redistribution orders had not actually been implemented. [11]
The number of objections and the identity of the two Election Commissioners are supported by the record, so that part of the claim is accurate. But the record does not show an official finding that the decisions were 'wrong'; the Commission said they were unanimous. The claim that 'nothing happened' also leaves out the Commission's public response and its 26 September press note, though no source shows that any objected-to decision was reversed. The omission of that response is why the claim is better read with context rather than accepted or rejected outright.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
““728 people live in Bela Estate along the Yamuna. After SIR, only one name remained on the voter list, the other 727 names were deleted,” Gandhi said.”
The arithmetic in the claim matches what reports and the Election Commission's explanation describe. But saying the names were deleted without noting that this is a draft roll, that the removals are attributed to demolished homes, and that affected voters can still be added back through claims and objections leaves out context that changes how the deletion appears. The claim is therefore accurate only up to a point, not as a complete account.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said that 728 people live in Bela Estate along the Yamuna and that after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), only one name remained on the voter list, with the other 727 names deleted.
freepressjournal.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
News reports and the Election Commission's explanation say that only one name remained on the draft electoral roll at Bela Estate's polling station after the Special Intensive Revision, with nearly 99.8% of names removed. The Election Commission says the removals followed demolition of homes in the area, and that eligible voters can seek inclusion during the claims and objections period. The Supreme Court has also said that deletions under the Special Intensive Revision were not contrary to the prescribed procedure.
News reports state that after the Special Intensive Revision at Bela Estate, only one of 728 voters remained on the draft electoral roll, with 727 names removed. [1][6]
The Election Commission said the names were removed because homes in the area had been demolished, and that eligible voters can seek inclusion during the claims and objections period. [1][3]
This is a draft electoral roll, not a final roll; the Election Commission's process provides for claims and objections and for restoration of valid names before finalisation. [10]
The Supreme Court has held that deletions under the Special Intensive Revision were not contrary to the procedure prescribed under the election rules. [12]
The arithmetic in the claim matches what reports and the Election Commission's explanation describe. But saying the names were deleted without noting that this is a draft roll, that the removals are attributed to demolished homes, and that affected voters can still be added back through claims and objections leaves out context that changes how the deletion appears. The claim is therefore accurate only up to a point, not as a complete account.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026
“His two fellow members have written 14 times in 10 months! It questions his very integrity and intentions. Therefore, he should be removed from his position.”
14 times in 10 months
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
14 times in 10 months
Kharge said in September 2026 that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's two fellow Election Commissioners had written 14 times in 10 months, which he said questions the CEC's integrity, and that the CEC should be removed from his position.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 states that the SIR orders issued on 24 June 2025, 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission, and that the press note itself has the approval of the full Commission. No official document in the record confirms that the two Election Commissioners wrote 14 objections; the number appears in media reports tracing it to an investigation by The Indian Express.
Media reports trace the figure of 14 objections in 10 months to an investigation by The Indian Express, saying the objections came from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. [2][5][6]
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the SIR orders were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission, and the press note has the approval of the full Commission. [10]
The number Kharge quoted rests on a newspaper investigation, not an official record. The Election Commission's own press note says the SIR decisions were unanimous and approved by the full Commission, which disputes the framing of one-man decision-making. Because the claim omits that denial, the matter is disputed rather than settled.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
“Mr. Singh also questioned the deletion of names from electoral rolls and alleged that 13.37 crore names had been removed across the country.”
The number itself is supported by media reporting, so it is not false. But the claim says names had been removed from electoral rolls without noting that the figure is from draft rolls and that the SIR process includes a statutory window for claims, objections and restoration. That omission could make a large routine revision look like permanent disenfranchisement.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP MP Sanjay Singh alleged that 13.37 crore names had been removed from electoral rolls across the country.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
News reports said around 13.37 crore names were deleted from draft electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories during the Special Intensive Revision, with Indian Express reporting over 13 crore deletions so far. The Election Commission's SIR process removes names after verification by Booth Level Officers for reasons such as death, permanent shifting of residence, duplicate entries or being untraceable. Draft-roll deletions can be contested through a claims and objections period before the final roll is published, and wrongly removed voters can be restored.
