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 trueAnurag Dhandha (Arvind Kejriwal)checked 1 Oct 2026
“हम पहले दिन से कहते आ रहे हैं कि यह एसआईआर नहीं है, बल्कि बीजेपी की साजिश है।”
The claim calls the SIR 'not genuine' and a BJP conspiracy. But the official record shows the Election Commission itself directed the SIR under law, and the Supreme Court has upheld it as within the Election Commission's mandate. The sources contain only AAP leaders' allegations of a BJP conspiracy, with no document or court finding supporting that. The core assertion that the SIR is not a genuine Election Commission exercise is contradicted by the official record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP national media in-charge Anurag Dhandha said that the SIR (Special Intensive Revision) is not a genuine SIR but a conspiracy by the BJP.
jansatta.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, directed the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in 16 states and 3 union territories, including Delhi, under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Article 324 of the Constitution [7][12]. A Ministry of Law and Justice release dated 25 July 2026 says the Supreme Court examined the SIR process and held that it is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate [12]. The process includes house-to-house visits, draft rolls, claims and objections, and appeals, with safeguards against wrongful deletion [12].
The Election Commission directed the SIR in 16 states and 3 union territories, including Delhi, with a published schedule. [7]
The Ministry of Law and Justice said the SIR is meant to make electoral rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries while ensuring no eligible elector is left out. [12]
The same release says the Supreme Court held the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Article 324. [12]
The Election Commission's Bihar SIR instructions describe a participative process with political parties' booth-level agents and statutory claims, objections and appeals. [9]
The claim calls the SIR 'not genuine' and a BJP conspiracy. But the official record shows the Election Commission itself directed the SIR under law, and the Supreme Court has upheld it as within the Election Commission's mandate. The sources contain only AAP leaders' allegations of a BJP conspiracy, with no document or court finding supporting that. The core assertion that the SIR is not a genuine Election Commission exercise is contradicted by the official record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueArvind Kejriwalchecked 1 Oct 2026
“Election Commissioner Sandhu wrote to the CEC stating that orders were being issued without the Commission's approval and that information was being received via the media. Another commissioner, Joshi ji, wrote that circulars were being issued without the Commission's approval; any orders issued without such approval are illegal,”
The claim gets the recipient and subject wrong. The official record and reporting say the letters went to the Cabinet Secretary and were about an officer's functioning, not to the CEC about orders issued without Commission approval. No source shows Sandhu wrote to the CEC that information was arriving via the media, or that Joshi wrote that circulars issued without approval were illegal. The Election Commission's press note also says the Special Intensive Revision schedules were issued with unanimous approval, which cuts against the suggestion of unauthorised orders.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal said Election Commissioner Sandhu wrote to the CEC that orders were issued without the Commission's approval and information arrived via the media, and that Commissioner Joshi wrote that circulars were issued without the Commission's approval, which he called illegal.
freepressjournal.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, issued a press note on 26 September 2026. It says work re-distribution orders by the concerned officer were not implemented after the two Election Commissioners objected, and that Special Intensive Revision schedules were issued with unanimous approval. The Commission's clarification, as reported, said the letters from Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi were sent to the Cabinet Secretary, not the Chief Election Commissioner, and concerned the functioning of an officer on deputation, not policy matters.
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says work re-distribution orders by the concerned officer were not implemented after the two Commissioners objected, and that Special Intensive Revision schedules were issued with unanimous approval. [10]
The Commission clarified that the letters from Sandhu and Joshi were sent to the Cabinet Secretary, not the CEC, and concerned the functioning of an officer on deputation, not policy matters. [1][4][5]
Media reports also state the letters were addressed to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan about a senior deputy election commissioner's functioning. [2][3]
The Hindu reported that Sandhu and Joshi flagged anomalies in the Special Intensive Revision process over 10 months, but it does not support the specific claim that Sandhu wrote to the CEC or that Joshi called circulars illegal. [8]
The claim gets the recipient and subject wrong. The official record and reporting say the letters went to the Cabinet Secretary and were about an officer's functioning, not to the CEC about orders issued without Commission approval. No source shows Sandhu wrote to the CEC that information was arriving via the media, or that Joshi wrote that circulars issued without approval were illegal. The Election Commission's press note also says the Special Intensive Revision schedules were issued with unanimous approval, which cuts against the suggestion of unauthorised orders.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueArvind Kejriwalchecked 1 Oct 2026
““I heard that 8,000 schools have shut down in Assam and that in 2,000 schools there is only one teacher. Himanta Biswa Sarma should have met Ashutosh Ranka and listened to his findings.””
