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 trueMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)29 Sept 2026
“History bears witness that ten years ago, this very Prime Minister devastated India’s economy with the decision of “demonetization.””
7.1 per cent
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said that ten years ago Prime Minister Narendra Modi devastated India's economy with the decision on demonetisation.
hindustantimes.com, 29 Sept 2026
What is actually true
7.1 per cent
real GDP growth average after demonetisation, Lok Sabha answer, Dec 2025
sansad.in
In a written answer in the Lok Sabha on 8 December 2025, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary said national accounts data from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation show real GDP growth averaged about 7.1 per cent in the immediate years after demonetisation, 2016-17 and 2017-18, and about 7.3 per cent between 2016-17 and 2024-25 excluding the pandemic-affected years. The Economic Survey 2016-17 Volume 2 said the real economy grew 7.1 per cent in 2016-17, down from 8 per cent the previous year, but called the economy relatively resilient to the liquidity shock.
A written Lok Sabha answer on 8 December 2025 said real GDP growth averaged about 7.1 per cent in 2016-17 and 2017-18, and about 7.3 per cent between 2016-17 and 2024-25 excluding pandemic-affected years, with India remaining one of the fastest-growing major economies after demonetisation. [7]
The Economic Survey 2016-17 Volume 2 noted the real economy grew 7.1 per cent in 2016-17 compared with 8 per cent the previous year, and said this suggested the economy was relatively resilient to the large liquidity shock of demonetisation. [8]
The Reserve Bank of India's annual report said the Indian economy demonstrated resilience in 2016-17, marked by moderate expansion, low inflation, and improvement in current account and fiscal deficits. [2]
The claim says demonetisation devastated the Indian economy. Official figures show the economy kept growing after demonetisation: real GDP growth averaged about 7.1 per cent in the next two years, and growth slowed from 8 per cent to 7.1 per cent in 2016-17. That is a slowdown, not devastation. The official record therefore contradicts the assertion that the economy was devastated.
Not trueMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)28 Sept 2026
“Rubber bullets were fired in the farmers’ movement, and 750 farmers lost their lives," he said, adding, "In Una, Gujarat, Dalits were beaten up, but justice hasn’t been served even now.”
The specific figure of 750 is not supported by the record; parliamentary debates and reporting cite around 700 or over 200 deaths, depending on the period. The claim that rubber bullets were fired is absent from all retrieved sources. Because the load-bearing number is contradicted by the available record and the ammunition claim is unverified, the statement is not accurate.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said that rubber bullets were fired in the farmers’ movement and 750 farmers lost their lives.
thehindu.com, 28 Sept 2026
What is actually true
A Lok Sabha debate on 2 July 2024 records a member saying 'almost 700 farmers gave their lives' in the first farmers' agitation [7]. A February 2021 Lok Sabha debate put the figure at 'over 200 farmers' killed since the protests began [8]. The Conversation reported '700 lives lost' in the year of protests [5]. None of these sources mentions rubber bullets being fired.
A Lok Sabha debate on 2 July 2024 records a member saying 'almost 700 farmers gave their lives' in the first farmers' agitation, not 750. [7]
A February 2021 Lok Sabha debate said 'over 200 farmers have been killed since the inception of farmers' protests.' [8]
The Conversation reported '700 lives lost' in the farmers' protests, not 750. [5]
None of the retrieved sources mentions rubber bullets being fired during the farmers' movement. [5][7][8]
The specific figure of 750 is not supported by the record; parliamentary debates and reporting cite around 700 or over 200 deaths, depending on the period. The claim that rubber bullets were fired is absent from all retrieved sources. Because the load-bearing number is contradicted by the available record and the ammunition claim is unverified, the statement is not accurate.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proof
10 claims
A serious accusation with nothing behind it: no court, no inquiry and no official figure supports it, and the speaker gave none.
No proofJairam Ramesh (Indian National Congress)1 Oct 2026
“The chorus of voices against the capture of the electoral system is getting louder”
The claim rests on an allegation that the electoral system has been captured. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure for it. The Supreme Court judgment in the record examined the appointment process for election commissioners but did not uphold any finding of capture. Press reports of the Congress's own statement and opposition activities do not prove the allegation, so the claim is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said that the chorus of voices against the capture of the electoral system is getting louder.
thehindu.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's judgment of 23 September 2026 in the challenge to the law on appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners examined how these officials are selected; it did not find that the electoral system has been captured [8]. Media reports of 1 October 2026 quote Jairam Ramesh and the Congress making the claim, and note the INDIA bloc's planned marches and former Chief Election Commissioner O.P. Rawat's criticism of the Special Intensive Revision, but these are press accounts, not official findings [2][6][7]. No official document in the record confirms that the electoral system has been captured or that opposition to such capture is growing.