Indian Express and Outlook reported around 13.37 crore deletions from draft electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision. [1][6]
The Election Commission's SIR process deletes names only after verification by Booth Level Officers, for reasons such as death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries or untraceable voters. [4][9]
There is a claims and objections period after the draft roll is published, and names found to have been wrongly removed can be restored before the final roll. [4][8]
The reported 13.37 crore deletions are draft-roll deletions across 30 States and Union Territories, not necessarily final removals from the electoral roll. [6]
The number itself is supported by media reporting, so it is not false. But the claim says names had been removed from electoral rolls without noting that the figure is from draft rolls and that the SIR process includes a statutory window for claims, objections and restoration. That omission could make a large routine revision look like permanent disenfranchisement.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingDhruv Rathee28 Sept 2026
“This video breaks down what Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly raised”
The claim is that the two Election Commissioners reportedly raised objections or concerns inside the Election Commission. That is supported by reporting, including the Indian Express investigation. But the official record from the Election Commission says the SIR decisions were unanimous, which is important context the claim leaves out. So the claim is not false, but it is incomplete.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee says Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly raised objections or concerns inside the Election Commission of India.
youtube.com, 28 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India's press note of 26 September 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) order of 24 June 2025 and the schedules of 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. It also says work re-distribution orders were not actually implemented after the orders of the two Commissioners.
The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions issued in the Commission's name without their knowledge or approval. [2][5]
The reported objections related to electoral roll management, voter registration and deletion, changes to Form 6, and the functioning of the Commission's voter database. [2][5]
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the SIR orders were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission, but it does not say the two Commissioners raised no objections on other matters. [9]
The claim is that the two Election Commissioners reportedly raised objections or concerns inside the Election Commission. That is supported by reporting, including the Indian Express investigation. But the official record from the Election Commission says the SIR decisions were unanimous, which is important context the claim leaves out. So the claim is not false, but it is incomplete.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingDhruv Rathee28 Sept 2026
“An Indian Express investigation has revealed internal objections over voter lists, ECINet, Form 6 and the SIR process. This video breaks down what Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly raised, the questions surrounding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and the Election Commission’s response.”
The claim is accurate about what the Indian Express investigation reported, but it presents those reported objections as established fact. The Election Commission's own record says the SIR decisions were unanimous and describes the reported objections as part of the normal deliberative process. Because the official record does not confirm the internal objections over voter lists, ECINet, Form 6 and SIR, the claim needs that context.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee states that an Indian Express investigation revealed internal objections inside the Election Commission of India over voter lists, ECINet, Form 6 and the SIR process, raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, with questions surrounding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
youtube.com, 28 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the SIR orders of 24 June 2025, 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission [11]. It also says work re-distribution orders were not implemented after the orders of the two Commissioners and oversight over the IT division by the DEC was never actually withdrawn [11]. Reporting says the Indian Express investigation claimed the two Election Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections over 10 months on voter registration, deletions, database and appeals [6][8].
The Indian Express report, as described by Livemint and Hindustan Times, said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised at least 14 objections over 10 months about the Election Commission's functioning, including adding and removing voters, the voter database and appeals [6][8]. [6][8]
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 states that SIR orders were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission [11]. [11]
Election Commission officials told Hindustan Times that all decisions, including SIR, were unanimous and had the approval of both Election Commissioners and the CEC [8]. [8]
The claim is accurate about what the Indian Express investigation reported, but it presents those reported objections as established fact. The Election Commission's own record says the SIR decisions were unanimous and describes the reported objections as part of the normal deliberative process. Because the official record does not confirm the internal objections over voter lists, ECINet, Form 6 and SIR, the claim needs that context.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingArvind Kejriwal23 Sept 2026
“Kejriwal alleged that the Election Commission was being run by the CEC alone and claimed that orders and official communications had been issued without the approval of the full Commission.”