Arvind Kejriwal said he had heard that 8,000 schools have shut down in Assam and that 2,000 schools have only one teacher, and said Himanta Biswa Sarma should have met Ashutosh Ranka.
pratidintime.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
0
government/provincialised schools closed in Assam, Lok Sabha answer, 2026
sansad.in
A written answer in the Lok Sabha on 1 December 2025 said the Assam school education department reported that no government or provincialised primary, middle, high or higher secondary school in the state has been closed; instead, 2,774 elementary and 206 secondary schools were merged or amalgamated over the last five years. A Rajya Sabha answer on 26 March 2025, using UDISE+ 2023-24 data, put Assam's single-teacher schools with primary sections at 2,613.
In a Lok Sabha answer dated 1 December 2025, the Ministry of Education said no government or provincialised primary, middle, high or higher secondary school in Assam has been closed till date. [1]
The same answer said 2,774 elementary and 206 secondary schools in Assam were merged or amalgamated over five years, a school rationalisation measure, not closure. [1]
UDISE+ 2023-24 data placed before the Rajya Sabha on 26 March 2025 shows Assam had 2,613 single-teacher schools with primary sections, not 2,000. [6]
The official record directly contradicts the 8,000 shutdown figure: Assam's education department told Parliament that no government or provincialised school had been closed, and 2,980 were merged or amalgamated. The claim that 2,000 schools have only one teacher is also unsupported; official UDISE+ data lists 2,613 single-teacher primary schools in Assam. Because the load-bearing numbers are wrong, the claim is false.
“The Special Intensive Revision, through which more than 13 crore names have been deleted across 30 states, is completely illegal because it was not officially approved by the Election Commission.”
more than 13 crore names
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
more than 13 crore names
Arvind Kejriwal said the Special Intensive Revision had deleted more than 13 crore names across 30 states and was completely illegal because it was not officially approved by the Election Commission.
patialapolitics.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
A Press Information Bureau release of 14 May 2026 says the Election Commission of India directed the Special Intensive Revision in phases, including 16 States and 3 Union Territories in Phase III [6]. Another PIB release describes the SIR as a phased exercise with verification, public draft rolls, claims and objections, and restoration of valid names before the final roll [5]. Media reports put draft-stage removals at over 13 crore names across 30 States/UTs, not final deletions [1][2][4].
The 13-crore figure counts names removed from draft electoral rolls, not final deletions; reports describe 13.37 crore names left out of draft rolls across 30 States/UTs. [1][2][4]
The Election Commission of India itself directed the Special Intensive Revision; a PIB release dated 14 May 2026 announces Phase III in 16 States and 3 UTs. [6]
The PIB says the SIR includes house-to-house verification, draft roll publication, a claims and objections period, and restoration of valid names before the final roll. [5]
The speaker's number tracks draft-roll deletions reported for 30 States/UTs, but calling the entire exercise illegal because it was not approved by the Election Commission is contradicted by the Election Commission's own official release, which says the ECI directed the SIR. Draft deletions are subject to claims and objections and restoration, so treating them as final deletions overstates the record. Because the legality part is directly refuted by an official document, the overall claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueArvind Kejriwalchecked 30 Sept 2026
“Kejriwal claimed that the previous AAP government had installed 2.62 lakh CCTV cameras and 2.80 lakh streetlights across Delhi. He alleged that more than half of these installations are currently non-functional and urged the government to restore them.”