The Supreme Court's 23 September 2026 judgment in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 146 of 2024 examined the law on appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners; it did not find that the electoral system has been captured. [8]
Media reports from 1 October 2026 quote Jairam Ramesh saying the chorus of voices against the capture of the electoral system is getting louder, and mention the INDIA bloc's planned marches and former CEC O.P. Rawat's criticism of the Special Intensive Revision. [2][6][7]
The claim rests on an allegation that the electoral system has been captured. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure for it. The Supreme Court judgment in the record examined the appointment process for election commissioners but did not uphold any finding of capture. Press reports of the Congress's own statement and opposition activities do not prove the allegation, so the claim is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofJairam Ramesh (Indian National Congress)1 Oct 2026
“Form 6 changes were introduced by the CEC unconstitutionally in mid-July 2026 to remove Gen Z voters from the electoral roll. Clearly, the move was orchestrated by the PM-HM (Narendra Modi-Amit Shah) duo.”
The claim treats allegations as established fact. The only sources for illegality, the Gen Z motive and PM-HM orchestration are statements by Ramesh and the Congress. The Election Commission denies any change to the statutory form, and the Supreme Court ruling cited in the controversy upheld the ECI's SIR powers without examining the July online change. No official document or court order in the record supports the claim.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Jairam Ramesh said that Form 6 changes were introduced unconstitutionally by the Chief Election Commissioner in mid-July 2026 to remove Gen Z voters from the electoral roll, and that the move was orchestrated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah.
thehindu.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, has said there was no change to the statutory Form 6; an additional declaration was added under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms upheld the ECI's power to conduct SIR under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 read with Article 324, but did not specifically review the July 2026 online Form 6 change.
In July 2026, the online version of Form 6 on the Election Commission's ECINet portal was modified to include a new declaration. [1]
Jairam Ramesh and the Congress alleged the change was illegal and unconstitutional and created a barrier for first-time Gen Z voters. [2][4][6]
The Election Commission maintained that there was no change to the statutory Form 6 and that an additional declaration had been added under the SIR process. [4]
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment upheld the ECI's SIR powers but did not specifically review the July 2026 online Form 6 changes. [7][12]
The claim treats allegations as established fact. The only sources for illegality, the Gen Z motive and PM-HM orchestration are statements by Ramesh and the Congress. The Election Commission denies any change to the statutory form, and the Supreme Court ruling cited in the controversy upheld the ECI's SIR powers without examining the July online change. No official document or court order in the record supports the claim.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)checked 30 Sept 2026
“First Prime Minister Narendra Modi did ‘notebandi’ now doing ‘votebandi’, taking away people’s rights”
The claim is an allegation of vote theft. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure. The record contains no Election Commission or court finding that supports it; the only official document describes the 2024 election as democratic. A news report shows a similar allegation by another leader, but an allegation is not proof.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi first did demonetisation (notebandi) and is now doing vote theft (votebandi), taking away people's rights.
theprint.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The official record contains no Election Commission or court finding of 'votebandi' or vote theft. The only official document, a Press Information Bureau release dated 30 December 2024, describes the 2024 general election as a democratic exercise with robust voter engagement and a mandate for Prime Minister Modi. A news abstract reports that Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav made a similar allegation that the BJP's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh was 'votebandi' after 'notebandi', but that is an allegation, not an official finding.
A Press Information Bureau release dated 30 December 2024 describes the 2024 general election as a democratic exercise with robust voter engagement and a mandate for Prime Minister Modi. [4]
A news abstract reports that Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav alleged the BJP's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh was 'votebandi' after 'notebandi', but it records an allegation, not an official finding. [2]
The record contains no Election Commission order, court judgment or official figure showing that votes were stolen or voters' rights were taken away. [2][4]
The claim is an allegation of vote theft. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure. The record contains no Election Commission or court finding that supports it; the only official document describes the 2024 election as democratic. A news report shows a similar allegation by another leader, but an allegation is not proof.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofPawan Khera, Congress (Indian National Congress)checked 30 Sept 2026
“Today, the whole country is worried about vote theft. They feel like the entire mandate is being stolen. Governments built on theft and robbery are in power.”
