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 trueRahul Gandhichecked 12 Oct 2026
“He claimed that the share of education in the Union Budget had decreased from 4.6% in 2014 to 2.6% in 2026”
4.6% in 2014 to 2.6% in 2026
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
4.6% in 2014 to 2.6% in 2026
Rahul Gandhi claimed on 19 September 2026 in Indore that the share of education in the Union Budget had decreased from 4.6% in 2014 to 2.6% in 2026.
thequint.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Education's Budget allocation for 2026-27 is ₹1,39,289.48 crore, an 8.27% increase over 2025-26, according to the Ministry of Education. The official Expenditure Budget 2026-2027 lists this allocation but does not state the Ministry's share of total Union expenditure as 2.6%. An Indian Express analysis puts the education ministry's share of the Union Budget at 4.6% in 2013-14 and 2.5% in 2025-26.
The Ministry of Education's Budget allocation for 2026-27 is ₹1,39,289.48 crore, an 8.27% increase over 2025-26, according to the Ministry of Education. [13]
An Indian Express analysis puts the education ministry's share of the Union Budget at 4.6% in 2013-14 and 2.5% in 2025-26. [15]
The official Expenditure Budget 2026-2027 lists the Ministry of Education allocation but does not state its share of total Union expenditure as 2.6%. [10]
The claim's direction is supported by the analysis, but the specific figures and years are wrong. The 4.6% figure is for 2013-14, not 2014, and the latest available share is 2.5% in 2025-26, not 2.6% in 2026. Because the load-bearing numbers are contradicted by the record, the claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueDhruv Ratheechecked 12 Oct 2026
“So was Dhruv Rathee right that the tax was removed because of U.S. pressure?”
The claim urges that the equalisation levy was removed because of U.S. pressure. The official record contradicts this: the Finance Minister said in Parliament that the 2% component was removed in July 2024, before President Trump took office, and the 6% component was part of a planned stakeholder-consultation process, not a response to U.S. tariffs. A Finance Ministry press note shows the levy was handled through a bilateral transitional arrangement reached by agreement, not unilateral pressure. No source supports the pressure claim.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee claimed that the Equalisation Levy (Google Tax) was removed because of U.S. pressure.
linkedin.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman told Parliament in March 2025 that the 2% equalisation levy was removed in the July 2024 Budget after stakeholder consultation, much before President Trump took office, and the 6% component was being removed as part of that process, not in reaction to Trump's tariffs [1][3]. A Finance Ministry press note of 28 June 2024 shows India and the US had a transitional arrangement covering the 2% equalisation levy and US trade action, extended by agreement until 30 June 2024 [5][6]. No official record attributes the removal to U.S. pressure.
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman told Parliament that the equalisation levy removal was not linked to U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff policies, and that the 2% levy was removed in the July 2024 Budget before Trump took office. [1][3]
The government proposed removing the equalisation levy on online advertisements in the Finance Bill 2025; Sitharaman said the 6% levy being removed was part of that process, not a reaction to Trump. [1]
A Press Information Bureau release says India and the United States agreed on terms for India's 2% equalisation levy on e-commerce services and the U.S. trade action, and extended that transitional approach until 30 June 2024. [5][6]
The claim urges that the equalisation levy was removed because of U.S. pressure. The official record contradicts this: the Finance Minister said in Parliament that the 2% component was removed in July 2024, before President Trump took office, and the 6% component was part of a planned stakeholder-consultation process, not a response to U.S. tariffs. A Finance Ministry press note shows the levy was handled through a bilateral transitional arrangement reached by agreement, not unilateral pressure. No source supports the pressure claim.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
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 trueAbhijeet Dipke (Cockroach Janta Party)1 Oct 2026
“he alleged that the government was deciding who would remain on the voters’ list.”
The claim asserts that the government decides who remains on the voters' list. The statutory scheme and the Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment show those decisions belong to Electoral Registration Officers acting under the Election Commission, which the Constitution establishes as an independent body. The government can change rules and forms, but it does not decide individual voters' retention on the rolls. The assertion therefore misstates who actually makes these decisions.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke alleged that the government was deciding who would remain on the voters' list.
hindustantimes.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission of India describes the constitutional scheme as resting on 'an independent Election Commission.' Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the legal authority to prepare and revise each constituency's electoral roll rests with the Electoral Registration Officer, a statutory authority, not with the government. The government's role is limited to amending rules and forms, such as Form 6, under Section 28 of that Act.
The legal authority to prepare and revise the electoral roll of an Assembly constituency rests with the Electoral Registration Officer under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [2]
Each constituency's electoral roll is maintained by its Electoral Registration Officer, a statutory authority. [1]
The Supreme Court, in its May 2026 judgment on the Special Intensive Revision, framed the constitutional design as one general electoral roll, universal adult franchise and an independent Election Commission. [6]
Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act says only the Union government can amend rules governing electoral forms, including Form 6, but individual decisions on inclusion or deletion are made by electoral officials. [1]
The claim asserts that the government decides who remains on the voters' list. The statutory scheme and the Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment show those decisions belong to Electoral Registration Officers acting under the Election Commission, which the Constitution establishes as an independent body. The government can change rules and forms, but it does not decide individual voters' retention on the rolls. The assertion therefore misstates who actually makes these decisions.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhi1 Oct 2026
“He claims the economy is dead, when we have the fastest-growing economy in the world at 7.8%”
7.8%, 7.8%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
7.8%
Rahul Gandhi claims India's economy is dead, a claim cited by BJP leader Rajeev Chandrashekhar in October 2026.
hindustantimes.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
7.8%
real GDP growth, Q1 FY27, PIB, Sep 2026
static.pib.gov.in
The Press Information Bureau (PIB), the government's official information office, said on 1 September 2026 that India's real GDP growth accelerated to 7.8% in the first quarter of 2026-27, with real GVA rising 8.2%.
The Press Information Bureau said on 1 September 2026 that India's real GDP growth accelerated to 7.8% in Q1 of 2026-27, with real GVA rising 8.2%. [3][4]
The official GDP figure directly contradicts the description of the economy as dead. The 7.8% is a quarterly figure, not an annual one, and the PIB note does not say India is the fastest-growing economy in the world; that part is not supported by the retrieved record.
“the deletion and addition on names from the electoral roll through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) started after the vote chori in elections after the elections was exposed”
The claim ties the start of the Special Intensive Revision to 'vote theft' being exposed. The official record shows the SIR began with the Election Commission's order of 24 June 2025, and the Commission's own stated reasons are about roll accuracy — duplicate entries, migration, deaths and foreign illegal immigrants — with the last intensive revision having been in 2003. The Supreme Court examined the exercise and upheld it as within the Commission's statutory mandate. No official document supports the claim that the SIR was triggered by exposed vote theft, so the claim is contradicted by the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said the deletion and addition of names in the electoral roll through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) began after the vote theft in elections was exposed.
ummid.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, issued the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) order for Bihar on 24 June 2025. Its stated reasons were rapid urbanisation, frequent migration, young citizens becoming eligible to vote, non-reporting of deaths and inclusion of foreign illegal immigrants; the last intensive revision in Bihar was in 2003. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026, held that the SIR was within the Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Article 324 of the Constitution. No official document says the SIR began after 'vote theft' was exposed.
The Election Commission issued the SIR instructions for Bihar on 24 June 2025, with the stated objective of including all eligible citizens, excluding ineligible voters and bringing transparency to additions and deletions. [2]
The Commission listed the reasons for the intensive revision as rapid urbanisation, frequent migration, young citizens becoming eligible, non-reporting of deaths and inclusion of foreign illegal immigrants, and noted the last intensive revision in Bihar was in 2003. [2]
The Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment, 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 to ensure free and fair elections. [9][10]
No official source in the record states that the SIR began after 'vote theft' in elections was exposed. [2][9][10]
The claim ties the start of the Special Intensive Revision to 'vote theft' being exposed. The official record shows the SIR began with the Election Commission's order of 24 June 2025, and the Commission's own stated reasons are about roll accuracy — duplicate entries, migration, deaths and foreign illegal immigrants — with the last intensive revision having been in 2003. The Supreme Court examined the exercise and upheld it as within the Commission's statutory mandate. No official document supports the claim that the SIR was triggered by exposed vote theft, so the claim is contradicted by the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“He alleged that the government had put a tax on “every single Indian person” by imposing charges on UPI transactions and claimed that the move would result in a large amount of money going to the United States.”
every single Indian person, 96%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
every single Indian person
Rahul Gandhi alleged the government imposed a tax on every single Indian person by charging on UPI transactions, and claimed the move would send a large amount of money to the United States.
newindianexpress.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
96%
merchant UPI transactions unaffected by new MDR, PIB, Sept 2026
pib.gov.in
The Ministry of Finance said on 8 August 2026 that there would be no charges for users and that all person-to-person UPI transactions would remain free. The UPI Steering Committee fixed a 0.4% merchant discount rate on 15 September 2026 for merchant payments above ₹2,000, effective 15 October 2026. The Press Information Bureau says customers do not pay the MDR and about 96% of merchant transactions are unaffected.
The Ministry of Finance stated categorically that consumers making payments will not face any transaction charges, and all person-to-person UPI transactions will continue to be free of charge. [4]
The new 0.4% Merchant Discount Rate applies only to person-to-merchant UPI transactions above ₹2,000, is capped at ₹300 for transactions of ₹75,000 and above, and customers do not pay it; around 96% of merchant transactions remain unaffected. [5][7]
Revenue from larger merchant transactions is meant to support banks, payment service providers and UPI application providers in India, and none of the sources shows any amount going to the United States. [5][7]
The Press Information Bureau says individuals will continue to have unlimited free UPI usage with no monthly quotas, volume restrictions or tiered caps on free transactions. [5]
There is a new Merchant Discount Rate on UPI, so the claim has a kernel of truth. But the official record directly contradicts the assertion that it taxes every single Indian person: users are not charged, person-to-person payments are free, and only about 4% of merchant transactions attract the charge. The claim that a large amount of money would go to the United States is unsupported by the record; official sources describe the revenue staying with Indian payment ecosystem participants.
“He added that only fourteen percent of students can secure hostel accommodation, attributing this to privatisation and cost-cutting measures contrary to government slogans.”
14%, 1,12,575
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
14%
Rahul Gandhi said only 14% of students can secure hostel accommodation, attributing this to privatisation and cost-cutting measures contrary to government slogans.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
1,12,575
students in central university hostels, Lok Sabha answer, 27 July 2026
sansad.in
The Ministry of Education told the Lok Sabha on 27 July 2026, in answer to a question from Rahul Gandhi himself, that 1,12,575 students were residing in hostels across 47 central universities, out of 3,09,542 enrolled. That is about 36% of central university students, not 14%. The answer says universities are creating additional hostel infrastructure and lists scholarship schemes; it does not attribute the gap to privatisation or cost-cutting.
The Ministry of Education told the Lok Sabha on 27 July 2026 that 1,12,575 students were residing in hostels in 47 central universities, out of 3,09,542 enrolled. [1]
That works out to about 36% of central university students in hostels, not 14%. [5][1]
The Ministry's answer says additional hostel infrastructure is being created and lists scholarship schemes; it does not attribute the gap to privatisation or cost-cutting. [1]
The 14% figure is contradicted by the official record for central universities. The Ministry of Education's own answer to Rahul Gandhi's Lok Sabha question shows about 36% of central university students had hostel accommodation. The claim that privatisation and cost-cutting caused the gap is also not supported by the sources.
“Faced with issues like inflation, unemployment, a lack of investment, and the failure to double farmers' income, they are now harking back to the pre-2017 era”
3.2%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said the BJP government has failed on inflation, unemployment, investment and doubling farmers' income, and is now harking back to the pre-2017 era.
latestly.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
3.2%
unemployment rate, Economic Survey 2024-25
pib.gov.in
The Economic Survey 2024-25, presented by the Ministry of Finance, says the unemployment rate for people aged 15 and above fell from 6.0% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24, and retail headline inflation softened to 4.9% in April-December 2024. A PIB release on the Survey says gross capital formation in agriculture grew 19.04% in 2022-23. On farmers' income, a Rajya Sabha answer of 5 December 2025 says average monthly income per agricultural household rose from ₹6,426 in 2012-13 to ₹10,218 in 2018-19; a Business Standard report on a NITI Aayog member's paper says income jumped 126% between 2014-15 and 2023-24.