The installation numbers Kejriwal cited are broadly supported: records show about 2.63 lakh CCTV cameras installed and a similar scale of LED streetlight replacement. But the allegation that more than half are non-functional is contradicted by the audit, which found 32,000 non-functional cameras out of 2.64 lakh — far fewer than half. No source supports the claim that more than half of streetlights are non-functional.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal claimed the previous AAP government installed 2.62 lakh CCTV cameras and 2.80 lakh streetlights across Delhi, and alleged more than half are currently non-functional.
punjabnewsline.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
A Delhi government audit reported in July 2025 found 2.64 lakh CCTV cameras installed across 70 assembly constituencies, of which over 32,000 were non-functional and over 15,000 remained uninstalled [1]. PWD records show 2.63 lakh cameras installed under a project to install 2.80 lakh [4]. A 2017 Lok Sabha reply said 2.86 lakh streetlights had been replaced with LED lights in the South Delhi Municipal Corporation area, but it does not show the AAP government installed 2.80 lakh streetlights across Delhi or how many work now [5].
A Delhi government audit found 2.64 lakh CCTV cameras installed across 70 assembly constituencies, with over 32,000 non-functional and over 15,000 uninstalled. [1]
PWD records show 2.63 lakh CCTV cameras installed under a project to install 2.80 lakh. [4]
A 2017 Lok Sabha reply said 2.86 lakh streetlights had been replaced with LED lights in the South Delhi Municipal Corporation area. [5]
The installation numbers Kejriwal cited are broadly supported: records show about 2.63 lakh CCTV cameras installed and a similar scale of LED streetlight replacement. But the allegation that more than half are non-functional is contradicted by the audit, which found 32,000 non-functional cameras out of 2.64 lakh — far fewer than half. No source supports the claim that more than half of streetlights are non-functional.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueArvind Kejriwalchecked 30 Sept 2026
““Today, it has come to light that the government has made software through which, in many areas, the SDM has been removed and some people sitting in the Delhi Election Commission have the power to delete or add anyone's vote without verification. This is very dangerous,””
The claim that people in the Delhi Election Commission can delete or add anyone's vote 'without verification' is contradicted by the Election Commission's public clarification and by the Supreme Court's ruling. The official record describes a process with notices, hearings, appealable orders and verification, not unchecked power. Because the load-bearing part of the allegation, deletion or addition without any verification, is directly denied by the record, the claim is false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal alleged that the government has created software under which the SDM has been removed in many areas and people sitting in the Delhi Election Commission can delete or add anyone's vote without verification.
pratidintime.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission clarified on 20 September 2026 that Special Intensive Revision notices are the start of a verification process, not automatic deletion, and that no name can be deleted without a chance to be heard and a proper speaking and appealable order. The Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment, held that deletions made under the Special Intensive Revision were not contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. Parliament was told that the exercise ends with a final electoral roll after due verification and that valid grievances result in names being restored.
The Election Commission said on 20 September 2026 that receiving a Special Intensive Revision notice does not mean a voter's name will be deleted; it is the start of verification, not an order for deletion. [2]
The Election Commission says no name can be deleted without giving the person an opportunity to be heard and without a proper speaking and appealable order. [2]
The Supreme Court on 27 May 2026 held that deletions made under the Special Intensive Revision cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. [11]
A parliamentary answer states the Special Intensive Revision involved house-to-house enumeration, publication of draft rolls, claims and objections, and finalisation only after due verification; grievances found valid led to restoration of names. [10]
The claim that people in the Delhi Election Commission can delete or add anyone's vote 'without verification' is contradicted by the Election Commission's public clarification and by the Supreme Court's ruling. The official record describes a process with notices, hearings, appealable orders and verification, not unchecked power. Because the load-bearing part of the allegation, deletion or addition without any verification, is directly denied by the record, the claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueArvind Kejriwalchecked 30 Sept 2026
“The entire SIR process, through which over 13 crore names were deleted, is illegal; the SIR process must be scrapped.”
The claim has two parts: the deletion figure and the legal conclusion. The figure of over 13 crore deletions is supported by media reports based on ECI draft roll data. But the central assertion that the SIR process 'is illegal' is directly contradicted by the Supreme Court's judgment of 27 May 2026, which upheld the Election Commission's power and authority to conduct the SIR. A court of law has examined and rejected the illegality argument, so the claim as stated is false. The deletions occurred largely in draft rolls, and final rolls show smaller net reductions after eligible voters were added back.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal said the entire Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, through which over 13 crore names were deleted from electoral rolls, is illegal and must be scrapped.
freepressjournal.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Indian Express reports over 13 crore deletions from draft rolls, and Deccan Herald puts the figure at 13.3 crore from draft voter lists. But the Supreme Court, in its 2026 INSC 564 judgment dated 27 May 2026, examined the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar and upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct it, holding that the exercise falls within the Commission's constitutional mandate under Article 324 and the statutory framework. The eo-matters report summarises that the Court 'upheld the legality of the Bihar exercise and recognised the Election Commission's power to conduct intensive electoral-roll revisions within the statutory framework.'
