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 trueAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 12 Oct 2026
“He said rules were already being violated as Form-7 continued to be filled even after the SIR.”
The claim treats any Form 7 filed after the SIR as a rule violation. But the record shows Form 7 is a standing statutory form, and the Election Commission's post-SIR response was to limit, not prohibit, its use during continuous updation. No official document says filing Form 7 after the SIR is illegal.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said rules were already being violated because Form-7 continued to be filled even after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls.
hindustantimes.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Form 7 is the statutory form under Rule 13(2) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 for objecting to an inclusion or seeking deletion of a name from the electoral roll [2]. The Election Commission has not banned Form 7 after the SIR; it has capped filings at 10 during the claims-and-objections period and five per month during continuous electoral roll updates [4][8]. The SIR process itself includes a statutory period for filing Forms 6, 7 and 8 before the final roll is published [10][11].
Form 7 is the statutory form for objecting to inclusion or seeking deletion of a name from the electoral roll under Rule 13(2) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. [2]
After the SIR row, the Election Commission capped Form 7 filings at 10 during the claims-and-objections period and five per month during continuous electoral roll updates, rather than prohibiting them. [4][8]
The SIR process includes a statutory period for filing claims and objections through Forms 6, 7 and 8 before the final roll is published. [10][11]
The claim treats any Form 7 filed after the SIR as a rule violation. But the record shows Form 7 is a standing statutory form, and the Election Commission's post-SIR response was to limit, not prohibit, its use during continuous updation. No official document says filing Form 7 after the SIR is illegal.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“In 10 years of BJP rule, farmers have never received fertiliser and seeds on time.”
91.72 lakh metric tonnes
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said that in 10 years of BJP rule, farmers have never received fertiliser and seeds on time.
msn.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
91.72 lakh metric tonnes
urea availability in Uttar Pradesh, 2024-25, Lok Sabha answer
sansad.in
The Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers told Parliament on 31 July 2026 that the Uttar Pradesh government reported no shortage or delayed supply of fertilisers in the state. A separate Lok Sabha answer on 12 December 2025 gave urea availability in Uttar Pradesh as 91.72 lakh metric tonnes against a requirement of 77 lakh metric tonnes in 2024-25, and said major fertilisers remained adequate over the last three years.
In a Lok Sabha answer dated 31 July 2026, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers stated the Uttar Pradesh government informed there is no shortage or delayed supply of fertilisers in the state. [1]
In a Lok Sabha answer dated 12 December 2025, the ministry provided data showing urea availability in Uttar Pradesh was 91.72 lakh metric tonnes against a requirement of 77 lakh metric tonnes in 2024-25. [5]
The same answer said urea, DAP, MOP and NPKS remained adequate in Uttar Pradesh during the last three years. [5]
The claim says farmers 'never' received fertiliser and seeds on time in ten years of BJP rule. Official parliamentary answers show fertiliser was available and not delayed in Uttar Pradesh, with urea availability exceeding requirement in 2024-25. That directly contradicts the fertiliser part of the claim. The retrieved record does not cover seed distribution, but the absolute claim about fertiliser is false.
Not trueAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
““No action was taken against any official. This shows the Commission is not impartial,” Yadav said.”
The claim is a blanket statement that no action was taken against any official. The record includes a disciplinary recommendation in an Uttar Pradesh electoral roll revision and the suspension of seven officials in West Bengal in connection with voter-list revision. These examples directly contradict the factual assertion. The conclusion that the Commission is therefore not impartial rests on that incorrect premise.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said no action was taken against any official, and that this shows the Election Commission is not impartial.
hindustantimes.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note on the summary revision of the 35-Thakurdwara assembly constituency in Uttar Pradesh recommends disciplinary action against officers for dereliction of duty and asks the disciplinary authority to report the action within six months. Separately, the Commission has suspended seven West Bengal officials and directed the state chief secretary to start disciplinary proceedings against them over the Special Intensive Revision, a voter-list update exercise.
An Election Commission press note records a recommendation for disciplinary action against officers for dereliction of duty during the summary revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh's 35-Thakurdwara assembly constituency, with action to be communicated within six months. [3]
The Election Commission suspended seven West Bengal officials and directed the West Bengal chief secretary to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them for misconduct during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. [1][6][7]
The claim is a blanket statement that no action was taken against any official. The record includes a disciplinary recommendation in an Uttar Pradesh electoral roll revision and the suspension of seven officials in West Bengal in connection with voter-list revision. These examples directly contradict the factual assertion. The conclusion that the Commission is therefore not impartial rests on that incorrect premise.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proof
17 claims
A serious accusation with nothing behind it: no court, no inquiry and no official figure supports it, and the speaker gave none.
