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 trueAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“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.
“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.
“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 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 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.
A serious accusation with nothing behind it: no court, no inquiry and no official figure supports it, and the speaker gave none.
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 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 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 proofAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
“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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
Misleading
6 claims
Part of it is true, but the way it was said gives a wrong picture.
MisleadingAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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
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
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