The Economic Survey 2024-25 says the unemployment rate for people aged 15 and above fell from 6.0% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24. [7]
The same Survey says retail headline inflation softened to 4.9% in April-December 2024, from 5.4% in FY24. [7]
A PIB release on the Economic Survey says gross capital formation in agriculture grew 19.04% in 2022-23, indicating increased investment. [3]
A Rajya Sabha answer of 5 December 2025 says average monthly income per agricultural household rose from ₹6,426 in 2012-13 to ₹10,218 in 2018-19. [2]
A Business Standard report on a NITI Aayog member's paper says farmers' income jumped 126% between 2014-15 and 2023-24, surpassing the doubling target. [1]
The claim asserts failure on inflation, unemployment, investment and doubling farmers' income. Official data contradict the first three: unemployment fell, inflation was moderate, and agricultural investment grew. The farmers' income part is not established as a failure by the official parliamentary answer, which only gives figures up to 2018-19, and a reported NITI Aayog member study says income more than doubled by 2023-24. The 'harking back' phrase is political framing, not a factual claim. Because the load-bearing assertions are contradicted by the official record, the verdict is false.
Not trueAnurag Dhandha (Arvind Kejriwal)checked 1 Oct 2026
“हम पहले दिन से कहते आ रहे हैं कि यह एसआईआर नहीं है, बल्कि बीजेपी की साजिश है।”
The claim calls the SIR 'not genuine' and a BJP conspiracy. But the official record shows the Election Commission itself directed the SIR under law, and the Supreme Court has upheld it as within the Election Commission's mandate. The sources contain only AAP leaders' allegations of a BJP conspiracy, with no document or court finding supporting that. The core assertion that the SIR is not a genuine Election Commission exercise is contradicted by the official record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP national media in-charge Anurag Dhandha said that the SIR (Special Intensive Revision) is not a genuine SIR but a conspiracy by the BJP.
jansatta.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, directed the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in 16 states and 3 union territories, including Delhi, under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Article 324 of the Constitution [7][12]. A Ministry of Law and Justice release dated 25 July 2026 says the Supreme Court examined the SIR process and held that it is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate [12]. The process includes house-to-house visits, draft rolls, claims and objections, and appeals, with safeguards against wrongful deletion [12].
The Election Commission directed the SIR in 16 states and 3 union territories, including Delhi, with a published schedule. [7]
The Ministry of Law and Justice said the SIR is meant to make electoral rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries while ensuring no eligible elector is left out. [12]
The same release says the Supreme Court held the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Article 324. [12]
The Election Commission's Bihar SIR instructions describe a participative process with political parties' booth-level agents and statutory claims, objections and appeals. [9]
The claim calls the SIR 'not genuine' and a BJP conspiracy. But the official record shows the Election Commission itself directed the SIR under law, and the Supreme Court has upheld it as within the Election Commission's mandate. The sources contain only AAP leaders' allegations of a BJP conspiracy, with no document or court finding supporting that. The core assertion that the SIR is not a genuine Election Commission exercise is contradicted by the official record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“Inflation has broken all records and the unemployment crisis is deepening by the day.”
1.7%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said inflation has broken all records and the unemployment crisis is deepening by the day.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
1.7%
average headline inflation April-December 2025, Economic Survey 2025-26
pib.gov.in
The Economic Survey 2025-26, tabled in Parliament on 29 January 2026, says India recorded its lowest inflation since the Consumer Price Index series began: average headline inflation of 1.7% for April-December 2025, with October 2025 at 0.3%, the lowest reading in the current series. The Economic Survey 2024-25 and a Rajya Sabha answer record the unemployment rate falling from 6% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24.
The Economic Survey 2025-26 says April-December 2025 average headline inflation was 1.7%, the lowest since the CPI series began, and October 2025 inflation was 0.3%, the lowest reading in the current series. [10]
The Economic Survey 2024-25 says retail headline inflation softened from 5.4% in FY24 to 4.9% in April-December 2024. [5]
A Rajya Sabha answer by the Minister of State for Finance says the all-India annual unemployment rate fell from 6% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24, and retail inflation eased to 4.6% in 2024-25, the lowest in six years. [4]
The Economic Survey 2024-25 says the unemployment rate for people aged 15 and above declined from 6% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24. [5]
The claim says inflation has 'broken all records' and unemployment is 'deepening by the day.' The official record shows the opposite: the Economic Survey 2025-26 reports the lowest inflation since the CPI series began (1.7% for April-December 2025), and official data show unemployment falling from 6% to 3.2% between 2017-18 and 2023-24. Both parts of the claim are contradicted by the record.
“अखिलेश यादव का दावा 26 हजार से अधिक स्कूल बंद, मिला ये जवाब!”
more than 26,000 schools shut since 2017, 1,37,102
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
more than 26,000 schools shut since 2017
Akhilesh Yadav claimed that more than 26,000 schools have been shut down (in Uttar Pradesh), a claim to which a response was given.
amarujala.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
1,37,102
government schools in Uttar Pradesh, UDISE+ 2023-24
sansad.in
In a Rajya Sabha answer of 23 July 2025, the Ministry of Education gave UDISE+ counts of government schools in every state. For Uttar Pradesh the count was 1,37,638 in 2019-20 and 1,37,102 in 2023-24 — nearly unchanged over the latest five years, with no drop anywhere near 26,000. The same answer says the opening, merger or closing of schools is within the state government's purview and contains no data showing 26,000 closed primary schools in Uttar Pradesh.
The Ministry of Education's Rajya Sabha answer of 23 July 2025 gives state-wise UDISE+ numbers of government schools; Uttar Pradesh's figure is 1,37,638 in 2019-20 and 1,37,102 in 2023-24. [4]
The same answer says opening, merger or closing of schools is the concerned state government's job under the Right to Education Act, 2009, and it does not list 26,000 closed primary schools in Uttar Pradesh. [4]
Media reports say Akhilesh Yadav claimed official data showed 1,13,938 government primary schools in Uttar Pradesh till March 2017 and that more than 26,000 of them were closed since then. [3]
The official record does not show the claimed mass closure. UDISE+ data tabled in the Rajya Sabha put Uttar Pradesh's total government schools at 1,37,638 in 2019-20 and 1,37,102 in 2023-24, nearly the same. The Rajya Sabha answer about closing or merging schools contains no series showing 26,000 closed primary schools. The official figures are for all government schools and begin after 2017, so they do not directly count primary schools from March 2017, but they contradict the scale of the claim and offer no support for the 1,13,938 baseline.
“There are conflicting reports by various experts on this because the Indian Govt has not officially released any statement on it.”
The claim rests on the assertion that the Indian government had not officially released a statement. The sources include official PIB press releases and a Lok Sabha answer from the Ministry of External Affairs, all of which are official government statements on the border situation. Therefore the claim is contradicted directly.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee said there are conflicting reports by various experts on the India-China border situation because the Indian government has not officially released any statement on it.
rutube.ru, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Prime Minister's Office issued an official press release on 20 June 2020 about the Ladakh border situation [7]. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh made a detailed statement in Rajya Sabha on 17 September 2020 [3]. The Ministry of External Affairs also answered a Lok Sabha question on 16 September 2020 describing the clashes and subsequent talks [2].
The Prime Minister's Office published an official press release on 20 June 2020 titled 'Statement on All Party Meeting of 19th June 2020' covering the Ladakh LAC situation. [7]
Raksha Mantri Rajnath Singh gave a detailed official statement in Rajya Sabha on 17 September 2020 about developments on the Ladakh border, including the 15 June 2020 Galwan clash. [3]
The Ministry of External Affairs replied to Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No.604 on 16 September 2020 with details of India-China military and diplomatic meetings after the border tension. [2]
A Ministry of External Affairs statement in June 2020 said Indian troops are fully familiar with the LAC alignment, India had never undertaken actions across the LAC, and Chinese troops' actions on 15 June 2020 led to casualties. [6]
The claim rests on the assertion that the Indian government had not officially released a statement. The sources include official PIB press releases and a Lok Sabha answer from the Ministry of External Affairs, all of which are official government statements on the border situation. Therefore the claim is contradicted directly.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“alleging that power projects initiated during previous Samajwadi Party governments remained incomplete”
not a single unit
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
not a single unit
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that power projects initiated during previous Samajwadi Party governments remained incomplete, criticising the state government's record on electricity generation.
devdiscourse.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Central Electricity Authority (CEA), the government body that tracks power projects, lists Uttar Pradesh thermal units completed after 2017: Jawaharpur STPP Unit 1 (660 MW, February 2024) and Unit 2 (660 MW, December 2024), Obra-C Unit 1 (660 MW, February 2024) and Unit 2 (660 MW, June 2025), and Khurja SCTPP Units 1 and 2 (660 MW each in January 2025 and September 2025). Its January–March 2026 review also lists Ghatampur TPP (3x660 MW) as under construction in Uttar Pradesh.
The CEA's January–March 2026 quarterly review lists Uttar Pradesh thermal units at Jawaharpur, Obra-C and Khurja, each of 660 MW, as commissioned after 2023. [7]
The CEA's April–June 2026 review repeats those commissions and identifies Ghatampur TPP (3x660 MW) in Uttar Pradesh as under construction. [8]
Akhilesh Yadav claimed that not a single unit had been produced or plant set up in Uttar Pradesh since the BJP took office in 2017, and that current electricity comes from SP-era plants in districts such as Etah and Kanpur Dehat. [2]
The official CEA record shows Uttar Pradesh added multiple new 660 MW thermal units after 2017, so the claim that no new unit was produced and that the state depends only on SP-era plants is contradicted. The CEA documents do not identify any SP-initiated project as unfinished, while they do show a separate project, Ghatampur, still under construction.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAbhijeet Dipkechecked 1 Oct 2026
“"Pradhan lost his chair. The Uttar Pradesh government allocated a budget of thousands of crores to repair schools. The Rajasthan govt also allocated a budget to repair schools after the Ashutosh (Ranka) issue. The Maharashtra government has started working on Ashram and government schools, but it is not that effective yet," he claimed.”
thousands of crores
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
thousands of crores
Abhijeet Dipke claimed that after student agitation forced Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan to resign, the Uttar Pradesh government allocated a budget of thousands of crores to repair schools, Rajasthan also allocated a school-repair budget after the Ashutosh Ranka issue, and Maharashtra's work on ashram and government schools is not yet effective.
freepressjournal.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
A Rajya Sabha answer of 26 March 2025 lists central Samagra Shiksha releases to Uttar Pradesh of ₹4,571.85 crore, ₹2,044.97 crore, ₹3,819.75 crore, ₹4,276.45 crore and ₹4,487.40 crore across 2020-21 to 2024-25, and describes Operation Kayakalp, but records no state budget of thousands of crores for school repairs [2]. India Today reported on 25 August 2026 that the Uttar Pradesh government approved ₹604 crore to rebuild and repair 3,126 council schools [1]. Rajasthan's ₹503 crore fund was sanctioned after a roof collapse at a government school in Piplodi, Jhalawar killed seven children [7][8].
A Rajya Sabha answer of 26 March 2025 records central Samagra Shiksha releases to Uttar Pradesh of ₹4,571.85 crore, ₹2,044.97 crore, ₹3,819.75 crore, ₹4,276.45 crore and ₹4,487.40 crore from 2020-21 to 2024-25, and mentions Operation Kayakalp, but no state budget of thousands of crores for school repairs [2]. [2]
India Today reported on 25 August 2026 that the Uttar Pradesh government approved ₹604 crore to rebuild and repair 3,126 council-run primary and upper primary schools [1]. [1]
Rajasthan's ₹503 crore school repair fund was sanctioned after a roof collapse at a government school in Piplodi, Jhalawar killed seven children, not after an 'Ashutosh Ranka issue' [7][8]. [7][8]
No source in the record shows Dharmendra Pradhan resigned or lost his chair; a 2023 PIB release refers to him as Union Education Minister [4]. [4]
The claim is false on its load-bearing specifics. The Uttar Pradesh figure is ₹604 crore, not thousands of crores, and the Rajasthan fund followed the Piplodi roof collapse, not an Ashutosh Ranka issue. No source shows Pradhan resigned, and the record contains no evidence on Maharashtra's effectiveness.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueArvind Kejriwalchecked 1 Oct 2026
“Election Commissioner Sandhu wrote to the CEC stating that orders were being issued without the Commission's approval and that information was being received via the media. Another commissioner, Joshi ji, wrote that circulars were being issued without the Commission's approval; any orders issued without such approval are illegal,”
The claim gets the recipient and subject wrong. The official record and reporting say the letters went to the Cabinet Secretary and were about an officer's functioning, not to the CEC about orders issued without Commission approval. No source shows Sandhu wrote to the CEC that information was arriving via the media, or that Joshi wrote that circulars issued without approval were illegal. The Election Commission's press note also says the Special Intensive Revision schedules were issued with unanimous approval, which cuts against the suggestion of unauthorised orders.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal said Election Commissioner Sandhu wrote to the CEC that orders were issued without the Commission's approval and information arrived via the media, and that Commissioner Joshi wrote that circulars were issued without the Commission's approval, which he called illegal.
freepressjournal.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, issued a press note on 26 September 2026. It says work re-distribution orders by the concerned officer were not implemented after the two Election Commissioners objected, and that Special Intensive Revision schedules were issued with unanimous approval. The Commission's clarification, as reported, said the letters from Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi were sent to the Cabinet Secretary, not the Chief Election Commissioner, and concerned the functioning of an officer on deputation, not policy matters.