No proofपवन पांडेय (Samajwadi Party)checked 12 Oct 2026
“कैंटोनमेंट बोर्ड में भ्रष्टाचार हो रहा है. यह बोर्ड केंद्र सरकार और रक्षा मंत्रालय के तहत आता है.”
The claim has two parts. The part that Cantonment Boards come under the central government and the Ministry of Defence is supported by the official Ministry of Defence page. The part that corruption is happening is an allegation; the record shows CBI investigations but no court finding or official figure establishing corruption. Therefore the corruption allegation is not proven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
पवन पांडेय ने आरोप लगाया कि कैंटोनमेंट बोर्ड में भ्रष्टाचार हो रहा है और यह बोर्ड केंद्र सरकार तथा रक्षा मंत्रालय के तहत आता है।
abplive.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Defence's Department of Defence states that it has administrative control over Cantonment Boards and the Indian Defence Estates Service. A Rajya Sabha answer of 6 December 2021 about Agra Cantonment Board describes unauthorised occupation of quarters and eviction proceedings, not corruption. Media reports say the CBI has registered cases against a former CEO of Deolali Cantonment Board under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but these are investigations, not findings of corruption.
The Ministry of Defence's Department of Defence page says it has administrative control over Cantonment Boards and the Indian Defence Estates Service. [3]
Media reports say the CBI has registered cases against a former CEO of Deolali Cantonment Board under the Prevention of Corruption Act, based on a complaint from the Ministry of Defence, but these are investigations, not findings of corruption. [1][2][5]
A Rajya Sabha answer of 6 December 2021 about Agra Cantonment Board describes unauthorised occupation of quarters and eviction proceedings, not corruption. [6]
The claim has two parts. The part that Cantonment Boards come under the central government and the Ministry of Defence is supported by the official Ministry of Defence page. The part that corruption is happening is an allegation; the record shows CBI investigations but no court finding or official figure establishing corruption. Therefore the corruption allegation is not proven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 12 Oct 2026
“उनको भी एक ई रिक्शा बुक कर लेना चाहिए, ये वो डिप्टी सीएम है जिन्होंने अस्पतालों को ही बीमार कर दिया।”
The claim rests on a political allegation against a minister. No official document, court order, commission finding or data in the retrieved record supports or contradicts the accusation that Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak made hospitals sick. The first part of the statement, suggesting he should book an e-rickshaw, is a suggestion rather than a checkable factual claim. Therefore the allegation remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said that Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak should also book an e-rickshaw and accused him of having made the hospitals themselves sick.
jagran.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The retrieved sources are unrelated court decisions from other states and periods: the Supreme Court on the Bihar animal husbandry scam, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 1984 riot victims, and the Supreme Court on Punjab election and criminal investigation matters. None of them mentions Uttar Pradesh hospitals, Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak, or any condition of hospitals under his charge.
None of the retrieved sources mentions Uttar Pradesh hospitals, Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak, or any finding that hospitals have been made sick. [1][2][3][4]
The claim rests on a political allegation against a minister. No official document, court order, commission finding or data in the retrieved record supports or contradicts the accusation that Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak made hospitals sick. The first part of the statement, suggesting he should book an e-rickshaw, is a suggestion rather than a checkable factual claim. Therefore the allegation remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofLoton Ram Nishad (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“उन्होंने आरोप लगाया कि भाजपा सरकार पीडीए समाज के हक व अधिकारों को छीनना चाहती है।”
The claim is an accusation about the BJP government's intent and conduct towards the PDA community. The retrieved sources contain only allegations by political leaders and a party-made audit report, not an official finding or data supporting the assertion. Because there is no independent official record, court ruling or parliamentary answer in the retrieved material that establishes the claim, and no retrieved source disproves it, the appropriate verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party leader Loton Ram Nishad accused the BJP government of wanting to snatch the rights of the PDA community.
livehindustan.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
No official document, court order, Election Commission figure or parliamentary answer in the retrieved record shows that the BJP government has taken or intends to take away the rights of the PDA community. The record contains only party leaders' claims: The Hindu reported Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav's allegation that the BJP government is snatching reservation of PDA and left 1,133 Scheduled Tribe-reserved posts unfilled, based on a 'Samajwadi Audit Report'. A separate report quotes Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party leader Om Prakash Rajbhar making counter-claims about Dalit-related incidents during the Samajwadi Party government.
