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