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says work re-distribution orders by the concerned officer were not implemented after the two Commissioners objected, and that Special Intensive Revision schedules were issued with unanimous approval. [10]
The Commission clarified that the letters from Sandhu and Joshi were sent to the Cabinet Secretary, not the CEC, and concerned the functioning of an officer on deputation, not policy matters. [1][4][5]
Media reports also state the letters were addressed to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan about a senior deputy election commissioner's functioning. [2][3]
The Hindu reported that Sandhu and Joshi flagged anomalies in the Special Intensive Revision process over 10 months, but it does not support the specific claim that Sandhu wrote to the CEC or that Joshi called circulars illegal. [8]
The claim gets the recipient and subject wrong. The official record and reporting say the letters went to the Cabinet Secretary and were about an officer's functioning, not to the CEC about orders issued without Commission approval. No source shows Sandhu wrote to the CEC that information was arriving via the media, or that Joshi wrote that circulars issued without approval were illegal. The Election Commission's press note also says the Special Intensive Revision schedules were issued with unanimous approval, which cuts against the suggestion of unauthorised orders.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“Rahul Gandhi demanded an immediate rollback of the new UPI merchant discount rate, calling it a "UPI tax" and alleging it would benefit the US.”
UPI tax
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
UPI tax
Rahul Gandhi called the new UPI merchant discount rate a 'UPI tax'.
msn.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Press Information Bureau said on 24 March 2025 that the merchant discount rate is the fee merchants and businesses pay to a payment processing company, and that small merchants' UPI transactions up to ₹2,000 attract zero merchant discount rate. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said on 25 September 2026 that the proposed merchant discount rate on select high-value UPI transactions is neither a tax, cess nor a surcharge, and the collections will not come to the Consolidated Fund of India.
The charge is a merchant discount rate — a processing charge paid by merchants to their acquiring bank or payment aggregator — not a government levy; the merchant also bears GST on that merchant discount rate, while the UPI transfer itself does not attract GST. [7]
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said the proposed merchant discount rate on select high-value UPI transactions is neither a tax, cess nor a surcharge, and the collections will not accrue to the government or the Consolidated Fund of India. [3][5][6]
The Press Information Bureau said the merchant discount rate is the fee merchants and businesses pay to a payment processing company, and that under the incentive scheme small merchants' UPI transactions up to ₹2,000 would attract zero merchant discount rate. [1]
The National Payments Corporation of India has announced a 0.4 per cent merchant discount rate on specified person-to-merchant UPI transactions above ₹2,000 from 15 October; transactions up to ₹2,000 remain at zero merchant discount rate. [2][3][4]
Calling the charge a 'UPI tax' is contradicted by the official record. The Finance Minister has explicitly said it is not a tax, cess or surcharge and that the collections do not go to the government. The charge is collected within the merchant payment ecosystem, and the government says about 96 per cent of person-to-merchant UPI transactions will remain unaffected.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueDhruv Ratheechecked 1 Oct 2026
“He alleged that Modi’s assurance that the government would bring a new law and take strict action against paper leaks amounted to “false promises”.”
Dhruv Rathee's claim treats the assurance as an empty false promise, but the official record shows the government passed a law to prevent paper-leak malpractices and the CBI took concrete enforcement steps, including chargesheets and arrests. Reporting on slow trials or questions about progress does not establish that the promise was false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assurance that the government would bring a new law and take strict action against paper leaks amounted to false promises.
madhyamamonline.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Press Information Bureau said on 6 February 2024 that the Lok Sabha passed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024, to curb paper leaks and malpractices in exams such as UPSC, SSC, NEET, JEE and CUET. The Bill had been introduced the previous day, on 5 February 2024. In the 2024 NEET case, the CBI filed a chargesheet against 45 individuals by November 2024, and in the 2026 NEET case it had arrested 13 people, according to news reports.
The Lok Sabha passed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024 on 6 February 2024, a law aimed at curbing paper leaks in recruitment and entrance exams. [2]
The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 5 February 2024. [3][4]
In the 2024 NEET paper-leak case, the CBI filed a chargesheet against 45 individuals by November 2024; in the 2026 NEET case it arrested 13 people according to reports. [1]
Prime Minister Modi announced fast-track courts and tougher measures against paper leaks, and the government said it had further tightened existing laws against paper leaks and cheating. [7][8]
Dhruv Rathee's claim treats the assurance as an empty false promise, but the official record shows the government passed a law to prevent paper-leak malpractices and the CBI took concrete enforcement steps, including chargesheets and arrests. Reporting on slow trials or questions about progress does not establish that the promise was false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026
“The administration of Raebareli has effectively shifted to Bareilly.”
The claim says Raebareli's administration has effectively shifted to Bareilly. The official record shows the opposite: Raebareli's administrative officers and structure are located in Raebareli, and Bareilly is a separate district. No source shows any order or arrangement moving Raebareli's administration to Bareilly.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav alleged that the administration of Raebareli was effectively controlled from Bareilly.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Raebareli district administration's own website states that general administration of the district is vested in the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, assisted by Additional District Magistrates, Sub-Divisional Magistrates and a Chief Development Officer, and its directory lists these officers with Raebareli phone numbers. Bareilly is a separate district with its own tehsils and administrative set-up.
Raebareli district's official website says its general administration is vested in the District Magistrate, also called Deputy Commissioner, who is assisted by Additional District Magistrates, Sub-Divisional Magistrates and a Chief Development Officer. [3]
The Raebareli district directory lists Additional District Magistrate (F&R) and Additional District Magistrate (e) with Raebareli phone numbers. [5]
Bareilly is a separate district with six tehsils and fifteen blocks, according to its official district website. [7]
The claim says Raebareli's administration has effectively shifted to Bareilly. The official record shows the opposite: Raebareli's administrative officers and structure are located in Raebareli, and Bareilly is a separate district. No source shows any order or arrangement moving Raebareli's administration to Bareilly.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueSanjay Singh, Aam Aadmi Party (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“What Congress is doing with Akhilesh in Uttar Pradesh today is what they did with Tejashwi in Bihar. The first time, they contested 77 seats and lost many of them, and the government fell short of the majority by just five seats.”
77 seats and five seats short
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
77 seats and five seats short
AAP MP Sanjay Singh alleged that Congress's actions prevented the Rashtriya Janata Dal from forming the government in the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections, saying Congress had earlier contested 77 seats, lost many of them, and the government fell short of a majority by just five seats.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India published statistical reports on the 2025 Bihar election on 19 November 2025, though the excerpts do not give party tallies. Reporting of the final results says the NDA won 202 seats, above the 122-seat majority mark, while the Mahagathbandhan—including the RJD and Congress—won 34 seats (RJD 25, Congress 6).
The Election Commission of India published statistical reports for the 2025 Bihar Assembly election on 19 November 2025, within five days of the poll results. [7]
Final result reporting shows the NDA won 202 seats and the Mahagathbandhan won 34 seats, against a majority mark of 122. [6]
In that tally, the RJD won 25 seats and the Congress won six seats. [6]
The RJD contested 143 seats in the 2025 election, according to election result reporting. [1][2]
The claim's 'fell short by just five seats' conflicts with the final 2025 tally: the opposition alliance had 34 seats, leaving it 88 seats below the 122-seat majority, not five. No retrieved source shows the Congress contesting 77 seats in that election; reporting puts the Congress at six seats won. If the speaker was referring to an earlier Bihar election, the provided record does not cover it.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueSanjay Singh, Aam Aadmi Party (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“The second time, in the recent Assembly elections, Congress kept Tejashwi Yadav hanging until the last moment. They kept talking to contest an equal number of seats, took most of the seats, and did not announce Tejashwi as the chief ministerial candidate in time. We all know what the result was.”
The claim is partly accurate: Congress did delay endorsing Tejashwi, and the CM announcement came late. But the specific assertion that Congress took most of the seats is contradicted by the reported seat-sharing, which gave the RJD 130 seats and Congress 50. No source in the record supports the claim that Congress negotiated for an equal number of seats. Because a load-bearing specific is wrong, the claim is false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP MP Sanjay Singh said that in the recent 2025 Bihar Assembly elections Congress kept Tejashwi Yadav waiting until the last moment, negotiated for an equal number of seats, took most of the seats, and did not announce Tejashwi Yadav as chief ministerial candidate in time.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Reporting on the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections shows the Mahagathbandhan announced Tejashwi Yadav as its chief ministerial candidate on 23 October 2025, after days of negotiations. The Indian Express reported that Congress's refusal to endorse Tejashwi as the CM face before the polls was among the issues holding up the seat-sharing deal. News18 reported the seat-sharing arrangement as 130 seats for the RJD and 50 for Congress.
The Mahagathbandhan announced Tejashwi Yadav as its chief ministerial candidate on 23 October 2025. [1][3][4][7]
News18 reported the seat-sharing arrangement as 130 seats for the RJD and 50 for Congress. [2]
The Indian Express reported that Congress's refusal to endorse Tejashwi as the CM face before the polls was among the issues holding up the seat-sharing deal, and the announcement came after days of negotiations. [4]
Moneycontrol reported that the alliance fielded 253 candidates for 243 seats amid seat-sharing disputes that forced parties to file unilaterally before the nomination deadline. [7]
The claim is partly accurate: Congress did delay endorsing Tejashwi, and the CM announcement came late. But the specific assertion that Congress took most of the seats is contradicted by the reported seat-sharing, which gave the RJD 130 seats and Congress 50. No source in the record supports the claim that Congress negotiated for an equal number of seats. Because a load-bearing specific is wrong, the claim is false.
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.
““I heard that 8,000 schools have shut down in Assam and that in 2,000 schools there is only one teacher. Himanta Biswa Sarma should have met Ashutosh Ranka and listened to his findings.””
Arvind Kejriwal said he had heard that 8,000 schools have shut down in Assam and that 2,000 schools have only one teacher, and said Himanta Biswa Sarma should have met Ashutosh Ranka.
pratidintime.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
0
government/provincialised schools closed in Assam, Lok Sabha answer, 2026
sansad.in
A written answer in the Lok Sabha on 1 December 2025 said the Assam school education department reported that no government or provincialised primary, middle, high or higher secondary school in the state has been closed; instead, 2,774 elementary and 206 secondary schools were merged or amalgamated over the last five years. A Rajya Sabha answer on 26 March 2025, using UDISE+ 2023-24 data, put Assam's single-teacher schools with primary sections at 2,613.
In a Lok Sabha answer dated 1 December 2025, the Ministry of Education said no government or provincialised primary, middle, high or higher secondary school in Assam has been closed till date. [1]
The same answer said 2,774 elementary and 206 secondary schools in Assam were merged or amalgamated over five years, a school rationalisation measure, not closure. [1]
UDISE+ 2023-24 data placed before the Rajya Sabha on 26 March 2025 shows Assam had 2,613 single-teacher schools with primary sections, not 2,000. [6]
The official record directly contradicts the 8,000 shutdown figure: Assam's education department told Parliament that no government or provincialised school had been closed, and 2,980 were merged or amalgamated. The claim that 2,000 schools have only one teacher is also unsupported; official UDISE+ data lists 2,613 single-teacher primary schools in Assam. Because the load-bearing numbers are wrong, the claim is false.