The Hindu reported Akhilesh Yadav's allegation that the BJP government is snatching reservation of PDA and that it left 1,133 posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes unfilled. [1]
The 1,133 figure in that report is attributed to a 'Samajwadi Audit Report', not to any official or judicial source. [1]
A report quotes Om Prakash Rajbhar claiming that atrocities against Dalits increased during the Samajwadi Party government and that many statues of B.R. Ambedkar were broken then. [5]
None of the retrieved court records concerns PDA rights or reservation implementation in Uttar Pradesh. [7][8][9][10]
The claim is an accusation about the BJP government's intent and conduct towards the PDA community. The retrieved sources contain only allegations by political leaders and a party-made audit report, not an official finding or data supporting the assertion. Because there is no independent official record, court ruling or parliamentary answer in the retrieved material that establishes the claim, and no retrieved source disproves it, the appropriate verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofLoton Ram Nishad (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“इसमें लोटन राम निषाद ने सपा के साथ एकजुटता का आह्वान किया एवं भाजपा सरकार पर आरोप लगाया कि वह पिछड़ा वर्ग के अधिकारों का हनन कर रही है।”
The claim is an allegation by a political leader. The retrieved sources include similar allegations by other opposition leaders, but none supplies an official document, court order or data establishing that the BJP government has actually violated the rights of backward classes. Without such a record the allegation is unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party leader Loton Ram Nishad accused the BJP government of violating the rights of backward classes.
livehindustan.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The official record in the retrieved sources contains no court order, parliamentary answer, or commission finding that the BJP government has violated the rights of backward classes. The documents that do define safeguards — Article 15 of the Constitution, the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, and a 1986 Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment on backward-class reservations — describe legal protections, not any violation by the BJP.
Article 15 of the Constitution bars the State from discriminating on grounds of caste and permits special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. [5]
The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 defines human rights and sets up commissions, but contains no finding about any violation of backward-class rights by the BJP government. [7]
Media reports quote Congress leaders accusing the BJP in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana of curbing rights of Dalits and backward classes, but these are political allegations, not official findings. [2][3][4]
The claim is an allegation by a political leader. The retrieved sources include similar allegations by other opposition leaders, but none supplies an official document, court order or data establishing that the BJP government has actually violated the rights of backward classes. Without such a record the allegation is unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofVidyasagar Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“जिलाध्यक्ष विद्यासागर यादव ने आरोप लगाया कि भाजपा सरकार संविधान व आरक्षण व्यवस्था को कमजोर कर पीडीए समाज को नौकरियों से वंचित करना चाहती है।”
This is a political allegation. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure. The court and Constituent Assembly records discuss constitutional and reservation provisions but do not show the BJP government weakening them or depriving the PDA community of jobs. Therefore the allegation is not proved by the retrieved record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party district president Vidyasagar Yadav accused the BJP government of weakening the Constitution and the reservation system and of wanting to deprive the PDA community of jobs.
livehindustan.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The retrieved record contains no document, court order or official figure that supports the allegation. The Constituent Assembly debates discuss reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes in services and legislatures, but they are historical debates, not findings about the present BJP government [2]. A 2026 Supreme Court judgment on appointment of Election Commissioners restates constitutional principles, but it does not find that the BJP government weakened the Constitution or reservation or deprived the PDA community of jobs [4].
The Constituent Assembly debates of 14 October 1949 record discussion of claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts, and of reservation for backward classes, but contain no finding about the present BJP government [2]. [2]
The Supreme Court's 2026 judgment on Election Commission appointments says India is a government of laws and discusses constitutional safeguards, but it does not hold that the BJP government weakened the Constitution or reservation or deprived the PDA community of jobs [4]. [4]
The Delhi High Court bail order concerns the Delhi excise policy and does not bear on reservation or jobs for the PDA community [3]. [3]
This is a political allegation. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure. The court and Constituent Assembly records discuss constitutional and reservation provisions but do not show the BJP government weakening them or depriving the PDA community of jobs. Therefore the allegation is not proved by the retrieved record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“उत्तर प्रदेश पुलिस पर जरा सा भी भरोसा नहीं किया जा सकता है। उत्तर प्रदेश में तो पुलिस बीजेपी का कार्यकर्ता बनकर काम कर रही है।”
Akhilesh Yadav's statement is an allegation of partisan functioning by an institution. No retrieved source contains an official document, court order, or data that examines or supports the claim, and none contradicts it with specific evidence. Because the accusation was not examined in the record and no independent finding is available, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav said that the Uttar Pradesh Police cannot be trusted at all and that in Uttar Pradesh the police is working as a BJP worker.
