Skip to content

Claims, the global file

Every claim we have checked.

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

How a claim is checked

Narrow the file

Each filter is its own address. Copy the URL and you copy the view.

2 filters applied. Clear all filters

All claims

3 in view

Not true

3 claims

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 shows

    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]

    [2] ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA Form-7 - Voters' Services Portal — voters.eci.gov.in[4] Form 7 Voter Deletion Rules Tightened: What the EC’s Changes Mean — indianexpress.com[8] 10 During Revisions, 5 Per Month: EC Caps Form 7 Applications ... — thedailyjagran.com[10] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[11] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE LEGISLATIVE ... — sansad.in

    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 shows

    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]

    [1] LS USQ 2216 - sansad.in — sansad.in[5] LS USQ 2120 - sansad.in — sansad.in

    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.

    Open official seriesHow this was checked: Checked against official records
  • 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 shows

    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]

    [1] ECI Crackdown: 7 West Bengal Officials Axed Over 'Misconduct ... — republicworld.com[3] Press Note - Disciplinary action against officers for ... — hindi.eci.gov.in[6] West Bengal SIR: EC suspends 7 officials, orders disciplinary ... — theprint.in[7] SIR in Bengal: EC suspends 7 WB officials, directs ... - Mint — livemint.com

    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