“The bottom 50% of India's population contributes over 60% of total GST revenue.”
over 60%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
over 60%
Dhruv Rathee said the bottom 50% of India's population contributes over 60% of total GST revenue.
jotosob.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
In a Lok Sabha reply, the Ministry of Finance said the Oxfam Report 2023 figure of 64.3% is "not with respect to the total GST revenue but GST from only some selected items," and added that 90% of GST is paid by the top 22% of businesses with turnover above ₹50 crore. Independent academic work estimates the bottom 50% of the population contributes about 9.6% of total GST revenue, not over 60%. Oxfam's own 64.3% figure, as reported in the press, is for select food and non-food items only.
A Ministry of Finance reply in the Lok Sabha says the 64.3% figure from the Oxfam Report 2023 'is not with respect to the total GST revenue but GST from only some selected items.' [1]
The same Lok Sabha reply says that from return-filing data for April 2022 to January 2023, 90% of GST is paid by the top 22% of businesses with turnover above ₹50 crore. [1]
An SPJIMR paper estimates the bottom 50% of the population contributes 28% of the GST paid by households and only 9.6% of total GST revenue collected. [3]
A paper by Vidhu Shekhar likewise finds the bottom 50% contributes only 9.6% of total GST revenue, contrary to Oxfam's 64.3% claim. [4]
Media coverage of the Oxfam report says a little less than two-thirds, 64.3%, of GST comes from the bottom 50%, and further says the figure is for spending on select food and non-food items. [8]
The claim says the bottom 50% contributes 'over 60% of total GST revenue.' The 64.3% figure exists, but the government's reply in Parliament clarifies that it is GST from only some selected items, not total GST. Independent academic estimates put the bottom 50%'s share of total GST far lower, around 9.6%. Because the claim attaches the over-60% number to total GST revenue, the specific assertion is contradicted by the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueSaurav Daschecked 30 Sept 2026
“Das claims that the powers of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) at the constituency level to add and delete voters have been usurped and concentrated in the Delhi Election Commission, where an IT officer reporting to the government now controls these crucial functions.”
The official process described by the Election Commission and the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer still places additions and deletions with Electoral Registration Officers, with notices, recorded reasons and appeals. The claim that these powers have been usurped and concentrated in a Delhi Election Commission where an IT officer controls them names a mechanism the cited records do not show. The ECINet dispute is real, but it involves concerns about ERO discretion, not an established takeover by an IT officer.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Saurav Das claimed that the powers of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to add and delete voters have been usurped and concentrated in the Delhi Election Commission, where an IT officer reporting to the government controls these functions.
news9live.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, has said field officers have role-based access to the ECINet system 'as per their statutory powers'. The Press Information Bureau, publishing the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision safeguards on 25 July 2026, states that deletion happens only after reasons are recorded and the process under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 is followed, with appeals to the District Magistrate and then the Chief Electoral Officer. The Delhi Chief Electoral Officer's office has also said notices in the revision do not by themselves mean deletion, and that Electoral Registration Officers consider relevant material while deciding individual cases.
The Election Commission has said field officers have role-based access to the ECINet system according to their statutory powers, not that an IT officer controls voter additions or deletions. [2]
The Election Commission's published safeguards for the Special Intensive Revision say deletion requires recording of reasons and following the statutory process under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, with a right to appeal to the District Magistrate and then the Chief Electoral Officer. [9]
The Delhi Chief Electoral Officer's office has clarified that Special Intensive Revision notices are part of verification and do not automatically mean deletion; Electoral Registration Officers consider relevant material while deciding individual cases. [3]
Two Election Commissioners did flag on record that the ECINet software was curtailing the powers of Electoral Registration Officers, and the Maharashtra Chief Electoral Officer sought changes to restore ERO discretion, but this is an internal concern about software, not evidence that an IT officer has taken over the Delhi election machinery. [4]
The official process described by the Election Commission and the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer still places additions and deletions with Electoral Registration Officers, with notices, recorded reasons and appeals. The claim that these powers have been usurped and concentrated in a Delhi Election Commission where an IT officer controls them names a mechanism the cited records do not show. The ECINet dispute is real, but it involves concerns about ERO discretion, not an established takeover by an IT officer.
How 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 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
Not trueRahul Gandhi30 Sept 2026
“CEC has lifelong immunity for helping Modi govt. steal elections: Rahul”
The claim rests on two parts: a legal assertion that the CEC enjoys lifelong immunity, and an allegation that he helped steal elections. The legal record contradicts the first part — protections are limited to tenure and acts done in official duty, and a pending PIL explicitly argues there is no personal criminal immunity. The second part remains an allegation, with no court or Election Commission finding in the sources upholding it.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi alleged that the Chief Election Commissioner has lifelong immunity for helping the Modi government steal elections.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's judgment of 23 September 2026 states that India has a government of laws and that officials 'can never be above the law.' A pending public interest litigation before the Supreme Court argues that Article 361 gives personal immunity only to the President and Governors and that Article 324 protects only the CEC's tenure, not personal criminal immunity. The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision orders were issued with unanimous approval.
The Supreme Court's 23 September 2026 judgment says: 'ours is a government of laws, not of men, where the rulers are bound by the law; they can never be above the law.' [11]
A pending public interest litigation before the Supreme Court argues that absolute personal immunity from criminal proceedings is reserved under Article 361 for the President and Governors alone, and that Article 324 secures only the CEC's tenure. [3]
The same litigation, as reported, describes Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 as a statutory protection tied to official duty, not a blanket lifetime shield. [2]
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision orders for Bihar, West Bengal and other states were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. [12]
The Supreme Court judgment and the Election Commission press note contain no finding that the CEC helped the Modi government steal elections. [11][12]
The claim rests on two parts: a legal assertion that the CEC enjoys lifelong immunity, and an allegation that he helped steal elections. The legal record contradicts the first part — protections are limited to tenure and acts done in official duty, and a pending PIL explicitly argues there is no personal criminal immunity. The second part remains an allegation, with no court or Election Commission finding in the sources upholding it.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueGopal Rai (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“ओलांद के खुलासे से राफेल सौदे में घोटाले की बात सामने आई है. इससे दुनिया के सामने देश को शर्मनाक स्थिति का सामना करना पड़ रहा है.”
Hollande's statement concerned the choice of an offset partner, not a proven scam in the Rafale deal. The Supreme Court considered the allegations and did not order an investigation, while the Ministry of Defence denied any government role in that selection. The official record therefore contradicts the assertion that the disclosure revealed a scam, and the 'shameful situation before the world' is a political framing rather than a recorded finding.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Gopal Rai said that Hollande's disclosure revealed a scam in the Rafale deal and that the country is facing a shameful situation before the world.
zeenews.india.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
On 14 December 2018, the Supreme Court declined to order a court-monitored investigation into the purchase of 36 Rafale jets and recorded that Dassault, Reliance and the Indian government had all called former French President François Hollande's allegations false. The Ministry of Defence also said on 22 September 2018 that the government had no role in selecting Reliance Defence as offset partner, a commercial decision of the aircraft maker.
The Supreme Court, in its 14 December 2018 decision, declined a court-monitored investigation into the Rafale purchase. [6]
The Court recorded that Dassault, Reliance and the Indian government had all said Hollande's allegations were false. [6]
The Ministry of Defence said the government had no role in selecting Reliance Defence as offset partner and called the controversy unnecessary. [3]
Hollande's statement concerned the choice of an offset partner, not a proven scam in the Rafale deal. The Supreme Court considered the allegations and did not order an investigation, while the Ministry of Defence denied any government role in that selection. The official record therefore contradicts the assertion that the disclosure revealed a scam, and the 'shameful situation before the world' is a political framing rather than a recorded finding.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueSaurav Daschecked 30 Sept 2026
“A particularly stark allegation is that since 2024, the Election Commission has ceased enrolling Gen Z voters, a move reportedly objected to by two other Election Commissioners.”
1,84,81,610
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Saurav Das alleged that since 2024, the Election Commission has ceased enrolling Gen Z voters.
news9live.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
1,84,81,610
electors aged 18-19 in final 2024 roll, ECI/PIB
pib.gov.in
The Election Commission's release of 9 February 2024, published by the Press Information Bureau, says the Special Summary Revision 2024 was completed and final electoral rolls were published with 1 January 2024 as the qualifying date. It lists 1,84,81,610 electors in the 18-19 age group in the final roll and says over 2.63 crore new electors were included. Media reports about a stalled annual revision concern later revision cycles, not the 2024 cycle itself.
The Election Commission's 2024 Special Summary Revision was completed and final rolls were published on 8 February 2024; the final roll had 96.88 crore registered electors, including 1,84,81,610 electors aged 18-19 and over 2.63 crore new electors. [6]
Election Commission documents for the 2024 cycle record that the Special Summary Revision was conducted with 1 January 2024 as the qualifying date and applications were invited from eligible citizens seeking registration. [7]
Media reports describe a stalled annual summary revision cycle in 2026, with possible delay in adding new 18-year-old voters and divisions within the Election Commission, but this is about later revision cycles, not a total halt to enrolling young voters from 2024. [1][2][3]
Election Commission data for the 2024 Lok Sabha election counted 97,97,51,847 registered electors, an increase of 7.43 percent over 2019, showing rolls continued to grow through the 2024 election cycle. [10]
The claim says enrolment of Gen Z voters has ceased since 2024, but the official record for 2024 shows the Election Commission enrolled millions of young voters, including 1.84 crore electors aged 18-19. Reporting that the annual revision later stalled does not support the absolute assertion that enrolment stopped from 2024. The official data directly contradicts the claim as worded.
“The Special Intensive Revision, through which more than 13 crore names have been deleted across 30 states, is completely illegal because it was not officially approved by the Election Commission.”
more than 13 crore names
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
more than 13 crore names
Arvind Kejriwal said the Special Intensive Revision had deleted more than 13 crore names across 30 states and was completely illegal because it was not officially approved by the Election Commission.
patialapolitics.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
A Press Information Bureau release of 14 May 2026 says the Election Commission of India directed the Special Intensive Revision in phases, including 16 States and 3 Union Territories in Phase III [6]. Another PIB release describes the SIR as a phased exercise with verification, public draft rolls, claims and objections, and restoration of valid names before the final roll [5]. Media reports put draft-stage removals at over 13 crore names across 30 States/UTs, not final deletions [1][2][4].
The 13-crore figure counts names removed from draft electoral rolls, not final deletions; reports describe 13.37 crore names left out of draft rolls across 30 States/UTs. [1][2][4]
The Election Commission of India itself directed the Special Intensive Revision; a PIB release dated 14 May 2026 announces Phase III in 16 States and 3 UTs. [6]
The PIB says the SIR includes house-to-house verification, draft roll publication, a claims and objections period, and restoration of valid names before the final roll. [5]
The speaker's number tracks draft-roll deletions reported for 30 States/UTs, but calling the entire exercise illegal because it was not approved by the Election Commission is contradicted by the Election Commission's own official release, which says the ECI directed the SIR. Draft deletions are subject to claims and objections and restoration, so treating them as final deletions overstates the record. Because the legality part is directly refuted by an official document, the overall claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAbhijeet Dipkechecked 30 Sept 2026
“If we look at the unemployment data, India currently has the highest unemployment rate in the last 40 years”
5.2%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke said that India currently has the highest unemployment rate in the last 40 years.
bbc.co.uk, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
5.2%
overall unemployment rate, persons 15+, PLFS April 2026
static.pib.gov.in
The National Statistics Office's Periodic Labour Force Survey monthly bulletin for April 2026 put the all-India unemployment rate for persons aged 15 and above at 5.2% using the current weekly status measure. The Ministry of Labour and Employment told Parliament that the annual usual-status unemployment rate fell from 6.0% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24. A 2017-18 PLFS figure of 6.1% was described in one analysis as the highest in 45 years.