jagran.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The four retrieved records are court judgments on unrelated matters: a 1975 Supreme Court ruling on state privilege in an election petition, a suit over the Congress party's name and symbol, a police service termination case, and a 1958 case about a special police establishment. None is an official inquiry, court finding or data set about the Uttar Pradesh Police acting as a BJP worker or being wholly untrustworthy. There is therefore no official record in the provided material that supports the claim.
The first source is a Supreme Court judgment from 1975 about whether the Uttar Pradesh government could claim privilege over a 'Blue Book' in an election petition; it does not discuss police partisanship. [1]
The second source is a Karnataka High Court suit over which group could use the Congress name and symbol after a split; it does not mention the Uttar Pradesh Police. [2]
The third source is an Allahabad High Court service matter about terminating temporary police constables under the Police Act and Temporary Government Servants Rules; it does not find that police act as BJP workers. [3]
The fourth source is a 1958 Allahabad High Court case about whether a Delhi Special Police Establishment officer validly investigated Hari Das Mundhra; it does not concern current Uttar Pradesh Police conduct. [4]
Akhilesh Yadav's statement is an allegation of partisan functioning by an institution. No retrieved source contains an official document, court order, or data that examines or supports the claim, and none contradicts it with specific evidence. Because the accusation was not examined in the record and no independent finding is available, the verdict is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“सुप्रीम कोर्ट, इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट, हम और आप समय-समय पर कह चुके हैं कि उत्तर प्रदेश पुलिस पर भरोसा नहीं किया जा सकता है। यहां की पुलिस तो भाजपा के कार्यकर्ता बनकर काम कर रही है। इसी कारण सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने टिप्पणी की थी।”
The claim depends on specific comments by the Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court, but the court records provided do not contain any such observation. The cases retrieved concern bail, police service rules, and evidence privilege, not police trust or political alignment. Without a court order or judgment showing these comments, the claim is unproven. The speaker's own statement is not evidence of what courts said.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said that the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court, he and others have said from time to time that the Uttar Pradesh Police cannot be trusted, that the police works as a BJP worker, and that this is why the Supreme Court had commented.
jagran.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The retrieved court records include an Allahabad High Court anticipatory bail order (22 September 2026), a 1963 Supreme Court judgment on investigation procedure, a 2015 Allahabad High Court Full Bench decision on police constable termination, and a 1975 Supreme Court judgment on evidence privilege. None of these contains any comment that the Uttar Pradesh Police cannot be trusted or that it works as a BJP worker. No court order or judgment in the provided record supports the claim that the Supreme Court or Allahabad High Court made such comments.
The Allahabad High Court order in Ajay vs State of U.P. (22 September 2026) concerns anticipatory bail in a criminal case and makes no comment on the trustworthiness of Uttar Pradesh Police or its political alignment. [1]
The Supreme Court judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh vs Bhagwant Kishore Joshi (1963) concerns police investigation procedure and does not comment on Uttar Pradesh Police being untrustworthy or working for the BJP. [2]
The Allahabad High Court Full Bench decision in State of U.P. vs Rajendra Singh (2015) concerns termination of temporary police constables and does not comment on police trust or political bias. [3]
The Supreme Court judgment in State of U.P. vs Raj Narain (1975) concerns privilege over documents and does not contain any comment that Uttar Pradesh Police cannot be trusted or works as a BJP worker. [4]
The claim depends on specific comments by the Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court, but the court records provided do not contain any such observation. The cases retrieved concern bail, police service rules, and evidence privilege, not police trust or political alignment. Without a court order or judgment showing these comments, the claim is unproven. The speaker's own statement is not evidence of what courts said.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofSamajwadi Partychecked 1 Oct 2026
“अखिलेश यादव की ओर से कहा जा रहा है कि वोटों की चोरी हुई”
The claim is an allegation of vote theft. The official record contains no document, court order or Election Commission figure establishing that votes were stolen in the 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly election. Where allegations of EVM tampering after that election were examined, courts held the machines credible and tamperproof, and the Supreme Court found no material showing the Election Commission acted in breach. The claim therefore remains an unsupported allegation.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
समाजवादी पार्टी के अध्यक्ष अखिलेश यादव ने कहा कि 2017 के उत्तर प्रदेश विधानसभा चुनाव में वोटों की चोरी हुई।
khaskhabar.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, said in a press note after the 2017 assembly elections that some parties had alleged tampering of electronic voting machines (EVMs), but that High Courts had held EVMs credible, reliable and tamperproof [9]. The Supreme Court, in its 26 April 2024 order in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, recorded that the petitioners did not attribute motive to the Election Commission and observed there was no material to indicate the Commission acted in breach of its mandate; it said the system ensures accurate electoral results [10]. The Election Commission's official statistical data for the 2017 Uttar Pradesh election contains results and elector numbers but no finding of vote theft [6].
