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