The claim is a sweeping allegation of systemic fraud. Pawan Khera offers no document, court finding or official figure to prove vote theft across India; the record before us contains none. The Election Commission denies the allegation and describes its exercise as routine, but its denial alone cannot settle the matter. The Supreme Court's interventions raise questions about the revision's power, procedure and timing, yet the court record provided does not uphold a finding that votes were stolen or that any government obtained power through theft.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress leader Pawan Khera alleged that vote theft is happening across India, that the entire mandate is being stolen, and that governments built on 'theft and robbery' are in power.
thenewsmill.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, has said the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls is a routine, legally mandated process to remove names of dead, shifted or duplicate voters, and has denied the allegation of vote theft. For Bihar, the Commission's official figures show 7.89 crore electors as of 24 June 2025, 65 lakh removed from the draft list of 1 August 2025, 3.66 lakh ineligible electors removed, and 21.53 lakh eligible electors added, with a final roll of about 7.42 crore published on 30 September 2025. The Supreme Court, hearing challenges to the Bihar exercise, identified questions about the Commission's power, procedure and timing; the court record provided contains no finding that votes were stolen or that any mandate was robbed.
The Election Commission has stated that the Special Intensive Revision is designed to identify and remove names of voters who are dead, have moved away, or appear twice, and has denied claims that it amounts to vote theft or manipulation. [2][4]
According to the Commission's press release on Bihar, there were 7.89 crore electors as on 24 June 2025; 65 lakh were removed from the draft list, 3.66 lakh ineligible electors were removed from that draft, and 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added, giving a final roll of about 7.42 crore on 30 September 2025. [12]
The Supreme Court's order of 10 July 2025 in the petitions against the Bihar Special Intensive Revision recorded three prima facie questions: the Commission's authority to do the exercise, the procedure and manner, and the timing, given that Bihar elections were due in November 2025. [5]
For the 2024 general election, the Election Commission published electoral rolls showing 96.88 crore registered voters across the country, an increase of about 8 percent over 2019, with 2.63 crore new electors added. [11]
The claim is a sweeping allegation of systemic fraud. Pawan Khera offers no document, court finding or official figure to prove vote theft across India; the record before us contains none. The Election Commission denies the allegation and describes its exercise as routine, but its denial alone cannot settle the matter. The Supreme Court's interventions raise questions about the revision's power, procedure and timing, yet the court record provided does not uphold a finding that votes were stolen or that any government obtained power through theft.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi (Indian National Congress)checked 30 Sept 2026
“Opposition has been quite successful in conveying to people that the PM and the HM have destroyed democracy and elections are stolen.”
The claim asserts a serious allegation: that elections were stolen and that the Prime Minister and Home Minister destroyed democracy. The only official document retrieved is a government press release that describes the 2024 election as democratic and transparent, but it is the government's own account from December 2024 and does not settle the later allegation. No independent record such as an Election Commission order or court judgment is in the sources, so the allegation remains unproven rather than contradicted by an official adjudication.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said the opposition has successfully conveyed to people that the Prime Minister and Home Minister have destroyed democracy and that elections are stolen.
theprint.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The only official document in the sources, a Press Information Bureau release dated 30 December 2024, describes the 2024 general election as a resilient democracy with robust voter engagement, civil conduct and a transparent process. A news report records Rahul Gandhi's accusation that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar attacked democracy and that elections were being stolen, but it contains no independent verification. No Election Commission order, court judgment or other official finding in the retrieved record supports the claim that any election was stolen.