After the 2017 assembly elections, the Election Commission said some parties had alleged EVM tampering, but that High Courts had held EVMs credible, reliable and tamperproof. [9]
In a 26 April 2024 order, the Supreme Court recorded that petitioners did not attribute motive to the Election Commission and observed there was no material to indicate the Commission acted in breach; it said the system ensures accurate electoral results. [10]
The Election Commission's official statistical data for the 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly election lists results and elector numbers but contains no finding of vote theft. [6]
The claim is an allegation of vote theft. The official record contains no document, court order or Election Commission figure establishing that votes were stolen in the 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly election. Where allegations of EVM tampering after that election were examined, courts held the machines credible and tamperproof, and the Supreme Court found no material showing the Election Commission acted in breach. The claim therefore remains an unsupported allegation.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofपवन पांडेय (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“यह सब बीजेपी के संरक्षण में हो रहा है.”
The claim is an allegation that corruption in the Cantonment Board was happening under BJP protection. The record does show an anti-corruption agency acting against a Cantonment Board official, but it contains no independent document, court order or official inquiry showing that BJP shielded the corruption. Because the core protective allegation is unsupported in the retrieved record, the claim is unproven rather than false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
पवन पांडेय ने आरोप लगाया कि कैंटोनमेंट बोर्ड में भ्रष्टाचार बीजेपी के संरक्षण में हो रहा है।
abplive.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Central Bureau of Investigation, India's central anti-corruption agency, arrested an Assistant Sanitation Inspector posted with the Ayodhya Cantonment Board for allegedly accepting a ₹60,000 bribe to facilitate sanitation worker recruitment. The CBI registered a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and said it was investigating the recruitment process. No retrieved official document or court order states that BJP provided protection to the corruption.
The CBI arrested an Assistant Sanitation Inspector with the Ayodhya Cantonment Board for allegedly accepting a ₹60,000 bribe in exchange for facilitating sanitation worker recruitment. [2]
The CBI registered a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and launched an investigation into the recruitment process, including possible involvement of other individuals. [2]
One media report says the CBI raided the Ayodhya Cantonment Board and that Samajwadi Party accused the BJP, but it provides no evidence of BJP protection. [3]
Cantonment Boards are civic bodies under the Directorate General Defence Estates; the official record describes their administration but does not link the Ayodhya Cantonment Board corruption to BJP protection. [4][5]
The claim is an allegation that corruption in the Cantonment Board was happening under BJP protection. The record does show an anti-corruption agency acting against a Cantonment Board official, but it contains no independent document, court order or official inquiry showing that BJP shielded the corruption. Because the core protective allegation is unsupported in the retrieved record, the claim is unproven rather than false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofMohibbullah Naqvi (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“People with a specific ideology have taken over the country’s resources and institutions.”
The claim is a broad allegation that a specific ideology has captured the country's resources and institutions. No retrieved source provides an official document, court order, parliamentary answer or data that supports it. The only source that mentions the statement is a news report of the MP's own assertion, which is not independent proof. Because the record contains nothing that bears on the substance of the allegation, the claim is unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party MP Mohibbullah Naqvi said people with a specific ideology have taken over the country’s resources and institutions.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The only retrieved source that mentions the statement is a news report of a protest outside the Election Commission, which quotes Mohibbullah Naqvi making the assertion but offers no document or data to support it. The other retrieved official records concern unrelated matters: a Ministry of Home Affairs release on Left Wing Extremism, a Rajya Sabha answer on women's safety schemes, and a 1971 Allahabad High Court ruling on election petition procedure. None of these addresses any takeover of national resources or institutions by a specific ideology.