The National Statistics Office's monthly Periodic Labour Force Survey bulletin for April 2026 says the overall unemployment rate for people aged 15 and above remained broadly stable at 5.2%. [3][4]
The Ministry of Labour and Employment has stated in Parliament that the annual usual-status unemployment rate decreased from 6.0% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24. [8]
The Hindu reported that Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi made a similar claim on 24 August 2026 that unemployment is the highest in 40 years, but that is a political assertion, not an official data finding. [1]
The claim that unemployment is currently the highest in 40 years is contradicted by official labour force data. The most recent monthly bulletin shows a rate of 5.2%, while the government's parliamentary answer says the usual-status rate was 6.0% in 2017-18 and 3.2% in 2023-24. Since a higher rate was recorded several years ago, India is not at a 40-year peak now.
Not trueCockroach Janata Party (Abhijeet Dipke's outfit) (Abhijeet Dipke)checked 30 Sept 2026
“But there was always one option left - to vote against the regime. Now even that’s being taken away! Resist this, Save Democracy!”
The post asserts that the Special Intensive Revision removes the last way to vote against the ruling side, but the official record shows no such removal. The exercise includes a statutory claims-and-objections window and appeal rights, the Supreme Court has upheld it as legal and consistent with free and fair elections, and the Election Commission's stated rule is that no eligible voter should be left out. The claim is therefore contradicted by the record, not merely unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
The Cockroach Janata Party, founded by Abhijeet Dipke, alleged in a post that the option of voting against the regime is now being taken away, framing the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls as an attack on democracy.
freepressjournal.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Law and Justice, citing the Election Commission, which runs elections, said on 25 July 2026 that the Special Intensive Revision aims to make rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries while ensuring no eligible elector is left out. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 27 May 2026, held the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and consistent with its constitutional duty under Article 324 to ensure free and fair elections.
The Election Commission's press note, reproduced by the Ministry of Law and Justice on 25 July 2026, says the Special Intensive Revision aims to make electoral rolls accurate and up-to-date while ensuring that no eligible elector is left out. [7]
The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated 27 May 2026, examined the legality of the Special Intensive Revision and held that it is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and consistent with Article 324's requirement of free and fair elections. [7]
The revision process requires publication of a draft roll, a period for filing claims and objections, and provides appeals to the District Magistrate and Chief Electoral Officer before the roll is finalised. [7][2]
After Bihar's Special Intensive Revision, the Election Commission said any eligible person left out could still apply for inclusion up to ten days before the last date for filing nominations, and could appeal against an Electoral Registration Officer's decision. [9]
In the 2026 assembly elections in Assam, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala and Puducherry, voting was conducted on the revised rolls and results were declared on 4 May 2026. [6]
The post asserts that the Special Intensive Revision removes the last way to vote against the ruling side, but the official record shows no such removal. The exercise includes a statutory claims-and-objections window and appeal rights, the Supreme Court has upheld it as legal and consistent with free and fair elections, and the Election Commission's stated rule is that no eligible voter should be left out. The claim is therefore contradicted by the record, not merely unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“over 1.5 crore students have been deprived of scholarship”
over 1.5 crore students, 48,04,208
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
over 1.5 crore students
Rahul Gandhi said that over 1.5 crore students in India have been deprived of scholarships, presenting data on a slide show at the Chhatron Ki Goonj event in Indore.
The Press Information Bureau (PIB), the government's official release, says the Post-Matric Scholarship Scheme for Scheduled Castes benefited 48,04,208 students in 2024-25, with central assistance of ₹5,562.23 crore, and the Pre-Matric Scholarship Scheme benefited over 26 lakh SC students with ₹562.36 crore. It does not state that 1.5 crore students were deprived of scholarships.
The PIB release says 48,04,208 Scheduled Caste students received post-matric scholarships in 2024-25, with central assistance of ₹5,562.23 crore. [2]
The same release says over 26 lakh Scheduled Caste students received pre-matric scholarships, with central assistance of ₹562.36 crore. [2]
The SBI Foundation's Asha Scholarship 2026-27 is open for applications and offers aid from ₹15,000 to ₹15 lakh; it does not mention 1.5 crore students deprived of scholarships. [1]
The claim's figure of over 1.5 crore students deprived of scholarships does not appear in the official record. The PIB release on scholarship schemes shows lakhs of students received scholarships, not that 1.5 crore were deprived. The SBI article is about a private scholarship open for applications and also does not support the claim.
Rahul Gandhi alleged at the 'Chhatron Ki Goonj' rally in Dehradun on July 17 that the NEET UG 2026 question paper was being sold for Rs 40 lakhs.
wionews.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Central Bureau of Investigation, India's federal investigation agency, registered a case on 12 May 2026 after the Ministry of Education complained about alleged irregularities and paper leak in NEET-UG 2026. CBI releases say students allegedly paid several lakhs of rupees for leaked questions, and that 13 people had been arrested by 27 May 2026. None of these official releases mentions ₹40 lakh.
The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case on 12 May 2026 over alleged irregularities and paper leak in NEET-UG 2026, based on a complaint from the Department of Higher Education in the Ministry of Education. [6]
A CBI release says the source of the Chemistry paper leak was a lecturer involved in the examination process, and students allegedly paid several lakhs of rupees for special coaching classes where questions were dictated. [7]
News reports citing sources said students paid Rs 2 lakh to Rs 5 lakh for access to leaked papers, not Rs 40 lakh. [1]
No CBI release or news report in the record states that the NEET-UG 2026 question paper was sold for Rs 40 lakh. [1][6][7]
The broader allegation that the NEET-UG 2026 paper was leaked for money is supported by the CBI's findings. But the specific figure of Rs 40 lakh is not supported by any record provided; the amounts mentioned are in the range of a few lakhs, with one report citing Rs 2 lakh to Rs 5 lakh. Since the figure is the load-bearing part of the claim, the claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAbhijeet Dipkechecked 30 Sept 2026
“every year there’s not been one single government examination where the paper isn’t leaked, or the paper or the exam isn’t cancelled”
The claim is built on an absolute: that in every year, not one single government exam escaped either a paper leak or a cancellation. The sources show many serious leaks and cancellations, but they also identify a major central examination body with no comparable systemic leak crisis and classify some exams as not cancelled. Because even one exam that was neither leaked nor cancelled would make the claim false, the available record contradicts the absolutist wording.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke said that every year there has not been a single government examination in India where the paper was not leaked, or the paper or exam was not cancelled.
bbc.co.uk, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which runs civil-services and other central government exams, has 'not had a comparable systemic paper leak crisis,' according to India Today. A 2005–2026 review of exam fraud cases classifies some exams as 'Cancelled' and others as 'Not cancelled,' so not every listed exam was cancelled. The Press Information Bureau's material on the anti-leak laws treats leaks as a significant problem the laws aim to reduce, not as a feature of every exam.
India Today reports that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which conducts civil-services and other central government exams, has 'not had a comparable systemic paper leak crisis.' [2]
A 2005–2026 review of exam fraud cases contains separate 'Cancelled' and 'Not cancelled' categories for both pre-2015 and post-2015 cases, so the record does not show that all government exams were cancelled. [1]
The Hindu says India relives the same paper-leak headline 'every few months' — a recurring problem, not proof that every exam every year is leaked or cancelled. [7]
The Press Information Bureau's official document on strengthening anti-leak law says the aim is to give exam candidates 'greater confidence' that papers will not leak, and it does not state that every government exam is compromised. [4]
The claim is built on an absolute: that in every year, not one single government exam escaped either a paper leak or a cancellation. The sources show many serious leaks and cancellations, but they also identify a major central examination body with no comparable systemic leak crisis and classify some exams as not cancelled. Because even one exam that was neither leaked nor cancelled would make the claim false, the available record contradicts the absolutist wording.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“31 July 2025. Rahul Gandhi: "The Indian economy is dead."”
Calling the Indian economy dead is contradicted by official and independent data in the record. Global rating agencies were raising India's growth forecasts for FY27, and the economy actually grew 7.8 per cent in the June quarter. A government reply to Parliament also described India's economy as strong.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said on 31 July 2025 that the Indian economy is dead.
x.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Fitch Ratings raised India's FY27 GDP growth forecast to 6.9 per cent from 6.4 per cent, and OECD, S&P, Moody's and ADB projected growth of 7 to 7.1 per cent. India's economy expanded 7.8 per cent in the April-June quarter and also grew 7.8 per cent in the previous fiscal year 2025-26. A Ministry of Finance reply in Parliament referred to India's strong economy while explaining the rupee's fall.
Fitch Ratings raised India's FY27 GDP growth forecast to 6.9 per cent from 6.4 per cent, and said India's growth remains very strong. [1][2]
India's economy expanded 7.8 per cent in the April-June quarter. [1][3][4]
OECD, S&P, Moody's and ADB projected India's FY27 GDP growth at 7 to 7.1 per cent. [2][3][4]
A Finance Ministry reply in Parliament described India's economy as strong while explaining that the rupee's depreciation does not reflect a weak economy. [6]
Calling the Indian economy dead is contradicted by official and independent data in the record. Global rating agencies were raising India's growth forecasts for FY27, and the economy actually grew 7.8 per cent in the June quarter. A government reply to Parliament also described India's economy as strong.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueArvind Kejriwalchecked 30 Sept 2026
“Kejriwal claimed that the previous AAP government had installed 2.62 lakh CCTV cameras and 2.80 lakh streetlights across Delhi. He alleged that more than half of these installations are currently non-functional and urged the government to restore them.”
The installation numbers Kejriwal cited are broadly supported: records show about 2.63 lakh CCTV cameras installed and a similar scale of LED streetlight replacement. But the allegation that more than half are non-functional is contradicted by the audit, which found 32,000 non-functional cameras out of 2.64 lakh — far fewer than half. No source supports the claim that more than half of streetlights are non-functional.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal claimed the previous AAP government installed 2.62 lakh CCTV cameras and 2.80 lakh streetlights across Delhi, and alleged more than half are currently non-functional.
punjabnewsline.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
A Delhi government audit reported in July 2025 found 2.64 lakh CCTV cameras installed across 70 assembly constituencies, of which over 32,000 were non-functional and over 15,000 remained uninstalled [1]. PWD records show 2.63 lakh cameras installed under a project to install 2.80 lakh [4]. A 2017 Lok Sabha reply said 2.86 lakh streetlights had been replaced with LED lights in the South Delhi Municipal Corporation area, but it does not show the AAP government installed 2.80 lakh streetlights across Delhi or how many work now [5].
A Delhi government audit found 2.64 lakh CCTV cameras installed across 70 assembly constituencies, with over 32,000 non-functional and over 15,000 uninstalled. [1]
PWD records show 2.63 lakh CCTV cameras installed under a project to install 2.80 lakh. [4]
A 2017 Lok Sabha reply said 2.86 lakh streetlights had been replaced with LED lights in the South Delhi Municipal Corporation area. [5]
The installation numbers Kejriwal cited are broadly supported: records show about 2.63 lakh CCTV cameras installed and a similar scale of LED streetlight replacement. But the allegation that more than half are non-functional is contradicted by the audit, which found 32,000 non-functional cameras out of 2.64 lakh — far fewer than half. No source supports the claim that more than half of streetlights are non-functional.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Gandhi also said students had received 1.5 crore fewer scholarships and that over 10 lakh teaching posts in government schools remain vacant.”
The teaching vacancy part is close but the exact official figure is 9.82 lakh, under 10 lakh, so 'over 10 lakh' is an overstatement. The scholarship part is the bigger problem: the specific 1.5 crore drop does not appear in any official release provided; the releases show ongoing disbursal to lakhs of students. Because a load-bearing specific is unsupported and the vacancy figure is overstated, the claim is false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said students received 1.5 crore fewer scholarships and over 10 lakh teaching posts in government schools remain vacant.
thenewsmill.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The 2024-25 school education framework data show 9,82,662 vacant sanctioned teaching posts — nearly 10 lakh, not over 10 lakh. A parliamentary panel flagged around 10 lakh vacant school-teacher posts. Official scholarship releases show 48,04,208 Scheduled Caste students received post-matric scholarships in 2024-25 and over 26 lakh SC students received pre-matric scholarships, while the Prime Minister's Scholarship Scheme disbursed 49,189 scholarships from 2006-07 to 2023-24; none shows a 1.5 crore reduction.