A Press Information Bureau release of 30 December 2024 describes the 2024 general election as a resilient democracy, marked by robust voter engagement, civil conduct and a transparent process, and says PM Modi secured a historic third term. [2]
NDTV reported that Rahul Gandhi accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of attacking democracy and alleged that elections were being 'stolen'. [1]
The retrieved record contains no court order, Election Commission finding or other independent official document showing that any election was stolen or that the Prime Minister and Home Minister destroyed democracy. [1][2]
The claim asserts a serious allegation: that elections were stolen and that the Prime Minister and Home Minister destroyed democracy. The only official document retrieved is a government press release that describes the 2024 election as democratic and transparent, but it is the government's own account from December 2024 and does not settle the later allegation. No independent record such as an Election Commission order or court judgment is in the sources, so the allegation remains unproven rather than contradicted by an official adjudication.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)checked 30 Sept 2026
“The pawns are just a front, the PM, HM are behind the vote chori and thus they are winning polls”
The claim is an allegation of election rigging against the Prime Minister and Home Minister. The official record provided does not support it: the Election Commission, the constitutional body that conducts elections, rejected the 'vote chori' charge as factually incorrect and asked for proof, and the Supreme Court's judgment on the Bihar electoral-roll revision makes no finding implicating these two office-holders. Because no document, court finding or official figure connects them to vote theft, the allegation is unproven on this record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge alleged that the Prime Minister and Home Minister are behind the vote theft and are thus winning elections.
theprint.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, said on 14 August 2025 that 'vote chori' was a false narrative and that proof should be given instead. It had earlier fact-checked Opposition posts alleging vote fraud and called them factually incorrect. The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment on the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision in Bihar examines the Commission's authority and procedure but contains no finding that the Prime Minister or Home Minister directed any vote theft.
On 14 August 2025 the Election Commission said instead of creating a false narrative by using phrases like 'vote chori', proof should be given, and that the 'one person one vote' law has existed since the first elections in 1951-52. [2]
On 11 August 2025 the Election Commission fact-checked Opposition leaders' vote fraud allegations and rejected them as 'factually incorrect'; it also stamped a Rahul Gandhi post as 'MISLEADING'. [4]
The Supreme Court's judgment of 27 May 2026 concerned the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar; the provided pages discuss the Commission's powers and contain no finding against the Prime Minister or Home Minister. [7]
The retrieved record shows the Election Commission disputed vote theft allegations made by Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition leaders, but no official document names the Prime Minister or Home Minister as being behind the alleged theft. [1][3][5]
The claim is an allegation of election rigging against the Prime Minister and Home Minister. The official record provided does not support it: the Election Commission, the constitutional body that conducts elections, rejected the 'vote chori' charge as factually incorrect and asked for proof, and the Supreme Court's judgment on the Bihar electoral-roll revision makes no finding implicating these two office-holders. Because no document, court finding or official figure connects them to vote theft, the allegation is unproven on this record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026
“Because PM [Narendra] Modi and Amit Shah want a rubber stamp who can help them remain in power. In fact they are the real culprits,”
The claim is an accusation about secret motives and culpability. The record before us contains the political allegation itself and a Supreme Court judgment on election commissioner appointments, but no court finding, commission finding, or official document that establishes Mr Modi or Mr Shah sought a rubber-stamp Election Commission or were the 'real culprits'. The Election Commission's own position is that internal disagreements are normal, which does not prove the charge. The claim therefore remains an unproven allegation.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Kharge alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Amit Shah want a rubber-stamp Election Commission to help them remain in power and called them the real culprits.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 23 September 2026 on the challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner appointment law, recorded the statutory Selection Committee: the Prime Minister is chairperson, alongside the Leader of Opposition and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. It said the Election Commission must be insulated from exclusive executive control, but the judgment contains no finding that Mr Modi or Mr Shah appointed anyone as a rubber stamp or rigged elections. The Election Commission has not accepted the charge; it has said differences among commissioners are part of internal deliberation.
Mallikarjun Kharge alleged at an INDIA alliance partners' meeting that Gyanesh Kumar was appointed Chief Election Commissioner because Mr Modi and Mr Amit Shah wanted a 'rubber stamp' who could help them remain in power. [2]
Other Congress leaders made similar allegations: Jairam Ramesh called the Election Commission an 'arm of the BJP' and described the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls as part of a 'Modi-Shah strategy' to manufacture a majority. [1]
The Supreme Court's 23 September 2026 judgment records that the selection committee for the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners has the Prime Minister as chairperson, the Leader of Opposition as a member, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister as a member. [9]
The same Supreme Court judgment contains no finding that Prime Minister Modi or Home Minister Amit Shah wanted a rubber-stamp election body or were culpable in any electoral wrongdoing. [9]
The Election Commission said Election Commissioners had raised issues about deletion of names from electoral rolls and the handling of voter databases, and it maintained that differing views are a normal part of institutional deliberations. [5][8]
The claim is an accusation about secret motives and culpability. The record before us contains the political allegation itself and a Supreme Court judgment on election commissioner appointments, but no court finding, commission finding, or official document that establishes Mr Modi or Mr Shah sought a rubber-stamp Election Commission or were the 'real culprits'. The Election Commission's own position is that internal disagreements are normal, which does not prove the charge. The claim therefore remains an unproven allegation.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026
“Mr. Kharge also said that by changing the rules in Form 6 for enrolling for the first-time-voters by the Election Commission, the youngsters are deliberately being discouraged from voting.”