A news report of a protest outside the Election Commission quotes Mohibbullah Naqvi as saying people with a specific ideology have taken over the country's resources and institutions, but it provides no document, court finding or official figure to support the assertion. [1]
The other retrieved official records concern Left Wing Extremism, women's safety schemes and a 1971 election-petition procedure ruling, and do not address any takeover of national resources or institutions by a specific ideology. [2][3][4]
The claim is a broad allegation that a specific ideology has captured the country's resources and institutions. No retrieved source provides an official document, court order, parliamentary answer or data that supports it. The only source that mentions the statement is a news report of the MP's own assertion, which is not independent proof. Because the record contains nothing that bears on the substance of the allegation, the claim is unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofDimple Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“SP had claimed voter list rigging all along; strict action should be taken against officials: Dimple Yadav on SIR row”
The claim rests on the Samajwadi Party having previously and consistently alleged that the voter list was rigged. The retrieved sources document the SIR process and its legal challenge, but none records the Samajwadi Party or Dimple Yadav making that claim before or during the row. The court record examined the legality of the SIR and did not find rigging; it upheld the exercise. Therefore the specific assertion is not proven on the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dimple Yadav said the Samajwadi Party had claimed all along that the voter list was rigged, in the row over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
msn.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
A Press Information Bureau note of 25 July 2026 says the Election Commission is conducting the SIR to remove ineligible or duplicate entries while ensuring no eligible elector is left out, with safeguards such as door-to-door visits and claims-and-objections periods [5]. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026, held that the SIR is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Article 324 of the Constitution [11]. Neither record mentions the Samajwadi Party having claimed all along that the voter list was rigged.
The Election Commission's SIR involves house-to-house enumeration and a statutory period for claims and objections before the final roll is published [5]. [5]
The Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment, held the SIR exercise to be within the Election Commission's statutory mandate and constitutional obligation to ensure free and fair elections [11]. [11]
The claim rests on the Samajwadi Party having previously and consistently alleged that the voter list was rigged. The retrieved sources document the SIR process and its legal challenge, but none records the Samajwadi Party or Dimple Yadav making that claim before or during the row. The court record examined the legality of the SIR and did not find rigging; it upheld the exercise. Therefore the specific assertion is not proven on the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“He also alleged that not a single officer from the PDA (Pichhda, Dalit, Alpsankhyak) communities had been assigned key election-related responsibilities with regard to preparations for the 2027 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections.”
not a single officer from PDA communities
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
not a single officer from PDA communities
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that no officer from the PDA (Pichhda, Dalit, Alpsankhyak) communities had been assigned key election-related responsibilities in preparations for the 2027 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections.
hindustantimes.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, issued a press note in July 2026 on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. It describes the revision process and safeguards such as booth-level enumeration and political-party Booth Level Agents, but it does not record the caste or community of officers assigned election-related duties. A news report says Akhilesh Yadav alleged that officials from PDA communities were being removed from roles such as Assistant Returning Officers, and that his party would complain to the Election Commission, but the report cites no official confirmation.
The Election Commission's July 2026 press note on the Special Intensive Revision describes the revision process and safeguards, but contains no information about the social category or community of officers given poll-related responsibilities. [9]
A media report says Akhilesh Yadav alleged that officials from backward, Dalit and minority communities were being removed from poll duties such as Assistant Returning Officers, and that the Samajwadi Party would complain to the Election Commission. [6]
No source in the record provides an Election Commission order, roster or data showing the community composition of officers assigned key election duties for the 2027 Uttar Pradesh assembly preparations. [9][6]
This is an allegation about the composition of election machinery. The official record retrieved does not publish the caste or community of officers on election duty, and the media report only repeats Akhilesh Yadav's claim without independent confirmation. There is no court order, Election Commission figure or official list that establishes that no PDA-community officer held key responsibilities.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“The Kannauj MP further alleged that the Commission failed to act on numerous complaints filed by his party, including during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.”