Media reports state that over 13 crore names were deleted from draft electoral rolls across India during the SIR exercise, with Deccan Herald quoting 13.3 crore deletions from draft voter lists. [2][4]
The Supreme Court on 27 May 2026 upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar, rejecting challenges to its legality. [10]
The eo-matters analysis states that the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the Bihar exercise and recognised the ECI's power to conduct intensive electoral-roll revisions within the statutory framework. [8]
Bihar's final 2025 electoral roll contained approximately 7.42 crore electors, compared with 7.89 crore before the revision, a net reduction of about 47 lakh after additions. [3][8]
The claim has two parts: the deletion figure and the legal conclusion. The figure of over 13 crore deletions is supported by media reports based on ECI draft roll data. But the central assertion that the SIR process 'is illegal' is directly contradicted by the Supreme Court's judgment of 27 May 2026, which upheld the Election Commission's power and authority to conduct the SIR. A court of law has examined and rejected the illegality argument, so the claim as stated is false. The deletions occurred largely in draft rolls, and final rolls show smaller net reductions after eligible voters were added back.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proof
4 claims
A serious accusation with nothing behind it: no court, no inquiry and no official figure supports it, and the speaker gave none.
No proofArvind Kejriwalchecked 1 Oct 2026
“On October 28, 2025, Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu wrote to the Election Commissioner stating, ‘Letters and orders are being issued in the name of the Election Commission of India without the approval of the Central Election Commission.’”
Kejriwal's claim rests on a specific letter dated October 28, 2025, but no source contains that letter or independently confirms it. The Election Commission's own record says the SIR order issued the previous day, October 27, 2025, had unanimous approval, and independent reporting that does document the two Election Commissioners' objections places them from November 2025 onward, not October 2025. The broader pattern of written objections is real, but the specific letter, date and quote are unverified.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal said Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu wrote on October 28, 2025 that letters and orders were being issued in the name of the Election Commission of India without the approval of the Central Election Commission.
patialapolitics.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India's official press note of September 26, 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision schedule for 12 states and Union territories issued on October 27, 2025 — the day before the letter Kejriwal quotes — was issued with the unanimous approval of all three Election Commissioners. Independent reporting by The Logical Indian says the two Election Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between November 2025 and August 2026 over decisions taken in the Election Commission's name, the earliest in that reported window coming after the October 28, 2025 letter.
The Election Commission's official press note of 26 September 2026 states the SIR schedule for 12 states and UTs issued on 27 October 2025 was issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. [11][2][6]
Independent reporting documents that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded at least 14 objections between November 2025 and August 2026 over decisions and administrative steps taken in the name of the Election Commission. [3]
The Hindu reports that Election Commissioner Sandhu raised questions about electoral rolls and decision-making, including after his own name appeared in Delhi SIR notices. [4]
The specific October 28, 2025 letter quoted by Kejriwal is not reproduced or independently confirmed in any source; it appears only in reporting of Kejriwal's speech. [1]
Kejriwal's claim rests on a specific letter dated October 28, 2025, but no source contains that letter or independently confirms it. The Election Commission's own record says the SIR order issued the previous day, October 27, 2025, had unanimous approval, and independent reporting that does document the two Election Commissioners' objections places them from November 2025 onward, not October 2025. The broader pattern of written objections is real, but the specific letter, date and quote are unverified.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofArvind Kejriwalchecked 30 Sept 2026
“Arvind Kejriwal alleged ‘vote-chori’ and demanded CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s arrest, cancellation of SIR and fresh elections in ...”
