One file for every speaker: hand-checked dossier entries and fact checks drafted by the watch desk agents and approved by an editor. Only claims that have been checked are listed; every one opens onto the evidence behind its rating.
Last discovery run: 15 Oct 2026, 13:26 IST, via rss+tavily, 27 official series retrieved
Part of it is true, but the way it was said gives a wrong picture.
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 12 Oct 2026
“Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Friday (Jul 17) launched a sharp attack on the Centre over repeated examination paper leaks, alleging that India’s education system has reached a stage where leaked question papers are being sold at fixed prices and advanced technology is being misused to manipulate recruitment and entrance exams.”
₹40 lakh for NEET UG 2026, ₹15 lakh for IIT-JEE 2021, ₹1.02 crore
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
₹40 lakh for NEET UG 2026, ₹15 lakh for IIT-JEE 2021
Rahul Gandhi alleged that India’s education system has reached a stage where leaked question papers are being sold at fixed prices and advanced technology is being misused to manipulate recruitment and entrance exams.
wionews.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
₹1.02 crore
attached from main accused in UP paper-leak case, ED, June 2024
enforcementdirectorate.gov.in
The Enforcement Directorate, which investigates financial crimes, said in a June 2024 press release that its investigation found question papers for the UP Police Constable Recruitment Examination-2023 and the UPPSC RO/ARO Exam-2023 were leaked and provided to aspirants for money before the exam date, and it attached ₹1.02 crore belonging to the main accused [7]. The government itself told Parliament that paper leaks and malpractices have occurred across the country, and the Lok Sabha passed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024 to curb them [8]. No official record in the retrieved sources states the fixed prices Gandhi listed or confirms that advanced technology is being misused.
The Enforcement Directorate's June 2024 press release says its investigation found question papers for the UP Police Constable Recruitment Examination-2023 and the UPPSC RO/ARO Exam-2023 were leaked and provided to aspirants for money before the exam date, and ₹1.02 crore belonging to the main accused was attached [7]. [7]
The government told the Lok Sabha that paper leaks and malpractices have occurred in various parts of the country, and Parliament passed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill, 2024 to curb them [8]. [8]
The fixed prices Rahul Gandhi cited — ₹40 lakh for NEET UG 2026, ₹15 lakh for IIT-JEE 2021, ₹10 lakh for Bihar Teacher Recruitment 2024 — come from a chart he displayed, not from any official record [3]. [3]
A Times Now investigation found that papers being sold on Telegram as leaked NEET 2026 papers were fake and the channels demanding money were scams [6]. [6]
The general phenomenon Gandhi describes is real: the Enforcement Directorate's own investigation found leaked question papers were provided to aspirants for money in specific Uttar Pradesh exams, and the government has acknowledged leaks across the country. But the specific 'fixed prices' he listed and the claim that advanced technology is being misused are not confirmed by any official record — the prices come only from his own chart. One investigation into online paper sales found the papers being hawked were fake, which is context that changes how the fixed-price claim reads.
“Education's share in the Union budget has rapidly fallen in last 10 years.”
The claim that education's share of the Union Budget has fallen is supported by an independent analysis showing a decline from 4.6% to 2.5%, but the official Union Budget documents that would state this share are not among the retrieved sources. The PIB releases only provide absolute allocation figures, which have increased year on year, so they do not directly address the share. Because no official document confirms the specific trend, the claim is rated MISSING_CONTEXT rather than ACCURATE.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said education's share in the Union budget has rapidly fallen over the last 10 years.
freepressjournal.in, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The PIB press release for Budget 2025-26 states the Ministry of Education's total allocation was ₹1,28,650 crore, a 6.22% increase over BE 2024-25, and the 2026-27 release states ₹1,39,289.48 crore, an 8.27% increase. These official figures show absolute increases but do not state education's share of the Union Budget. An independent analysis by econiti.org reports the share fell from 4.6% in 2013-14 to 2.5% in 2025-26.
The Ministry of Education's allocation in the 2025-26 Union Budget was ₹1,28,650 crore, a 6.22% increase over the budget estimate for 2024-25, according to a PIB press release. [3]
The 2026-27 allocation is ₹1,39,289.48 crore, an 8.27% increase over BE 2025-26, according to a PIB press release. [7]
An econiti.org analysis says education's share of the Union Budget fell from 4.6% in 2013-14 to 2.5% in 2025-26, halving in relative terms across 12 years. [1]
The claim that education's share of the Union Budget has fallen is supported by an independent analysis showing a decline from 4.6% to 2.5%, but the official Union Budget documents that would state this share are not among the retrieved sources. The PIB releases only provide absolute allocation figures, which have increased year on year, so they do not directly address the share. Because no official document confirms the specific trend, the claim is rated MISSING_CONTEXT rather than ACCURATE.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
“CJP's Abhijeet Dipke demands CEC Gyanesh Kumar's resignation within 48 hours over alleged voter deletions, warning of nationwide agitation if demands are not met.”