The claim is an allegation that the Election Commission ignored complaints from Akhilesh Yadav's party. The official record shows a functioning mechanism for claims, objections and appeals, and the Supreme Court upheld the revision process, but no document in the record identifies Samajwadi Party complaints or shows that the Commission failed to act on them. Because the allegation is not supported by any court finding, parliamentary answer or Election Commission record, it is not proven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the Election Commission failed to act on numerous complaints filed by his party, including during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
hindustantimes.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
A Press Information Bureau release dated 25 July 2026, citing the Election Commission's press note, says the Special Intensive Revision includes publication of draft rolls, a claims-and-objections period, appeals, and Booth Level Agents nominated by political parties. A Lok Sabha answer dated 24 July 2026 says grievances received during the claims and objections period are examined and, where found valid, names are restored before the roll is finalised. The Supreme Court, on 27 May 2026, upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision and called the exercise valid and non-arbitrary.
The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision process includes a draft electoral roll, a statutory period for claims and objections, appeals, and verification by Booth Level Agents nominated by political parties. [5]
A Lok Sabha answer of 24 July 2026 states that grievances received during the claims and objections period are examined and, where found valid, names are restored before finalisation of the roll. [10]
The Supreme Court, on 27 May 2026, upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision and described the exercise as valid and non-arbitrary, with inbuilt safeguards. [1]
None of the official records mentions complaints filed by the Samajwadi Party during the Special Intensive Revision or any failure by the Election Commission to act on them. [5][10][1]
The claim is an allegation that the Election Commission ignored complaints from Akhilesh Yadav's party. The official record shows a functioning mechanism for claims, objections and appeals, and the Supreme Court upheld the revision process, but no document in the record identifies Samajwadi Party complaints or shows that the Commission failed to act on them. Because the allegation is not supported by any court finding, parliamentary answer or Election Commission record, it is not proven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofDimple Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“SP MP Dimple Yadav accused the Election Commission of rigging voter lists, demanding action against officials.”
Dimple Yadav's statement is an allegation of rigging. The official record shows a large revision of rolls, with removals and additions, and the Election Commission says its final decisions were unanimous. Media reports show internal objections and very large deletions, which raise questions, but none of the sources contains a court order, Election Commission figure or inquiry report that establishes rigging. The Election Commission's denial is its own position, not independent proof, but the independent reporting also stops short of finding rigging.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party MP Dimple Yadav alleged that the Election Commission rigged voter lists and demanded action against the officials responsible.
msn.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, announced on 30 September 2025 that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar was complete: the final roll had about 7.42 crore electors, 65 lakh names were removed from the draft list, 3.66 lakh ineligible electors were removed, and 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added. The Commission said the exercise followed its motto of leaving out no eligible voter and including no ineligible person. The Indian Express has reported that two Election Commissioners raised objections 14 times in 10 months, but that is reporting of internal disagreement, not a finding that the rolls were rigged.
The Election Commission's 30 September 2025 press note on Bihar's Special Intensive Revision says the final roll had about 7.42 crore electors; 65 lakh names were removed from the draft list, 3.66 lakh ineligible electors were removed, and 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added. [3]
The Election Commission has said internal technical notes and written queries are routine in a multi-member body, and that all final decisions on the SIR process were unanimous and approved by all three commissioners. [1]
The Indian Express reported that the SIR struck more than 13 crore names off draft voter rolls in 30 states and union territories, and that two Election Commissioners objected on record 14 times in 10 months. [6]
The Election Commission's March 2025 press note said inclusions and deletions are governed by claims and objections under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and that only 89 first appeals and one second appeal had been filed at that point. [9]
Dimple Yadav's statement is an allegation of rigging. The official record shows a large revision of rolls, with removals and additions, and the Election Commission says its final decisions were unanimous. Media reports show internal objections and very large deletions, which raise questions, but none of the sources contains a court order, Election Commission figure or inquiry report that establishes rigging. The Election Commission's denial is its own position, not independent proof, but the independent reporting also stops short of finding rigging.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“It has come to light that people from Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh will come and enrol as voters to increase their vote count”
This is an allegation about future manipulation of voter rolls. The speaker has not provided any document, court finding or official figure, and the official record on the Special Intensive Revision contains nothing that supports it. The Election Commission describes safeguards, but that is not proof that the alleged enrolment will happen. So the claim is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party national president Akhilesh Yadav alleged that people from Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh will come and enrol as voters in Uttar Pradesh to increase the BJP's vote count.
hindustantimes.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, said in a press note dated 25 July 2026 that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is being done in phases to make electoral rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries, with safeguards such as door-to-door checks and a claims-and-objections period. It said deletions happen only after verification and fall under death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries, or untraceable electors. Neither that note nor the Uttar Pradesh Chief Electoral Officer's SIR 2026 page shows any plan or data about people from Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh or Chhattisgarh enrolling in Uttar Pradesh to increase any party's votes.