The factual core of the claim — that the online Form 6 process was altered during the SIR and that this affected first-time voters, prompting written objections from two Election Commissioners and concerns in reporting — is supported by the record. But the word "deliberately" turns the description into an allegation of motive, and the record contains no court finding, official figure or document establishing that the Commission acted to discourage young people from voting. The two Commissioners objected on legal grounds, and the Commission later removed the declaration; neither establishes intent to discourage.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Kharge alleged that the Election Commission's changes to Form 6 rules for enrolling first-time voters deliberately discourage young people from voting.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Form 6 is the application a first-time voter fills out to get on the electoral roll, prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. During the Special Intensive Revision of rolls that began in Bihar in mid-2025, the Election Commission added an SIR-linked declaration (Annexure D) to the online Form 6 process, asking for details such as parent and grandparent information. Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record that the statutory form could not be changed without amending the 1960 Rules, while the Commission's own position was that Form 6 itself was not changed, only a separate annexure added.
Form 6 is the application a first-time voter fills out to enrol, and it is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. [1][3][4]
During the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls that began in Bihar in mid-2025, the Election Commission added an SIR-linked declaration (Annexure D) to the online Form 6 process, requiring extra details including parent and grandparent information. [1][6][8]
Two of the three Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, objected in writing that the statutory Form 6 could not be altered without amending the 1960 Rules; Sandhu described the change as "unauthorised and illegal" and said it "must be removed immediately". [2][4][7]
The Commission's stated position was that there was "no change" to Form 6 and that only a separate annexure had been added for the SIR-linked question. [6][8]
On 26 September 2026 the Commission said the forms as per the Rules would be used for the non-SIR period, and on the intervening night of 29-30 September it removed the SIR declaration from its portal in states where the revision had concluded. [6][7]
One report said the inclusion of the SIR question "raised concerns about its impact on young people seeking to enrol for the first time" — a concern, not a finding that the Commission deliberately discouraged anyone. [1]
The factual core of the claim — that the online Form 6 process was altered during the SIR and that this affected first-time voters, prompting written objections from two Election Commissioners and concerns in reporting — is supported by the record. But the word "deliberately" turns the description into an allegation of motive, and the record contains no court finding, official figure or document establishing that the Commission acted to discourage young people from voting. The two Commissioners objected on legal grounds, and the Commission later removed the declaration; neither establishes intent to discourage.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026
“The Opposition leaders, Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge said, will seek an appointment with the President in the second week of October to inform her of the "manner in which institutions are being taken over".”
The claim rests on a broad allegation — institutions are being taken over — and a future meeting. None of the provided records contains a court finding, official figure or document supporting that allegation, and the Election Commission's reported clarification disputed the special intensive revision claims. The Supreme Court's order addresses constitutional concerns about appointment processes without making any finding of institutional takeover. Because the speaker offered no document or official finding for the takeover allegation, and the record does not support it, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge said opposition leaders will seek an appointment with the President in the second week of October to inform her of the manner in which institutions are being taken over.
ndtv.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
No source among the retrieved records confirms that Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge's stated presidential meeting was sought or scheduled, or that institutions are being taken over. The Supreme Court's 23 September 2026 judgment on Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner appointments discusses the need to insulate the Election Commission from exclusive executive control, but makes no finding that institutions have been captured. The Election Commission's published Bihar special intensive revision release sets out procedural safeguards, including that no name can be deleted without notice and a speaking order, and that aggrieved electors can appeal.