Arvind Kejriwal's 'vote theft' charge is an allegation, not an established fact. The Election Commission's official press note says the Special Intensive Revision decisions were taken unanimously, and the Supreme Court has set up a judicial mechanism to decide voter-list claims rather than confirming any theft. The demand for the Chief Election Commissioner's arrest is a political call, and no court or commission in the sources has upheld the alleged wrongdoing.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal alleged 'vote-chori' (vote theft) and demanded the arrest of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
oneindia.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision order of 24 June 2025 and later schedules were issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. In the West Bengal matter, the Supreme Court entrusted voter-list claims to judicial officers and a committee of former judges, but recorded no finding of vote theft. A public interest litigation seeking action against the Chief Election Commissioner remains pending in the sources.
The Election Commission says the Special Intensive Revision order of 24 June 2025 and later schedules were issued with the unanimous approval of all three commissioners, not by the Chief Election Commissioner alone. [10]
The Supreme Court, facing allegations and counter-allegations about the Special Intensive Revision process in West Bengal, entrusted claims about voter-list inclusions and exclusions to judicial officers, and did not record a finding of vote theft. [11]
A public interest litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, but the sources contain no court order upholding the allegation of vote theft. [8]
Calls for the Chief Election Commissioner's arrest have come from opposition leaders, including Mamata Banerjee and Andhra Pradesh Congress leaders, but these are political demands, not official findings. [1][7]
Arvind Kejriwal's 'vote theft' charge is an allegation, not an established fact. The Election Commission's official press note says the Special Intensive Revision decisions were taken unanimously, and the Supreme Court has set up a judicial mechanism to decide voter-list claims rather than confirming any theft. The demand for the Chief Election Commissioner's arrest is a political call, and no court or commission in the sources has upheld the alleged wrongdoing.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofArvind Kejriwalchecked 30 Sept 2026
“AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal accused CEC Gyanesh Kumar of masterminding a vote-rigging scheme.”
This is an allegation by a political leader, not a documented fact. The official Election Commission record before us says the Special Intensive Revision orders were approved by the full Commission, and the Supreme Court order on a related electoral roll dispute does not uphold the charge. No court judgment, official figure or poll record in the sources finds that CEC Gyanesh Kumar masterminded vote-rigging.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of masterminding a vote-rigging scheme.
msn.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
News reports say Kejriwal accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of orchestrating vote-rigging and demanded his arrest on sedition charges. The Election Commission's press note says the Special Intensive Revision orders were issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. A Supreme Court order on the West Bengal electoral roll process set up judicial scrutiny of objections because of allegations and counter-allegations, but it made no finding that the CEC rigged votes.
The Election Commission's press note says the Special Intensive Revision order of 24 June 2025 and later schedules were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. [10]
The Supreme Court, while dealing with objections to the West Bengal electoral roll process, entrusted adjudication of objections to judicial officers and a committee of former judges; the order records allegations but does not find vote-rigging by the CEC. [11]
News reports record Kejriwal's allegation that CEC Gyanesh Kumar masterminded a vote-rigging scheme, but no source provides an official finding or document proving that claim. [1][2][3][5]
This is an allegation by a political leader, not a documented fact. The official Election Commission record before us says the Special Intensive Revision orders were approved by the full Commission, and the Supreme Court order on a related electoral roll dispute does not uphold the charge. No court judgment, official figure or poll record in the sources finds that CEC Gyanesh Kumar masterminded vote-rigging.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofArvind Kejriwal23 Sept 2026
“Kejriwal alleged that the SIR exercise had resulted in the deletion of a large number of names from electoral rolls and demanded that the entire process be cancelled.”
Kejriwal's claim rests on the words 'a large number', but no official document in the record gives any deletion count. The Election Commission describes deletions as a verified, safeguarded part of the revision, and its clarification says notices are not deletions. Without an official figure, the allegation is not proven; the demand to cancel the process is a political position, not a factual claim.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal alleged that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise deleted a large number of names from the electoral rolls and demanded the entire process be cancelled.
etvbharat.com, 23 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note, reproduced in a Lok Sabha answer, says the Special Intensive Revision is being carried out in phases to make electoral rolls accurate, and that deletions are made only after house-to-house verification by Booth Level Officers for reasons such as death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries or untraceable electors, with safeguards including a draft roll and appeals. The Commission's clarification of 20 September 2026, as reported, said system-generated SIR notices do not mean a voter's name will be deleted and no name can be deleted without a hearing and an appealable order. No official source in the record states a total number of names deleted under the SIR.
