Claims, the global file

Every claim we have checked.

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

How a claim is checked

Narrow the file

Each filter is its own address. Copy the URL and you copy the view.

2 filters applied. Clear all filters

All claims

3 in view

Misleading

3 claims

Part of it is true, but the way it was said gives a wrong picture.

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]
[2] Gujarat emerges as major hub for drug trafficking, over 1.3… — english.gujaratsamachar.com [3] 1169 E — sansad.in [4] Press Release:Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in [6] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS RAJYA SABHA ... — sansad.in
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
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]
[2] Rajya Sabha Chairman, Lok Sabha Speaker reject opposition bid ... — ddnews.gov.in [5] Impeachment motion to remove CEC Gyanesh Kumar rejected by ... — indiatoday.in [13] Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha reject Opposition's impeachment motion ... — thestatesman.com [14] Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha reject Opposition's notices seeking ... — hindustantimes.com
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.
Open official seriesHow this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingSanjay Singh (AAP) (Aam Aadmi Party)30 Sept 2026
“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]
[1] SIR draft rolls see over 13 crore deletions so far, Delhi leads with 33% left out — indianexpress.com [4] PDF Government of India Ministry of Law and Justice Legislative Department ... — sansad.in [6] Raghav Chadha's Name Deleted From Punjab Voter List, BJP MP Alleges ... — outlookindia.com [8] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in [9] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in
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