In a 23 September 2026 judgment on appointments to the Election Commission, the Supreme Court discussed insulating the body from exclusive executive control, but did not find that institutions have been taken over. [1]
The Election Commission's 27 July 2025 release on the Bihar special intensive revision states that no name can be deleted from the draft roll without notice and a speaking order, and any aggrieved elector can appeal to the District Magistrate and Chief Electoral Officer. [6]
The Hindu reported on 28 September 2026 that the Election Commission had issued a fact-based clarification calling the Opposition's special intensive revision allegations 'fabricated', while the BJP accused Opposition leaders of making unsubstantiated claims. [2]
Kharge was reported separately as alleging that institutions were being weakened and accusing the Election Commission of being influenced, but no source supported those allegations as fact. [3]
The claim rests on a broad allegation — institutions are being taken over — and a future meeting. None of the provided records contains a court finding, official figure or document supporting that allegation, and the Election Commission's reported clarification disputed the special intensive revision claims. The Supreme Court's order addresses constitutional concerns about appointment processes without making any finding of institutional takeover. Because the speaker offered no document or official finding for the takeover allegation, and the record does not support it, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofRahul Gandhi (Indian National Congress)26 Sept 2026
“Rahul Gandhi demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner of India Gyanesh Kumar over the controversy of the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and alleged the participation of the Election Commission in rigging the recent elections in India”
The demand for resignation is on record, but the factual charge to test is that the Election Commission rigged recent elections. That is an allegation, and the official record does not support it. The Supreme Court examined the SIR deletions and did not find them contrary to procedure; the Election Commission says the SIR orders were unanimous. A pending petition is not a finding of rigging, so the allegation remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and alleged that the Election Commission participated in rigging recent elections in India.
aljazeera.com, 26 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 2026 judgment in the SIR case says deletions under the Special Intensive Revision cannot be said to be contrary to Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. The Election Commission's 26 September 2026 press note says the SIR orders for states and Union territories were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. A Lok Sabha answer describes the SIR safeguards: house-to-house enumeration, a draft roll, a claims-and-objections period, and restoration of names where grievances are found valid.
Rahul Gandhi demanded that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar resign immediately over the SIR row and alleged vote-rigging against the Election Commission. [1][5]
The Supreme Court, in its 2026 judgment on the SIR, held that deletions effected under the Special Intensive Revision cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. [10]
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 states that the SIR orders for all states and Union territories were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. [12]
A Lok Sabha answer says the SIR exercise included house-to-house enumeration, a draft roll, a claims-and-objections period, and restoration of names where grievances were found valid. [9]
A Supreme Court petition seeks criminal prosecution of the Chief Election Commissioner over SIR deletions, but no ruling on that petition is shown in the record. [4]
The demand for resignation is on record, but the factual charge to test is that the Election Commission rigged recent elections. That is an allegation, and the official record does not support it. The Supreme Court examined the SIR deletions and did not find them contrary to procedure; the Election Commission says the SIR orders were unanimous. A pending petition is not a finding of rigging, so the allegation 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.
MisleadingJairam Ramesh (Indian National Congress)1 Oct 2026
“Nearly 14 crore voters have already been disenfranchised by the SIR,”
nearly 14 crore voters, 47 lakh
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
nearly 14 crore voters
Jairam Ramesh said that nearly 14 crore voters have already been disenfranchised by the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
thehindu.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
47 lakh
net reduction in Bihar electoral roll after SIR, ECI PIB, 30 Sep 2025
pib.gov.in
The Election Commission's press note on Bihar's Special Intensive Revision, published on 30 September 2025, says the final roll had about 7.42 crore electors, down from 7.89 crore before the exercise — a net reduction of about 47 lakh. It also records that 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added during the process. The Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India, examined the SIR and held that it is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate, as recorded in the PIB note of 25 July 2026.
The Election Commission's official press note on Bihar's SIR says the final electoral roll published on 30 September 2025 contained about 7.42 crore electors, compared with 7.89 crore on 24 June 2025 — a net reduction of about 47 lakh. [10]
The same press note says 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added to the draft list through Form 6 during the Bihar SIR. [10]
The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026 in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India, held that the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and consistent with its constitutional obligation under Article 324. [12][9]
The figure of nearly 14 crore deleted voters appears in statements by Congress leaders and media reports, not in the Election Commission's official press notes on the SIR phases. [1][6]
The Election Commission has stated that the SIR is meant to make rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries while ensuring no eligible elector is left out, with safeguards such as house-to-house visits, claims and objections, and appeals. [12]
The claim treats all deletions during the SIR as disenfranchisement of eligible voters. The official record shows a different picture: in Bihar, the only state for which the sources give an official before-and-after count, the net reduction was about 47 lakh, and 21.53 lakh eligible voters were added back. The 14 crore figure is not an Election Commission number; it comes from Congress leaders' statements and media reports. The Supreme Court has also upheld the SIR process as lawful.
MisleadingMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026
“It is shocking that as many as 13.3 crore voters have blatantly been removed from voter list,”
13.3 crore voters
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
13.3 crore voters
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said in September 2026 that 13.3 crore voters had been blatantly removed from the voter list.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press release of 30 September 2025 on Bihar's completed Special Intensive Revision (SIR) shows 65 lakh names were removed from the draft list, but 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added, leaving a final roll of about 7.42 crore against 7.89 crore before the exercise — a net reduction of about 47 lakh. Media reports say over 13 crore names have been deleted from draft rolls in 30 States/Union Territories so far, and that those incorrectly deleted can apply for inclusion in the final roll over the next month.
The Election Commission's 30 September 2025 press release on Bihar's SIR says 65 lakh names were removed from the draft list, 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added, and the final roll had about 7.42 crore electors against 7.89 crore before the exercise — a net reduction of about 47 lakh. [9]
Indian Express reported that the SIR has led to over 13 crore names being deleted from draft rolls in 30 States/Union Territories so far, with Delhi's draft roll dropping from 1.45 crore to 97.53 lakh and Maharashtra's from 9.78 crore to 7.71 crore; Deccan Herald put the figure at 13.3 crore names wiped out of draft voter lists. [1][5]
Those incorrectly deleted in the draft roll can apply for inclusion in the final roll over the next month, and 93% of appeals decided by tribunals resulted in the eventual inclusion of voters. [1][2]
The number is not invented: media reports show over 13 crore names deleted from draft rolls. But the claim presents these draft deletions as if 13.3 crore voters have been finally removed from the voter list. The Election Commission's own Bihar data shows the final net reduction was much smaller than the draft deletions, and those incorrectly deleted can be restored. That omission makes the claim misleading.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingIndian National Congress (Congress Working Committee) (Indian National Congress)29 Sept 2026
“The Congress Working Committee demanded restoration of 130 million deleted voters in the electoral rolls and a halt to the special intensive revision or SIR.”
130 million voters
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
130 million voters
The Congress Working Committee demanded that 130 million voters deleted from the electoral rolls be restored and that the special intensive revision (SIR) be halted.
hindustantimes.com, 29 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 25 July 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision is being carried out in phases with safeguards so that no eligible elector is left out: draft rolls are published, claims and objections are invited, and names are restored where valid before the final roll. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026, held that the exercise is within the Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and not contrary to the prescribed procedure.
A press note issued through PIB on 25 July 2026 states that the Special Intensive Revision includes a draft roll, a statutory period for claims and objections, and publication of the final roll after verification, with safeguards against wrongful deletion. [3]
The same note records that the Supreme Court, in a judgment dated 27 May 2026, upheld the legality of the SIR as within the Election Commission's statutory mandate and its Article 324 obligation to ensure free and fair elections. [3]
The widely reported figure of over 13 crore deletions concerns draft electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories, not the final electoral rolls. [8]
The revision schedule provides for disposal of claims and objections and checking of electoral roll health before the final roll is published on the notified date. [7]
The Supreme Court's judgment says the deletions effected pursuant to the SIR cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. [10]
The Congress demand rests on the number 130 million 'deleted voters'. That number matches reporting of over 13 crore names removed at the draft-roll stage, before the claims-and-objections period and final roll. Calling those 130 million final deletions overstates what the Election Commission's process shows, since eligible voters can be restored. The legality of the SIR itself has been upheld by the Supreme Court, so the factual basis for the number as permanent deletion is misleading.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingPawan Khera, Congress (Indian National Congress)checked 12 Oct 2026
“What do you have to say about the act of war Pakistan has been carrying out against us for years?”