The Election Commission's press note and a Lok Sabha answer say SIR deletions are made only after Booth Level Officer verification and for specific reasons, with safeguards such as draft roll publication and appeals. [1][2]
The Election Commission clarified on 20 September 2026 that SIR notices do not mean deletion, and no name can be deleted without a hearing and an appealable order. [6]
The official record provided does not give a state-wise or total deletion figure for the SIR. [1][2]
Kejriwal's claim rests on the words 'a large number', but no official document in the record gives any deletion count. The Election Commission describes deletions as a verified, safeguarded part of the revision, and its clarification says notices are not deletions. Without an official figure, the allegation is not proven; the demand to cancel the process is a political position, not a factual claim.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Misleading
6 claims
Part of it is true, but the way it was said gives a wrong picture.
MisleadingArvind Kejriwalchecked 1 Oct 2026
“The AAP chief also highlighted past achievements, stating that when his government was in power in Delhi, they had installed 262,000 CCTV cameras and 280,000 streetlights.”
262,000 CCTV cameras and 280,000 streetlights, 3,81,107
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
262,000 CCTV cameras and 280,000 streetlights
Arvind Kejriwal stated that when his (AAP) government was in power in Delhi, it had installed 262,000 CCTV cameras and 280,000 streetlights.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
3,81,107
LED streetlights installed in Delhi under SLNP, PIB, Dec 2023
pib.gov.in
A Press Information Bureau release of 15 December 2023 from the Ministry of Power says that under the Street Lighting National Programme, Energy Efficiency Services Limited, a central public-sector joint venture, installed 3,81,107 LED streetlights in Delhi. Media reports citing official data say Delhi has 2,74,389 CCTV cameras installed by the Public Works Department, and the Delhi government planned an audit of more than 260,000 CCTV cameras installed by PWD during the previous AAP regime.
A Press Information Bureau release of 15 December 2023 from the Ministry of Power says that under the Street Lighting National Programme, Energy Efficiency Services Limited, a central public-sector joint venture, installed 3,81,107 LED streetlights in Delhi. [4]
Media reports citing official data say Delhi has 2,74,389 CCTV cameras installed by the Public Works Department, and the Delhi government planned an audit of more than 260,000 CCTV cameras installed by PWD during the previous AAP regime. [2][7]
The official record on Delhi streetlights attributes the 3,81,107 LED streetlights to EESL under the central Street Lighting National Programme, not to the AAP government. [4]
The CCTV part is close to the record: media reports citing official data put Delhi's PWD-installed cameras at 2,74,389, and the Delhi government planned an audit of more than 260,000 cameras installed during the AAP period. But the streetlight part is not supported: the official PIB record says 3,81,107 LED streetlights in Delhi were installed by EESL under the central Street Lighting National Programme, not by the AAP government. So the claim presents a central programme's work as the AAP government's achievement.
“He claimed that the same policy was currently being implemented in Punjab and that the state's excise revenue had increased from around Rs 5,000 crore to Rs 12,000 crore.”
around Rs 5,000 crore to Rs 12,000 crore, ₹12,800 crore
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
around Rs 5,000 crore to Rs 12,000 crore
Arvind Kejriwal claimed that the Delhi excise policy's auction system is now being implemented in Punjab and that Punjab's excise revenue increased from around Rs 5,000 crore to Rs 12,000 crore.
pratidintime.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
₹12,800 crore
Punjab excise revenue target for 2026-27, DIPR Punjab
ipr.punjab.gov.in
Punjab's Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema said in an official state government release that after the 2022-23 policy the state's excise revenue jumped to ₹8,428 crore and the 2026-27 target is ₹12,800 crore [1]. He put the 2021-22 figure at ₹6,255 crore [5]. The Hindu reported actual 2025-26 collections of ₹11,782 crore [4].