The 2024-25 school education framework data show 69,85,760 sanctioned teaching posts and 9,82,662 vacancies — nearly 10 lakh, not over 10 lakh. [1]
A Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education flagged around 10 lakh vacant school-teacher posts. [1][5]
Official government releases show 48,04,208 Scheduled Caste students received post-matric scholarships in 2024-25 and over 26 lakh SC students received pre-matric scholarships. [3]
The Prime Minister's Scholarship Scheme disbursed 49,189 scholarships from 2006-07 to 2023-24. [4]
The official scholarship releases in the record show current beneficiaries in lakhs, not a 1.5 crore reduction. [3][4]
The teaching vacancy part is close but the exact official figure is 9.82 lakh, under 10 lakh, so 'over 10 lakh' is an overstatement. The scholarship part is the bigger problem: the specific 1.5 crore drop does not appear in any official release provided; the releases show ongoing disbursal to lakhs of students. Because a load-bearing specific is unsupported and the vacancy figure is overstated, the claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueArvind Kejriwalchecked 30 Sept 2026
““Today, it has come to light that the government has made software through which, in many areas, the SDM has been removed and some people sitting in the Delhi Election Commission have the power to delete or add anyone's vote without verification. This is very dangerous,””
The claim that people in the Delhi Election Commission can delete or add anyone's vote 'without verification' is contradicted by the Election Commission's public clarification and by the Supreme Court's ruling. The official record describes a process with notices, hearings, appealable orders and verification, not unchecked power. Because the load-bearing part of the allegation, deletion or addition without any verification, is directly denied by the record, the claim is false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal alleged that the government has created software under which the SDM has been removed in many areas and people sitting in the Delhi Election Commission can delete or add anyone's vote without verification.
pratidintime.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission clarified on 20 September 2026 that Special Intensive Revision notices are the start of a verification process, not automatic deletion, and that no name can be deleted without a chance to be heard and a proper speaking and appealable order. The Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment, held that deletions made under the Special Intensive Revision were not contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. Parliament was told that the exercise ends with a final electoral roll after due verification and that valid grievances result in names being restored.
The Election Commission said on 20 September 2026 that receiving a Special Intensive Revision notice does not mean a voter's name will be deleted; it is the start of verification, not an order for deletion. [2]
The Election Commission says no name can be deleted without giving the person an opportunity to be heard and without a proper speaking and appealable order. [2]
The Supreme Court on 27 May 2026 held that deletions made under the Special Intensive Revision cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. [11]
A parliamentary answer states the Special Intensive Revision involved house-to-house enumeration, publication of draft rolls, claims and objections, and finalisation only after due verification; grievances found valid led to restoration of names. [10]
The claim that people in the Delhi Election Commission can delete or add anyone's vote 'without verification' is contradicted by the Election Commission's public clarification and by the Supreme Court's ruling. The official record describes a process with notices, hearings, appealable orders and verification, not unchecked power. Because the load-bearing part of the allegation, deletion or addition without any verification, is directly denied by the record, the claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueDhruv Ratheechecked 30 Sept 2026
“Dhruv Rathee's video claims the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision arbitrarily removed about 12% of West Bengal's electorate using untested software, dropping the total from 75.8 million in 2024 to 64.56 million now.”
The 12% headline figure is roughly accurate according to reporting. But the accusation that removals were 'arbitrary' is directly contradicted by the Supreme Court, which examined the procedure and found it was not contrary to the rules. The 'untested software' part has no basis anywhere in the record, which describes the revision as Booth Level Officer house-to-house verification, not a software process. The specific numbers attributed to the claim, 75.8 million falling to 64.56 million, also do not match the reported figures of 7.66 crore to 6.77 crore.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee claimed that the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision arbitrarily removed about 12% of West Bengal's electorate using untested software, dropping the total from 75.8 million in 2024 to 64.56 million now.
x.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Hindu reports the Special Intensive Revision in West Bengal began on November 4, 2025 with 7.66 crore voters on the list, and the number of eligible voters after the exercise is 6.77 crore [5]. The BBC and Times Now both describe a drop of about 12%, or roughly nine million voters, from a 76 million electorate [2][4]. The Supreme Court, in its May 2026 judgment, held that deletions made under the Special Intensive Revision 'cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules' [10]. The Election Commission describes deletions as carried out only after house-to-house verification by Booth Level Officers, covering deaths, permanent shifts of residence, duplicate entries and untraceable electors [11][12].
The Special Intensive Revision in West Bengal began with 7.66 crore voters on the roll, and the eligible electorate after the exercise stood at 6.77 crore [5]. [5]
Reporting puts the drop at about 12%, or roughly nine million voters removed from a 76 million electorate [2][4]. [2][4]
The Supreme Court held that deletions under the Special Intensive Revision were not contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules [10]. [10]
The Election Commission says deletions happened only after house-to-house verification by Booth Level Officers, under categories of death, permanent shifting of residence, duplicate entries and untraceable electors [11][12]. [11][12]
No source in the record mentions any software used in the revision, tested or otherwise; the process is described as enumeration by Booth Level Officers [11][12]. [11][12]
The 12% headline figure is roughly accurate according to reporting. But the accusation that removals were 'arbitrary' is directly contradicted by the Supreme Court, which examined the procedure and found it was not contrary to the rules. The 'untested software' part has no basis anywhere in the record, which describes the revision as Booth Level Officer house-to-house verification, not a software process. The specific numbers attributed to the claim, 75.8 million falling to 64.56 million, also do not match the reported figures of 7.66 crore to 6.77 crore.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueArvind Kejriwalchecked 30 Sept 2026
“The entire SIR process, through which over 13 crore names were deleted, is illegal; the SIR process must be scrapped.”
The claim has two parts: the deletion figure and the legal conclusion. The figure of over 13 crore deletions is supported by media reports based on ECI draft roll data. But the central assertion that the SIR process 'is illegal' is directly contradicted by the Supreme Court's judgment of 27 May 2026, which upheld the Election Commission's power and authority to conduct the SIR. A court of law has examined and rejected the illegality argument, so the claim as stated is false. The deletions occurred largely in draft rolls, and final rolls show smaller net reductions after eligible voters were added back.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal said the entire Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, through which over 13 crore names were deleted from electoral rolls, is illegal and must be scrapped.
freepressjournal.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Indian Express reports over 13 crore deletions from draft rolls, and Deccan Herald puts the figure at 13.3 crore from draft voter lists. But the Supreme Court, in its 2026 INSC 564 judgment dated 27 May 2026, examined the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar and upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct it, holding that the exercise falls within the Commission's constitutional mandate under Article 324 and the statutory framework. The eo-matters report summarises that the Court 'upheld the legality of the Bihar exercise and recognised the Election Commission's power to conduct intensive electoral-roll revisions within the statutory framework.'
Media reports state that over 13 crore names were deleted from draft electoral rolls across India during the SIR exercise, with Deccan Herald quoting 13.3 crore deletions from draft voter lists. [2][4]
The Supreme Court on 27 May 2026 upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct the Special Intensive Revision in Bihar, rejecting challenges to its legality. [10]
The eo-matters analysis states that the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the Bihar exercise and recognised the ECI's power to conduct intensive electoral-roll revisions within the statutory framework. [8]
Bihar's final 2025 electoral roll contained approximately 7.42 crore electors, compared with 7.89 crore before the revision, a net reduction of about 47 lakh after additions. [3][8]
The claim has two parts: the deletion figure and the legal conclusion. The figure of over 13 crore deletions is supported by media reports based on ECI draft roll data. But the central assertion that the SIR process 'is illegal' is directly contradicted by the Supreme Court's judgment of 27 May 2026, which upheld the Election Commission's power and authority to conduct the SIR. A court of law has examined and rejected the illegality argument, so the claim as stated is false. The deletions occurred largely in draft rolls, and final rolls show smaller net reductions after eligible voters were added back.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“He has put a tax on every single Indian person by taxing UPI and giving huge amount of money to the United States.”
The claim uses the word 'every single Indian person', but the record directly contradicts this. Person-to-person UPI transfers have no charge, and roughly 96% of merchant payments are also unaffected. The new MDR is a fee on merchants for select larger transactions, not a tax on individuals, so saying every Indian has been taxed is wrong. The second part, about giving a huge amount of money to the United States, is not addressed by any source at all, but the inaccurate UPI framing is decisive on its own.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said the government has imposed a tax on every Indian by taxing UPI and is giving a huge amount of money to the United States.
indiatoday.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Press Information Bureau, the government's official publicity arm, says the new UPI framework has no impact on any person-to-person transaction and that UPI remains completely free for all such transfers regardless of amount. It adds that about 96% of person-to-merchant transactions remain unaffected because payments up to ₹2,000 and those to small merchants stay free, and that individuals continue to have unlimited free usage with no monthly quotas or caps. The Ministry of Finance's FAQ document confirms the 0.4% merchant discount rate (MDR) applies only to person-to-merchant UPI payments above ₹2,000, with a cap of ₹300 for transactions of ₹75,000 and above, and that the charge is on the merchant payment ecosystem, not on individual users.
All person-to-person UPI transactions remain completely free, irrespective of the amount transferred. [2][3][6]
Approximately 96% of person-to-merchant UPI transactions remain unaffected by the new charge because payments up to ₹2,000 and those to small merchants stay free. [2][3]
The 0.4% merchant discount rate applies only to person-to-merchant UPI transactions above ₹2,000, with a ₹300 cap for transactions of ₹75,000 and above. [2][3][6]
Individuals have unlimited free usage of UPI, with no monthly quotas, volume restrictions or tiered caps on free transactions. [2][3][6]
The claim uses the word 'every single Indian person', but the record directly contradicts this. Person-to-person UPI transfers have no charge, and roughly 96% of merchant payments are also unaffected. The new MDR is a fee on merchants for select larger transactions, not a tax on individuals, so saying every Indian has been taxed is wrong. The second part, about giving a huge amount of money to the United States, is not addressed by any source at all, but the inaccurate UPI framing is decisive on its own.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“Gandhi’s address included claims about the closure of over one lakh schools nationwide, with a significant proportion in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.”
The claim's central number is over one lakh schools closed. The official data in the record put the decline at about 89,000 government schools, or more than 93,000 schools over a decade. Both figures are below one lakh. Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh do lead in closures, but that does not make the national figure over one lakh.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi claimed that over one lakh schools have closed nationwide, with a significant proportion in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.
thequint.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Hindu, citing UDISE+ data, reports that government schools fell from 11.07 lakh in 2014-15 to 10.17 lakh in 2023-24, a decline of roughly 89,000. News reports of Union Education Ministry data presented in the Lok Sabha put closures at more than 93,000 schools over a decade, with Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh recording the highest numbers. An official annexure for Uttar Pradesh shows government school numbers nearly unchanged from 2021-22 to 2023-24, at 1,37,068 and 1,37,003.
UDISE+ data show government schools fell from 11.07 lakh in 2014-15 to 10.17 lakh in 2023-24, a decline of roughly 89,000. [1]
Union Education Ministry data presented in the Lok Sabha show more than 93,000 schools closed in a decade, with Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh recording the highest closures. [6][7]
An official annexure shows Uttar Pradesh had 1,37,068 government schools in 2021-22 and 1,37,003 in 2023-24. [8]
The claim's central number is over one lakh schools closed. The official data in the record put the decline at about 89,000 government schools, or more than 93,000 schools over a decade. Both figures are below one lakh. Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh do lead in closures, but that does not make the national figure over one lakh.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“over 1.5 crore students have been deprived of scholarship.”
The claim's figure of over 1.5 crore students deprived of scholarships is not supported by any official record provided. The only source that mentions 1.5 crore is a blog that says students are 'allegedly' affected, while official data show a much smaller drop of 2.23 lakh scholarships in one major central scheme. The specific number in the claim is therefore wrong on the record available.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said over 1.5 crore students have been deprived of scholarships.
freepressjournal.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Under the National Means-cum-Merit Scholarship Scheme (NMMSS), the number of scholarships granted fell from 4,29,955 in 2017-18 to 2,06,794 in 2021-22, a drop of 2,23,161 scholarships, or 51.9 per cent. A Lok Sabha answer also says the Ministry of Minority Affairs' pre-matric, post-matric and merit-cum-means scholarship schemes have not been approved beyond 2021-22.