The claim uses 'act of war' as if it is an established description of Pakistan's conduct. The official record describes Pakistan's actions as cross-border terrorism, not as an act of war, and the 'act of war' phrase in the sources is Pakistan's warning about India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. So the underlying accusation of terrorism is present, but the legal label 'act of war for years' is not confirmed and omits that the term comes from Pakistan's warning.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Pawan Khera said Pakistan has been carrying out an act of war against India for years, in response to Pakistan's warning that diverting Indus waters would be treated as an act of war.
thenewsmill.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Press Information Bureau's 14 May 2025 release on Operation Sindoor says India acted after the 22 April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack and suspended the Indus Waters Treaty until Pakistan 'credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism'. It describes Pakistan's actions as terrorism and terror bases, not as an act of war. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, at the UN, warned that diverting Indus waters would be treated as an act of war.
The PIB release says India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty after the April 2025 Pahalgam attack, citing Pakistan's support for cross-border terrorism. [1]
Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif warned at the UN that diverting Indus waters would be treated as an act of war. [5]
The PIB release describes Pakistan's actions as terrorism and terror bases, not as an act of war. [1]
The claim uses 'act of war' as if it is an established description of Pakistan's conduct. The official record describes Pakistan's actions as cross-border terrorism, not as an act of war, and the 'act of war' phrase in the sources is Pakistan's warning about India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. So the underlying accusation of terrorism is present, but the legal label 'act of war for years' is not confirmed and omits that the term comes from Pakistan's warning.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)12 Oct 2026
“Modi-ji enacted a law in 2023 granting legal protection to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. They were given immunity not even enjoyed by the President of India or the Chief Justice of the country,”
The first part of the claim is supported: the 2023 Act exists and Section 16 grants protection from court proceedings for official acts. But the comparison to the President and the Chief Justice is not established by any official document in the record; it is the petitioner's argument and an oral observation by a bench. The protection is also limited to acts in discharge of official duty and is under challenge, which the claim omits. That missing context changes how the comparison reads.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Mallikarjun Kharge said that Modi enacted a law in 2023 granting legal protection to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, giving them immunity not enjoyed by the President of India or the Chief Justice.
ndtv.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Parliament passed the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023; a Supreme Court order records it was brought into effect on 2 January 2024. Section 16, as quoted in reporting, bars any court from entertaining or continuing civil or criminal proceedings against a CEC or EC for acts done in discharge of official duty. The Supreme Court has issued notice on a challenge to Section 16 but refused to stay it, and a bench has orally observed the protection is greater than judges' — but no final ruling compares it to the President or Chief Justice.
Parliament enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, and a Supreme Court order records it was brought into effect on 2 January 2024. [7][9]
Section 16 of the Act says no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against a person who is or was a Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner for any act, thing or word done or spoken in the discharge of official duty. [5]
The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging Section 16 but refused to stay the provision. [5]
The argument that this immunity was not granted even to the President, Governors or judges was made by the petitioner Lok Prahari, not by a court. [5][6]
A Supreme Court bench orally remarked that the CEC and Election Commissioners enjoy greater legal immunity than even judges, but no final order in the sources settles that comparison. [4]
The first part of the claim is supported: the 2023 Act exists and Section 16 grants protection from court proceedings for official acts. But the comparison to the President and the Chief Justice is not established by any official document in the record; it is the petitioner's argument and an oral observation by a bench. The protection is also limited to acts in discharge of official duty and is under challenge, which the claim omits. That missing context changes how the comparison reads.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026
“His two fellow members have written 14 times in 10 months! It questions his very integrity and intentions. Therefore, he should be removed from his position.”
14 times in 10 months
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
14 times in 10 months
Kharge said in September 2026 that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's two fellow Election Commissioners had written 14 times in 10 months, which he said questions the CEC's integrity, and that the CEC should be removed from his position.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 states that the SIR orders issued on 24 June 2025, 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission, and that the press note itself has the approval of the full Commission. No official document in the record confirms that the two Election Commissioners wrote 14 objections; the number appears in media reports tracing it to an investigation by The Indian Express.
Media reports trace the figure of 14 objections in 10 months to an investigation by The Indian Express, saying the objections came from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. [2][5][6]
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the SIR orders were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission, and the press note has the approval of the full Commission. [10]
The number Kharge quoted rests on a newspaper investigation, not an official record. The Election Commission's own press note says the SIR decisions were unanimous and approved by the full Commission, which disputes the framing of one-man decision-making. Because the claim omits that denial, the matter is disputed rather than settled.
How this was checked: Checked against official records