The claim is not established as fact. The ECI's own statement denies it, but that is the accused body's position. Independent reporting shows the matter is disputed, with the two Election Commissioners reportedly raising the same concern. The claim therefore omits the official denial and the contested nature of the allegation, so it is MISSING_CONTEXT rather than FALSE or ACCURATE.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal alleged that the Election Commission is being run by the CEC alone and that orders and official communications were issued without the approval of the full Commission.
etvbharat.com, 23 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The ECI's 26 September 2026 press note states that the SIR order of 24 June 2025 and subsequent schedules were issued with unanimous approval of the Commission, and that the press note itself has the approval of the full Commission. However, Indian Express and Newslaundry report an internal rift, with Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi objecting to CEC Gyanesh Kumar over roll deletions and raising the issue of letters and orders issued in the Commission's name without its approval.
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the SIR order of 24 June 2025 and the schedules of 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. [1]
The same press note says work redistribution orders were not actually implemented after the orders of the two Commissioners, and oversight over the IT division by the DEC was never actually withdrawn. [1]
Indian Express reported an internal rift, with Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objecting to CEC Gyanesh Kumar over roll deletions and flagging illegal changes. [8]
Newslaundry reported that a letter dated October 28, 2025 highlighted the issue Election Commissioners took on letters and orders issued in the Commission's name without its approval. [4]
The claim is not established as fact. The ECI's own statement denies it, but that is the accused body's position. Independent reporting shows the matter is disputed, with the two Election Commissioners reportedly raising the same concern. The claim therefore omits the official denial and the contested nature of the allegation, so it is MISSING_CONTEXT rather than FALSE or ACCURATE.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingAkhilesh Yadav23 Sept 2026
“he referred to reports that two election commissioners had formally objected 14 times in the last 10 months to decisions made by the Commission.”
14 times in 10 months
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
14 times in 10 months
Akhilesh Yadav said two election commissioners had formally objected 14 times in the last 10 months to decisions made by the Election Commission.
hindustantimes.com, 23 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, has said that all decisions taken in recent months were unanimous and has rejected suggestions of a formal rift. The Indian Express investigation reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions issued in the Commission's name without their knowledge or approval. No official document from the Commission or a court in the provided record confirms the 14 objections; the Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 order on the Bihar Special Intensive Revision does not mention them.
The Indian Express investigation reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders issued in the name of the Election Commission without their knowledge or approval. [5][2][6]
The Election Commission rejected suggestions of a formal rift and maintained that final decisions, including those relating to the Special Intensive Revision, were unanimous. [4][6]
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 order on the Bihar Special Intensive Revision does not mention any objections by the two Election Commissioners. [8]
The claim rests on a media investigation, not an official record. The Election Commission itself says its decisions were unanimous and denies a formal rift. Because the only support is press reporting and the official body disputes it, the claim omits the context that the 14 objections are reported, not officially confirmed.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingDhruv Rathee24 Jul 2026
“What really happened during the students’ Parliament march in Delhi on 20 July 2026?”
The claim that a students' march towards Parliament took place in Delhi on 20 July 2026 is supported by contemporaneous media reporting, but the official record available only confirms that Parliament's Monsoon Session began that day. Because press reports alone cannot make the claim accurate, and the record leaves out that the march was CJP-led and was stopped short of Parliament, the claim is missing context rather than fully established.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee states that a students' Parliament march took place in Delhi on 20 July 2026 as part of a protest over students' demands.
youtube.com, 24 Jul 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs recorded that the Monsoon Session of Parliament commenced on 20 July 2026 [3][6]. Reporting describes a CJP-led student march moving from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament that day, which police stopped with barricades and tear gas [2][5][1]. No official document among the sources confirms the march itself or labels it as a protest over students' demands.
The Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs recorded that Parliament's Monsoon Session began on 20 July 2026. [3][6]
Contemporaneous reporting describes a CJP-led student march that moved from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament in Delhi on 20 July 2026. [2][5]
Police used barricades and tear gas to stop the crowd entering Parliament's high-security complex. [1][2][5]
The CJP protest was linked to student concerns, including demands for the resignation of the Union education minister. [4]
The claim that a students' march towards Parliament took place in Delhi on 20 July 2026 is supported by contemporaneous media reporting, but the official record available only confirms that Parliament's Monsoon Session began that day. Because press reports alone cannot make the claim accurate, and the record leaves out that the march was CJP-led and was stopped short of Parliament, the claim is missing context rather than fully established.
How this was checked: Checked against official records