Under the National Means-cum-Merit Scholarship Scheme (NMMSS), scholarships granted fell from 4,29,955 in 2017-18 to 2,06,794 in 2021-22, a drop of 2,23,161 scholarships, or 51.9 per cent. [1]
A Lok Sabha answer states that the Ministry of Minority Affairs' pre-matric, post-matric and merit-cum-means scholarship schemes have not been approved beyond 2021-22. [4]
The claim's figure of over 1.5 crore students deprived of scholarships is not supported by any official record provided. The only source that mentions 1.5 crore is a blog that says students are 'allegedly' affected, while official data show a much smaller drop of 2.23 lakh scholarships in one major central scheme. The specific number in the claim is therefore wrong on the record available.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
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
Not trueRahul Gandhi27 Sept 2026
“Now, the Election Commissioners themselves are acknowledging it and bringing the truth to light.”
The claim depends on two Election Commissioners having publicly admitted vote theft. No official Election Commission statement in the record says this, and the ECI's own published material denies that EVMs record wrong votes. A party video caption is not independent evidence of such an acknowledgment. The official record therefore contradicts the assertion.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said the Election Commissioners themselves are acknowledging vote theft and bringing the truth to light.
indiatribune.com, 27 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Congress video is captioned with the assertion that two Election Commissioners acknowledged the party's 'vote chori' claim, but that is the party's own statement. The Election Commission's 'Myth vs Reality' page states EVMs 'NEVER record a Wrong Vote' and says election officials work under the ECI's direction. The PIB releases do not quote an Election Commissioner admitting vote theft.
A Congress Facebook video carries the caption that what the party has said on 'vote chori' has 'now been acknowledged by two Election Commissioners.' [1]
The Election Commission's official Myth vs Reality page states EVMs 'NEVER record a Wrong Vote' and says election officials work under the ECI's supervision. [7]
PIB releases discuss the Election Commission's constitutional role and contain an unattributed remark that 'vote theft has ended,' but do not show Election Commissioners acknowledging vote theft. [3]
The claim depends on two Election Commissioners having publicly admitted vote theft. No official Election Commission statement in the record says this, and the ECI's own published material denies that EVMs record wrong votes. A party video caption is not independent evidence of such an acknowledgment. The official record therefore contradicts the assertion.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAkhilesh Yadav25 Sept 2026
“Yadav said inflation and unemployment are at their peak.”
3.0%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said inflation and unemployment in Uttar Pradesh are at their peak.
thestatesman.com, 25 Sept 2026
What is actually true
3.0%
Uttar Pradesh unemployment rate, PLFS 2023-24
sansad.in
The National Statistics Office's Periodic Labour Force Survey for 2023-24 puts Uttar Pradesh's usual-status unemployment rate for persons aged 15 and above at 3.0%, with 2.2% in rural areas and 6.7% in urban areas. All-India unemployment fell from 6.0% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24. For inflation, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation's Consumer Price Index press note for July 2026 records all-India retail inflation of 4.45%, and the Economic Survey 2025-26 says average inflation for April-December 2025 was 1.7%, the lowest since the CPI series began.
The Periodic Labour Force Survey 2023-24 records Uttar Pradesh's usual-status unemployment rate at 3.0% for persons aged 15 and above: 2.2% in rural areas and 6.7% in urban areas. [3]
All-India unemployment rate on usual status fell from 6.0% in 2017-18 to 3.2% in 2023-24, according to the Ministry of Labour and Employment. [1]
All-India Consumer Price Index inflation was 4.45% in July 2026, and the Economic Survey 2025-26 states average headline inflation for April-December 2025 was 1.7%, the lowest since the CPI series began. [5][6]
The claim says inflation and unemployment in Uttar Pradesh are at their peak. Official data contradict this: Uttar Pradesh's unemployment rate in the latest annual survey was 3.0%, and all-India unemployment has fallen sharply since 2017-18. Retail inflation is 4.45%, far below the 6.7% recorded in 2022-23, and the Economic Survey describes recent inflation as the lowest since the CPI series began. These are not peak levels.
Not trueAbhijeet Dipke (Cockroach Janta Party)24 Sept 2026
“But ever since Gyanesh Kumar took over as Chief Election Commissioner, the government decides who votes and who does not.”
The claim says the government decides who votes, but the record shows voter-list decisions are made by the Election Commission, a constitutional body. The internal rift reported is between the CEC and the other two Election Commissioners, not evidence of government control. No source establishes that the government decides voter eligibility.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke alleged that ever since Gyanesh Kumar took over as Chief Election Commissioner, the government decides who votes and who does not.
ndtv.com, 24 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Indian Express reported that two Election Commissioners lodged 14 formal objections against poll panel decisions led by CEC Gyanesh Kumar in 10 months; the Commission is a constitutional body under Article 324 whose business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible. ECI press notes describe its own initiatives for electoral roll accuracy.
The Election Commission is a constitutional body under Article 324, with the CEC and two Election Commissioners equal in rank; its business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible. [4]
Two Election Commissioners lodged 14 formal objections against poll panel decisions led by CEC Gyanesh Kumar in 10 months, not against the government. [4]
The ECI announced initiatives for electoral roll accuracy in line with CEC Gyanesh Kumar's proposals. [3]
OpIndia described the claim that the government now decides who votes as devoid of factual merit. [1]
The claim says the government decides who votes, but the record shows voter-list decisions are made by the Election Commission, a constitutional body. The internal rift reported is between the CEC and the other two Election Commissioners, not evidence of government control. No source establishes that the government decides voter eligibility.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAbhijeet Dipke24 Sept 2026
“Dipke alleged that more than 130 million names have been struck off draft electoral rolls across 30 states and union territories during the SIR process.”
The claim's two load-bearing specifics are the deletion figure of 130 million and the count of 30 states/UTs. The record contradicts the state/UT count: BBC says only 13 states/UTs had undergone SIR so far, and the EC's phased schedule shows the exercise was not complete across 30 states/UTs. No source provides a 130 million figure; West Bengal, one reported case, had 9 million deletions. Because at least the 30-state element is wrong on the record, the claim is false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke alleged that more than 130 million names were struck off draft electoral rolls across 30 states and union territories during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process.
dw.com, 24 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's 25 July 2026 press note describes SIR in phases, with Phase II covering nine states and three union territories and Phase III underway or proposed in the remaining states/UTs; it provides no all-India deletion total. A BBC report on the 2026 rolls says nine million voters were removed in West Bengal and that thirteen states and federally administered territories had undergone SIR so far. The Supreme Court order in 2026 INSC 564 discusses SIR deletions but gives no 130 million or 30-state figure.
The ECI press note says SIR is being carried out in phases, with Phase II covering nine states and three union territories, and Phase III underway or proposed in remaining states/UTs; it does not state any total deletion figure. [1]
BBC reporting on the 2026 rolls says nine million voters were removed in West Bengal and that thirteen states and federally administered territories have undergone the SIR process so far. [6]
The Supreme Court order examines deletions under the SIR but does not mention 130 million names or 30 states/UTs. [5]
The claim's two load-bearing specifics are the deletion figure of 130 million and the count of 30 states/UTs. The record contradicts the state/UT count: BBC says only 13 states/UTs had undergone SIR so far, and the EC's phased schedule shows the exercise was not complete across 30 states/UTs. No source provides a 130 million figure; West Bengal, one reported case, had 9 million deletions. Because at least the 30-state element is wrong on the record, the claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhi23 Sept 2026
“जैसे रुकी हुई सरकारी भर्तियाँ”
The claim says government recruitment has been stalled. But official sources show recruitment is continuing: the Union Public Service Commission advertised posts and finalised results in 2026, and a parliamentary answer says recruitment drives are ongoing. The Madhya Pradesh fact-check also says the 87:13 formula did not halt recruitment. So the claim is false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi says students told him at the Indore 'Chhatron Ki Goonj' event that government recruitment has been stalled.
youtube.com, 23 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The official record does not show government recruitment stalled. The Union Public Service Commission, which hires for central government posts, advertised direct recruitment in August 2026 and finalised recruitment cases in June 2026. A Rajya Sabha answer on 30 March 2026 said recruitment drives in the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Airports Authority of India and Directorate General of Civil Aviation are ongoing.
The Union Public Service Commission invited applications for direct recruitment to various Government of India posts in August 2026, with applications open from 8 August to 28 August 2026. [8]
The Union Public Service Commission finalised recruitment cases in June 2026 and March 2026. [5][6][7]
A Rajya Sabha answer on 30 March 2026 said recruitment drives in the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Airports Authority of India and Directorate General of Civil Aviation are ongoing and are periodically reviewed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. [4]
In Madhya Pradesh, the 87:13 formula did not halt recruitment; appointments continued against 87 per cent of the advertised vacancies. [1]
The claim says government recruitment has been stalled. But official sources show recruitment is continuing: the Union Public Service Commission advertised posts and finalised results in 2026, and a parliamentary answer says recruitment drives are ongoing. The Madhya Pradesh fact-check also says the 87:13 formula did not halt recruitment. So the claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueRahul Gandhi22 Aug 2026Pune
Six out of every 100 women in India are raped.
Off by three orders of magnitude from the official crime rate.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
6 in 100 women (6%)
Pune rally · 22 August 2026, 22 Aug 2026
What is actually true
NCRB Crime in India records rape on the order of about 4 per lakh women, not 6,000 per lakh.
NCRB Crime in India records rape as a counted offence. Recent all-India rates are on the order of about 4 recorded rapes per lakh women, not 6,000 per lakh.
Six in 100 women would be 6%. That is three orders of magnitude above the official recorded rate.
Under-reporting is real. NFHS and NCRB both say so in different ways. Under-reporting does not turn 4 per lakh into 6 per 100 as an official fact.
One reason-code anecdote is stated as the dropout rate.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi22 Aug 2026Pune
99% of sexual violence, rape, and molestation cases go unreported.
Under-reporting is real. 99% is not the official dark figure.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
99% of sexual violence unreported
Pune rally · 22 August 2026, 22 Aug 2026
What is actually true
NCRB publishes reported cases. NFHS publishes some disclosure questions. Neither series is a 99% official unreported rate.
NCRB publishes recorded sexual offences. By definition those are the reported cases, not the unreported share.
NFHS publishes some questions on whether violence was told to anyone. Those disclosure items are not a 99% official dark figure for rape, molestation and sexual violence together.
Research on under-reporting exists. It does not become a 99% official rate.
Under-reporting is real. 99% is not the official dark figure.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi22 Aug 2026Pune
Boys can take examinations multiple times after the age limit, but the marriage age is 23 for women.
Two different systems are fused into one official rule that does not exist.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Exam age limits for boys vs marriage age 23 for women
Pune rally · 22 August 2026, 22 Aug 2026
What is actually true
Legal marriage age is not 23. Exam age limits vary by paper and are not a marriage-age rule of 23.
The legal minimum age of marriage is not 23. Under current law it is 18 for women and 21 for men.
Exam age limits are set paper by paper in NTA, UPSC and SSC notifications. They are not a marriage-age rule, and they are not “boys may repeat after the limit, women must marry at 23”.
PIB and the statute book are the official sources for marriage age. Exam information bulletins are the official sources for attempt limits.
A growth or share debate is stated as destruction.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi8 Aug 2026Prayagraj
90% of small and medium businesses do not get bank loans.
Access problems are real; the 90% line is not the official rate.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
90% of MSMEs get no bank loan
Prayagraj rally · 8 August 2026, 8 Aug 2026
What is actually true
RBI and MSME credit data show a large, growing stock of MSME loans. 90% unbanked is not the official stock figure.
RBI publishes outstanding MSME credit as a large and, in recent years, growing stock. That stock cannot exist if 90% of MSMEs officially get no bank loan.
Priority-sector and MSME lending targets are official RBI and government categories.
Many small firms are outside formal credit. That access gap is real. It is not the same as an official 90% “do not get bank loans” rate.
PIB material on MSME credit refers to accounts and amounts sanctioned, not a 90% exclusion rate.
Access problems are real; the 90% line is not the official rate.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi8 Aug 2026Prayagraj
Entrepreneurship has been destroyed.
A verdict word is used where the series still exists.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Entrepreneurship destroyed
Prayagraj rally · 8 August 2026, 8 Aug 2026
What is actually true
New company and LLP registrations continued. Destruction is not an official outcome.
DPIIT and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs continue to publish new company and LLP registrations. Those filings are entrepreneurship in the official legal sense.
Destruction would mean the registration series stopped. It did not.
Closures and stress in some firms are compatible with a living registration series. They are not an official verdict of “destroyed”.
A verdict word is used where the series still exists.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi8 Aug 2026Prayagraj
PSU jobs fell from around 14 lakh to 7 lakh.