The Election Commission's press note of 25 July 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision is meant to make rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries, with safeguards such as door-to-door checks and a claims-and-objections period. [4]
The press note says deletions during the Special Intensive Revision are carried out only after verification and fall under death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries, or electors found untraceable despite repeated visits. [5]
The Chief Electoral Officer of Uttar Pradesh has published the final SIR 2026 roll and the ASDDR list (absent, shifted, dead, duplicate, refused), but no data showing cross-state enrolment to boost any party. [1]
This is an allegation about future manipulation of voter rolls. The speaker has not provided any document, court finding or official figure, and the official record on the Special Intensive Revision contains nothing that supports it. The Election Commission describes safeguards, but that is not proof that the alleged enrolment will happen. So the claim is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“He claimed this would be used to manipulate the voter list ahead of the 2027 assembly elections.”
The claim has two parts: that a Special Annual Revision would be pushed after the SIR, and that this would be used to manipulate the voter list. The sources show only that the Election Commission carried out the SIR in Uttar Pradesh. No document, court order or Commission note in the record mentions a SAR after the SIR or any manipulation. Because this is an allegation, the absence of such evidence leaves it without proof.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav claimed the BJP government is preparing to push a Special Annual Revision (SAR) of the electoral rolls through the Election Commission after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), and that this would be used to manipulate the voter list ahead of the 2027 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections.
hindustantimes.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The official material retrieved concerns the Special Intensive Revision, not a Special Annual Revision. The Election Commission's note says Uttar Pradesh was covered in Phase II of the SIR from October 2025 to April 2026, and deletions were carried out only after verification by Booth Level Officers. The Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment on the Bihar SIR addresses legal questions about the Commission's authority and procedure, but no source contains any document about a SAR after the SIR or about manipulated rolls.
The Election Commission released a revised schedule for the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Uttar Pradesh, with January 1, 2026 as the qualification date. [2]
The Uttar Pradesh chief electoral officer said preparations for the Special Intensive Revision were completed for the 2027 state assembly elections. [1]
A Press Information Bureau note of July 25, 2026 says Uttar Pradesh was part of Phase II of the SIR, conducted from October 2025 to April 2026, and that deletions were made only after verification by Booth Level Officers. [12]
The Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment on the Bihar SIR discusses the Election Commission's authority, procedure and timing, but it does not mention a Special Annual Revision after the SIR or a finding of manipulated rolls. [9]
The claim has two parts: that a Special Annual Revision would be pushed after the SIR, and that this would be used to manipulate the voter list. The sources show only that the Election Commission carried out the SIR in Uttar Pradesh. No document, court order or Commission note in the record mentions a SAR after the SIR or any manipulation. Because this is an allegation, the absence of such evidence leaves it without proof.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAkhilesh Yadav, Samajwadi Party (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
““When the results came out in 2022, I remember stating at our national convention that the Election Commission and officials had colluded to deliberately delete the votes of the Samajwadi Party,” Yadav said.”
The claim is an allegation of deliberate deletion and collusion. For such a claim, the record would need an Election Commission figure, a court order or a parliamentary answer. None of the sources provides one; they only report the allegation. The official material available concerns a later roll-revision exercise, so it neither confirms nor contradicts the 2022 claim.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the Election Commission and officials colluded to deliberately delete the votes of Samajwadi Party supporters during the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections.
thenewsmill.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's page for the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly election in the sources does not show any deletion figures or finding of collusion. A July 2026 government note describes a later electoral roll revision with safeguards and a Supreme Court ruling upholding that process, but it does not cover the 2022 election. Media reports quote Yadav making the allegation without citing any official document.
Media reports quote Yadav as saying the Election Commission and officials colluded to delete Samajwadi Party supporters' votes in 2022, but they cite no official figure or finding. [1][4][6]
The Election Commission's 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly election page in the sources contains no deletion data or finding of collusion. [2]
A July 2026 Press Information Bureau note on a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls lists safeguards against wrongful deletion and a Supreme Court ruling on that process, not on the 2022 Uttar Pradesh election. [8]
The claim is an allegation of deliberate deletion and collusion. For such a claim, the record would need an Election Commission figure, a court order or a parliamentary answer. None of the sources provides one; they only report the allegation. The official material available concerns a later roll-revision exercise, so it neither confirms nor contradicts the 2022 claim.
How this was checked: Checked against official records