The claim that voter deletions had taken place is accurate as far as it goes: court orders and the Election Commission's own process show deletions occurred. But the claim omits that the Election Commission says deletions are part of a legal revision process with claims and objections, and court records show some deletions were due to duplicate entries or after notice. The demand for the CEC's resignation is a political demand, not a factual claim, and no official body has found the deletions wrongful.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Cockroach Janta Party's Abhijeet Dipke alleged that voter deletions had taken place and demanded that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar resign within 48 hours over them.
msn.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, said in a March 2025 press note that any inclusion or deletion in the electoral roll is governed by the process of appeals under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Telangana High Court orders from 2026 record individual deletions, including one where a name was deleted from one place because it appeared twice. No official body has found that the deletions were wrongful or that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar should resign.
The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision includes deletion of names, and its March 2025 note says inclusions and deletions are governed by legal appeals. [9]
A Telangana High Court order of 23 July 2026 records a voter's name deleted from one place because it appeared at two places in the same constituency. [10]
An Andhra Pradesh High Court order of 2 February 2024 records orders deleting names from electoral rolls after notices under Rules 19 and 20. [12]
The Election Commission capped Form 7 deletion applications at 10 per person after reports of bulk objections, and media reported living electors marked dead in Karnataka. [2][3]
Oneindia reported that CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke demanded the CEC resign within 48 hours and threatened nationwide agitation. [13]
The claim that voter deletions had taken place is accurate as far as it goes: court orders and the Election Commission's own process show deletions occurred. But the claim omits that the Election Commission says deletions are part of a legal revision process with claims and objections, and court records show some deletions were due to duplicate entries or after notice. The demand for the CEC's resignation is a political demand, not a factual claim, and no official body has found the deletions wrongful.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingCockroach Janta Partychecked 12 Oct 2026
“MSP benefits do not reach all marginal farmers.”
The claim is a general statement about reach. The official record shows MSP access is conditional: only registered farmers with valid land records can sell at MSP, and 1.84 crore farmers benefited in 2024-25. That supports the idea that not every marginal farmer is covered, but no official document in the sources states how many marginal farmers are left out or confirms the claim directly. The government's own note says it aims to reach all farmers, so the claim needs that context.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
The Cockroach Janta Party says that Minimum Support Price (MSP) benefits do not reach all marginal farmers.
cockroachjanata.org · reported, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare's PM-AASHA note of 21 August 2026 says the government has taken initiatives to ensure MSP benefits reach all farmers, including small and marginal farmers, but only registered farmers with valid land records are eligible. A PIB note of 10 October 2025 says procurement is done directly from pre-registered farmers and that 1.84 crore farmers benefited from MSP procurement in 2024-25.
The PM-AASHA note of 21 August 2026 says only registered farmers with valid land records are eligible for MSP procurement. [1]
A PIB note of 10 October 2025 says MSP procurement is done directly from pre-registered farmers and 1.84 crore farmers benefited in 2024-25. [2]
The same PM-AASHA note says the government has taken initiatives to ensure MSP benefits reach all farmers, including small and marginal farmers. [1]
The claim is a general statement about reach. The official record shows MSP access is conditional: only registered farmers with valid land records can sell at MSP, and 1.84 crore farmers benefited in 2024-25. That supports the idea that not every marginal farmer is covered, but no official document in the sources states how many marginal farmers are left out or confirms the claim directly. The government's own note says it aims to reach all farmers, so the claim needs that context.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingDhruv Ratheechecked 12 Oct 2026
“India launched Operation Sindoor—nine precise cross-border actions on 7 May”
nine precise cross-border actions, 9 terror camps
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
nine precise cross-border actions
Dhruv Rathee said India launched Operation Sindoor, consisting of nine precise cross-border actions, on 7 May.
open.spotify.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
9 terror camps
terror camps targeted in Operation Sindoor, MEA, 2026
mea.gov.in
The Ministry of External Affairs says multi-agency intelligence provided confirmation of nine major camps targeted in Operation Sindoor. PIB says Operation Sindoor destroyed nine major terror launchpads. The official PIB document also records the first press briefing on 7 May 2025, but does not state the date the operation was launched.