A drop is asserted without the named PSU employment table.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
PSU jobs 14 lakh → 7 lakh
Prayagraj rally · 8 August 2026, 8 Aug 2026
What is actually true
Public-enterprise employment has changed with disinvestment and classification. The two endpoints need the same official series and the same unit. The sentence gives neither.
Public-enterprise employment changes with disinvestment, casual-versus-regular mix and which firms are counted as CPSEs.
A drop from “around 14 lakh” to “7 lakh” needs one official table, one definition of PSU, and two dated observations. The sentence gives none of those.
PIB and MOSPI material on CPSEs do not, in this file, supply those two endpoints as a single checked series.
A drop is asserted without the named PSU employment table.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi8 Aug 2026Prayagraj
Public schools, hospitals, BSNL, ports and airports have been privatised.
Some asset cases are not a blanket privatisation of public services.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Schools, hospitals, BSNL, ports and airports privatised
Prayagraj rally · 8 August 2026, 8 Aug 2026
What is actually true
Most public schools and hospitals were not privatised. Listing five systems as already sold is false.
Government and aided schools remain the large majority of school enrolment in UDISE+ and Ministry of Education data. They were not privatised as a system.
Public hospitals under state and Union health departments still operate. They were not sold as a bloc.
BSNL remains a public-sector telecom company. Listing it as already privatised is false.
Some ports and airports have seen private operation or PPP. That is not the same official fact as “ports and airports have been privatised” as a completed national sale, and it does not carry schools and hospitals with them.
A global talking point is stated as a fact about India.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi8 Aug 2026Prayagraj
Indian youth spend 8 hours a day watching Reels.
No official 8-hour Reels average.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
8 hours a day on Reels
Prayagraj rally · 8 August 2026, 8 Aug 2026
What is actually true
Time Use Survey does not record eight hours a day of Reels for Indian youth.
The Time Use Survey records minutes in a day across employment, unpaid work, learning, social life and leisure — including screen and media time in published categories.
It does not publish “8 hours a day watching Reels” as the average for Indian youth.
Platform companies’ own product names are not MOSPI categories.
A mechanism is asserted without an official series.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi8 Aug 2026Prayagraj
There is an RSS pracharak in every institution.
Not a fact-checkable staffing statistic.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
An RSS pracharak in every institution
Prayagraj rally · 8 August 2026, 8 Aug 2026
What is actually true
No official establishment list supports “every institution”.
No official establishment list, payroll or ministry directory supports “an RSS pracharak in every institution”.
Staffing of public institutions is published, where it is published, as sanctioned posts and incumbents — not as a political-cadre census of every institution.
The final conviction rate for paper leaks in India is absolute zero, with not a single major perpetrator convicted or sent to jail.
A real enforcement problem is turned into a claim that nobody has ever been jailed.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Paper-leak conviction rate is absolute zero
Dehradun rally · 17 July 2026, 17 Jul 2026
What is actually true
Courts have convicted people in paper-leak cases. Absolute zero is false.
“Absolute zero” would mean no court has ever convicted anyone in a paper-leak case. That is not true. Courts have convicted accused persons in named leak cases, and the Press Information Bureau has recorded prosecutions.
A low conviction rate, slow trials, or unpunished organisers in some papers is a real enforcement problem. It is not the same official fact as a zero conviction rate.
There is no official NTA or Home Ministry series titled “final conviction rate for paper leaks” that equals zero.
A real enforcement problem is turned into a claim that nobody has ever been jailed.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi17 Jul 2026Dehradun
Manufacturing, entrepreneurship, corporate employment and the public sector are closed; only government jobs remain accessible.
Four sectors are declared closed without an official closed-door series.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Only government jobs remain open
Dehradun rally · 17 July 2026, 17 Jul 2026
What is actually true
PLFS shows employment across agriculture, industry and services. Company registrations and manufacturing GVA did not go to zero.
PLFS shows people employed in agriculture, manufacturing, construction, trade, transport and services — not in government jobs only.
MOSPI national accounts still publish manufacturing and services GVA. Those series did not go to zero.
DPIIT / MCA company and LLP registrations continued. Entrepreneurship as a legal category was not closed.
Central public-sector enterprises still exist and still recruit. “Only government jobs remain accessible” contradicts the same public-sector door the sentence later treats as closed.
Three, four, or five businesses have captured India’s banking money; ordinary entrepreneurs cannot obtain loans.
No official series says ordinary entrepreneurs cannot obtain loans.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
3–5 businesses captured all bank credit
Dehradun rally · 17 July 2026, 17 Jul 2026
What is actually true
RBI bank-credit data show lending across households, industry, MSMEs and services, not five firms.
RBI sectoral bank-credit data split outstanding credit across households, industry, services, agriculture and MSMEs. The stock is not five firms.
MSME and priority-sector lending are published RBI and government categories. They would not exist if “ordinary entrepreneurs cannot obtain loans” were the official rule.
Concentration of large-borrower exposure is a supervisory topic. It is not the same as “three, four or five businesses have captured India’s banking money”.
A forecast about AI is stated as a present shutdown.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi17 Jul 2026Dehradun
Privatisation has closed the public-sector route for young people.
Closed and reduced are not the same official fact.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
PSU route closed
Dehradun rally · 17 July 2026, 17 Jul 2026
What is actually true
Central public-sector enterprises still employ people and still recruit. The route shrank in some years; it was not closed.
Central public-sector enterprises still employ people. Department of Public Enterprises and PIB material still describe operating CPSEs and recruitment.
Disinvestment and strategic sales have reduced the list of CPSEs in some years. A smaller list is not a closed route.
Public-sector banks, railways, defence and other government employers still notify vacancies. “The public-sector route” is not one switch that was turned off.
Closed and reduced are not the same official fact.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi17 Jul 2026Dehradun
Coaching centres, translators, printers, transporters, vendors, NTA and ministry officials form a single paper-leak structure.
Separate cases are collapsed into one conspiracy.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
One organised leak structure including NTA and the ministry
Dehradun rally · 17 July 2026, 17 Jul 2026
What is actually true
Investigations have named specific actors in specific papers. There is no official finding that NTA and the ministry are one leak syndicate.
Investigating agencies have named specific people and vendors in specific leaked papers. Those charge-sheets are case files, not a finding that NTA and the ministry are one syndicate.
NTA and the Ministry of Education are the bodies that conduct and notify the exams. An official conspiracy finding against both as a single leak structure has not been published.
Coaching centres, printers and transporters appear in some case narratives. That does not make every listed trade plus the exam body one organisation.
The percent is not a published MOSPI or exam-body statistic.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi17 Jul 2026Dehradun
Nine crore aspirants pursue government examinations, but only six lakh succeed, one successful candidate for every 150 aspirants.
A ratio is built from unmatched universes.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
9 crore aspirants, 6 lakh selected, 1 in 150
Dehradun rally · 17 July 2026, 17 Jul 2026
What is actually true
Those three numbers mix different exams and years. There is no single official 9-crore / 6-lakh / 1-in-150 series.
“Nine crore aspirants” is not a single official register of people sitting government exams in one year. Different papers, repeats and years are being added together.
“Six lakh selected” is not a single official all-government selection total that matches that nine-crore universe.
“One in 150” only exists if those two unmatched totals are divided. SSC, NTA and department vacancy lists are paper-by-paper, not one national ratio.
The same 1-in-150 line is reused in Prayagraj without the 9-crore / 6-lakh pair. That is a sign of a slogan, not a series.
Paper leaks harmed 7.5 crore students during the past decade.
Affected-candidate counts from separate papers cannot be added into that total.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
7.5 crore students harmed by paper leaks in 10 years
Dehradun rally · 17 July 2026, 17 Jul 2026
What is actually true
No official decade total of 7.5 crore leak victims exists.
NTA and state exam bodies publish affected-candidate counts for named leaked or cancelled papers. Those counts are not an official decade total of 7.5 crore.
Adding every candidate on every cancelled paper, including people who sat more than one exam, would double-count. No official series does that addition into 7.5 crore.
PIB statements on individual papers do not sum to a 10-year 7.5-crore victim stock.
Affected-candidate counts from separate papers cannot be added into that total.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi17 Jun 2026Kota
In this system, if 1000 children enter, only about 36 people will get permanent jobs. Roughly 300 will remain unemployed. About 700 will become gig workers.
The 1,000-child pipeline is not an official labour statistic.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
700 of 1,000 become gig workers (70%)
Kota rally · 17 June 2026, 17 Jun 2026
What is actually true
NITI Aayog estimated gig and platform work at about 1.5% of the workforce in 2020–21, not 70% of every cohort.
There is no official MOSPI, NITI Aayog or PLFS table that follows “1,000 children” into 36 permanent jobs, 300 unemployed people and 700 gig workers.
NITI Aayog’s gig-and-platform paper estimated platform and gig work at about 1.5% of the workforce in 2020–21. That is not 70% of every school cohort.
PLFS publishes employment by usual status across agriculture, industry and services, and a national unemployment rate. It does not show 30% of a cohort unemployed and 70% in gig work as a pipeline.
“Permanent job” is not a PLFS category that can be set at 36 out of 1,000. Regular wage/salary work, casual work and self-employment are separate published statuses.
The 1,000-child pipeline is not an official labour statistic.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi17 Jun 2026Kota
22 lakh students take the NEET exam. From their families, Rs. 1.32 lakh crore is taken every year. The amount these 22 lakh people pay in one year for one exam equals the Government of India's entire education budget.
A projection is presented as this year's extraction from 22 lakh families.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
₹1.32 lakh crore taken from NEET families this year, equal to the education budget
Kota rally · 17 June 2026, 17 Jun 2026
What is actually true
₹1.32 lakh crore is a cited future coaching-industry size, not a current annual NEET fee bill. It is not the Union education budget.
NTA publishes NEET candidate counts. A figure on the order of 20-plus lakh candidates in a recent cycle is in that official range. That is the only part of the sentence that sits near a real series.
₹1.32 lakh crore is not an official annual bill paid by 22 lakh NEET families for one exam. It is a figure that has been used for a future coaching-industry size, not for this year’s NEET fees.
The Union education budget is a Budget document line. It is not defined as “what 22 lakh NEET families pay in one year”. Those two numbers are not the same official series.
NTA’s published exam fee is a per-candidate charge, not a ₹1.32 lakh crore extraction from one paper.
The 80% figure is not an official engineering-graduate rate.
How this was checked: Editorial — hand-checked
Not trueRahul Gandhi15 Apr 2019
“Supreme Court has made it clear that 'chowkidarji chor hai'”
The claim asserts that the Supreme Court had made it clear that 'chowkidarji chor hai'. The available record shows the opposite: the Supreme Court clarified that its Rafale verdict made no such observation, and Rahul Gandhi apologised for wrongly attributing the remark to the court. The 10 April 2019 order itself deals with review petitions and document admissibility, not any finding of theft. The claim is therefore directly contradicted by the sources.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
In Amethi on 10 April 2019, Rahul Gandhi said the Supreme Court had made it clear that Prime Minister Narendra Modi ('chowkidar') was a thief, in the context of the Rafale case.
deccanherald.com · reported, 15 Apr 2019
What is actually true
On 15 April 2019, the Supreme Court gave a categorical clarification that in its Rafale verdict there was no occasion for it to make a mention of the observation 'chowkidar Narendra Modi chor hain' as attributed to it by Rahul Gandhi. Rahul Gandhi subsequently tendered an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court for wrongly attributing the remark to the apex court.
The Supreme Court on 15 April 2019 gave a categorical clarification that its Rafale verdict contained no mention of the observation 'chowkidar Narendra Modi chor hain' attributed to it by Rahul Gandhi. [8]
Rahul Gandhi later tendered an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court for wrongly attributing the 'chowkidar chor hai' remark to the apex court. [8]
The Supreme Court's 10 April 2019 order in Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi concerned review petitions and the admissibility of documents, and contains no finding that the Prime Minister was a thief. [2]
The claim asserts that the Supreme Court had made it clear that 'chowkidarji chor hai'. The available record shows the opposite: the Supreme Court clarified that its Rafale verdict made no such observation, and Rahul Gandhi apologised for wrongly attributing the remark to the court. The 10 April 2019 order itself deals with review petitions and document admissibility, not any finding of theft. The claim is therefore directly contradicted by the sources.
How this was checked: Checked against official records