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.
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