Punjab Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema said excise revenue was ₹6,255 crore in 2021-22 under the previous Congress government. [5]
The official DIPR Punjab release says revenue jumped to ₹8,428 crore in 2022-23 and sets a ₹12,800 crore target for 2026-27. [1]
The Hindu reported that Punjab's excise department closed 2025-26 with ₹11,782 crore, nearly double the ₹6,254.84 crore of four years earlier. [4]
The official Punjab government release describes a 'robust policy framework' introduced in 2022-23 but does not state that it is the same as Delhi's excise policy. [1]
The revenue increase is real, but the starting point is wrong. Kejriwal said 'around Rs 5,000 crore'; the official record puts the 2021-22 base at ₹6,255 crore, about 25% higher. The current figure is roughly in line with actual ₹11,782 crore or the ₹12,800 crore target. The claim that Punjab is implementing the same policy as Delhi is not established by the official sources, which describe Punjab's own policy.
““The entire SIR process, through which over 13 crore names were deleted, is illegal; the SIR process must be scrapped.”
The 13-crore number is supported by reporting, but it is a draft-roll count, not proof that 13 crore voters were permanently removed. The Election Commission's published procedure and Bihar's final roll data include verification, appeals and restoration, so a blanket claim that the whole process is illegal leaves out that context. The demand to scrap SIR is a political position, not a factual finding.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal said that over 13 crore names were deleted through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, called that process illegal and demanded it be scrapped.
thenewsmill.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Media reports say more than 13 crore names were struck off draft voter rolls across 30 states and union territories during the Special Intensive Revision, a voter-list clean-up. The Election Commission's press note describes the exercise as a phased statutory process with house-to-house verification, a draft roll, claims and objections, appeals, and restoration where a valid objection is raised. Bihar's published final SIR data shows 65 lakh names removed from the draft list but 21.53 lakh eligible electors added, leaving about 7.42 crore in the final list.
Media reports record that more than 13 crore names were struck off draft electoral rolls across 30 states and union territories during the SIR exercise. [2][5][6]
The Election Commission's press note describes SIR as a phased statutory revision with house-to-house verification, publication of a draft roll, claims and objections, appeals to the District Magistrate and Chief Electoral Officer, and restoration where a grievance is found valid. [7][9]
Bihar's published final SIR data shows 65 lakh names removed from the draft list, 21.53 lakh eligible electors added, and a final roll of about 7.42 crore, showing draft removals are not the same as final deletions. [4]
A Parliament answer from the Ministry of Law and Justice refers to a Supreme Court judgment dated 27 May 2026 in the SIR case and states that grievances found valid are restored before the roll is finalised. [10]
The 13-crore number is supported by reporting, but it is a draft-roll count, not proof that 13 crore voters were permanently removed. The Election Commission's published procedure and Bihar's final roll data include verification, appeals and restoration, so a blanket claim that the whole process is illegal leaves out that context. The demand to scrap SIR is a political position, not a factual finding.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingArvind Kejriwalchecked 1 Oct 2026
“केजरीवाल ने दावा किया कि पिछले कुछ वर्षों में बड़ी संख्या में विधायक पाला बदल चुके हैं और इसके पीछे राजनीतिक दबाव, जांच एजेंसियों तथा पैसे के इस्तेमाल जैसे आरोप लगते रहे हैं।”
193
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal claimed that in recent years a large number of MLAs have defected, and allegations of political pressure, investigative agencies, and use of money have persisted behind it.
deshbandhu.co.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
193
ED cases against MPs, MLAs and political leaders in ten years, Rajya Sabha answer, March 2025
sansad.in
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), an election watchdog, reported in September 2026 that 111 sitting MPs and MLAs changed parties after being elected since 2022; 78 of them were MLAs. On the Enforcement Directorate, a Rajya Sabha reply of 18 March 2025 put the number of cases registered against MPs, MLAs and political leaders in ten years at 193, with only two convictions, and said the agency does not keep party-wise data or distinguish cases by political affiliation. Neither the ADR analysis nor the official reply links the party switches to political pressure, investigative agencies or money.
ADR counted 111 sitting MPs and MLAs who changed parties after winning elections since 2022; 78 of them were MLAs, along with 26 Lok Sabha and 7 Rajya Sabha MPs. [5][8]
A Rajya Sabha answer said the Enforcement Directorate registered 193 cases against MPs, MLAs, MLCs and political leaders or anyone affiliated with a political party between 2015-16 and February 2025, with two convictions and no acquittals on merit. [6]
The same answer said the ED does not maintain party-wise data on these cases and stated the ED does not distinguish cases based on political affiliation, religion or otherwise. [6]
The ADR report describes which parties gained and lost lawmakers, but it does not present evidence that political pressure, investigative agencies or money caused the switches. [5][8]
The factual core of the claim — that a large number of MLAs switched parties — matches ADR's count of 78 MLAs since 2022. But the claim also says political pressure, investigative agencies and money were behind this, and that is not shown by the provided record. The official Rajya Sabha reply on ED cases against legislators gives no party-wise data and states the agency does not act by political affiliation, while the ADR study lists recipients, not causes. So the defection count is supported, but the causal allegations remain unproven.
“The AAP leader further alleged that the Election Commission was being run by the CEC without adequate participation of the other two commissioners.”
Kejriwal's statement describes the Commission as run by the CEC without adequate participation of the other two Commissioners. That is not what the Election Commission's own record says: its press note describes key SIR decisions as unanimous. But independent reporting documents repeated internal objections by the two Election Commissioners, including over orders issued without their knowledge, so the claim is disputed rather than settled one way.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal alleged that the Election Commission was being run by CEC Gyanesh Kumar without adequate participation of the other two commissioners.
hindustantimes.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, said in a press note on 26 September 2026 that the Special Intensive Revision orders of 24 June 2025 and schedules of 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. But The New Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times over 10 months, and that Sandhu flagged communications being issued in the Commission's name without approval from the full Commission. The Hindu also reported that the two Commissioners had flagged anomalies in the SIR process.
An Election Commission press note of 26 September 2026 states that SIR orders and schedules were issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. [9]
The New Indian Express reported Sandhu and Joshi raised objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months, with Sandhu flagging communications issued in the Election Commission's name without full Commission approval. [1]
The Hindu reported that the two Election Commissioners had flagged many anomalies in the ongoing SIR process over the last 10 months. [7]
Kejriwal's statement describes the Commission as run by the CEC without adequate participation of the other two Commissioners. That is not what the Election Commission's own record says: its press note describes key SIR decisions as unanimous. But independent reporting documents repeated internal objections by the two Election Commissioners, including over orders issued without their knowledge, so the claim is disputed rather than settled one way.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingArvind Kejriwal23 Sept 2026
“Kejriwal alleged that the Election Commission was being run by the CEC alone and claimed that orders and official communications had been issued without the approval of the full Commission.”
The claim is not established as fact. The ECI's own statement denies it, but that is the accused body's position. Independent reporting shows the matter is disputed, with the two Election Commissioners reportedly raising the same concern. The claim therefore omits the official denial and the contested nature of the allegation, so it is MISSING_CONTEXT rather than FALSE or ACCURATE.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal alleged that the Election Commission is being run by the CEC alone and that orders and official communications were issued without the approval of the full Commission.
etvbharat.com, 23 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The ECI's 26 September 2026 press note states that the SIR order of 24 June 2025 and subsequent schedules were issued with unanimous approval of the Commission, and that the press note itself has the approval of the full Commission. However, Indian Express and Newslaundry report an internal rift, with Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi objecting to CEC Gyanesh Kumar over roll deletions and raising the issue of letters and orders issued in the Commission's name without its approval.
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the SIR order of 24 June 2025 and the schedules of 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. [1]
The same press note says work redistribution orders were not actually implemented after the orders of the two Commissioners, and oversight over the IT division by the DEC was never actually withdrawn. [1]
Indian Express reported an internal rift, with Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objecting to CEC Gyanesh Kumar over roll deletions and flagging illegal changes. [8]
Newslaundry reported that a letter dated October 28, 2025 highlighted the issue Election Commissioners took on letters and orders issued in the Commission's name without its approval. [4]
The claim is not established as fact. The ECI's own statement denies it, but that is the accused body's position. Independent reporting shows the matter is disputed, with the two Election Commissioners reportedly raising the same concern. The claim therefore omits the official denial and the contested nature of the allegation, so it is MISSING_CONTEXT rather than FALSE or ACCURATE.
How this was checked: Checked against official records