The Ministry of External Affairs confirms that nine major camps were targeted in Operation Sindoor. [3]
PIB says India launched Operation Sindoor to destroy terror bases and eliminated nine terror camps. [1][5]
ORF reports the operation began on the night of 6-7 May 2025; Firstpost says strikes took place at 1.44 am on 7 May. [2][4]
The claim is largely accurate: official records confirm Operation Sindoor and nine terror camps, and the date 7 May is consistent with the first press briefing and reporting. However, the official documents retrieved do not explicitly state the launch date as 7 May; that date comes from non-official sources. Since the official record does not confirm every specific, the verdict is MISSING_CONTEXT rather than ACCURATE.
“"The BJP government gave a Bharat Ratna to (MS) Swaminathan but is not ready to do what he worked his entire life for. Swaminathan ji in his report said farmers should have the legal right on MSP. The BJP government is unable to give this," said Rahul Gandhi.”
The Bharat Ratna part is confirmed by the official PIB announcement. But the claim that Swaminathan's report recommended a legal right on MSP is not established by any official document in the retrieved record; the report itself is absent. Media reporting adds that the Congress promised legal MSP and that the UPA government had not accepted the Swaminathan Commission recommendations in 2010, context the claim omits. So the claim is not fully accurate and leaves out that context.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said the BJP government gave a Bharat Ratna to MS Swaminathan but is not ready to do what he worked his entire life for, and is unable to give farmers the legal right on MSP that Swaminathan's report recommended.
indiatoday.in, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
A Press Information Bureau release of 9 February 2024 says the Government of India conferred the Bharat Ratna, the highest civilian award, on Dr M.S. Swaminathan [5][6]. The retrieved record contains no Swaminathan Commission report or official document stating that the report recommended a legal right on MSP. Media reporting says the Congress promised a legal MSP guarantee 'as per the Swaminathan Commission' and that the UPA government had not accepted the recommendations in 2010 [8].
The Press Information Bureau announced on 9 February 2024 that the Government of India was conferring the Bharat Ratna on Dr M.S. Swaminathan. [5][6]
Hindustan Times reported that the Congress promised a legal MSP guarantee 'as per the Swaminathan Commission' and that the UPA government had not accepted the recommendations in 2010. [8]
The PIB announcement does not mention any legal right on MSP. [5][6]
The Bharat Ratna part is confirmed by the official PIB announcement. But the claim that Swaminathan's report recommended a legal right on MSP is not established by any official document in the retrieved record; the report itself is absent. Media reporting adds that the Congress promised legal MSP and that the UPA government had not accepted the Swaminathan Commission recommendations in 2010, context the claim omits. So the claim is not fully accurate and leaves out that context.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingPawan Khera, Congress (Indian National Congress)checked 12 Oct 2026
“What do you have to say about the act of war Pakistan has been carrying out against us for years?”
The claim uses 'act of war' as if it is an established description of Pakistan's conduct. The official record describes Pakistan's actions as cross-border terrorism, not as an act of war, and the 'act of war' phrase in the sources is Pakistan's warning about India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. So the underlying accusation of terrorism is present, but the legal label 'act of war for years' is not confirmed and omits that the term comes from Pakistan's warning.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Pawan Khera said Pakistan has been carrying out an act of war against India for years, in response to Pakistan's warning that diverting Indus waters would be treated as an act of war.
thenewsmill.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Press Information Bureau's 14 May 2025 release on Operation Sindoor says India acted after the 22 April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack and suspended the Indus Waters Treaty until Pakistan 'credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism'. It describes Pakistan's actions as terrorism and terror bases, not as an act of war. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, at the UN, warned that diverting Indus waters would be treated as an act of war.
The PIB release says India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty after the April 2025 Pahalgam attack, citing Pakistan's support for cross-border terrorism. [1]
Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif warned at the UN that diverting Indus waters would be treated as an act of war. [5]
The PIB release describes Pakistan's actions as terrorism and terror bases, not as an act of war. [1]
The claim uses 'act of war' as if it is an established description of Pakistan's conduct. The official record describes Pakistan's actions as cross-border terrorism, not as an act of war, and the 'act of war' phrase in the sources is Pakistan's warning about India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. So the underlying accusation of terrorism is present, but the legal label 'act of war for years' is not confirmed and omits that the term comes from Pakistan's warning.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingAam Aadmi Partychecked 12 Oct 2026
“We have been saying that Gujarat has emerged as a major gateway for drugs in the country.”
The claim is a characterisation about Gujarat's role nationally. The official record confirms significant drug seizures and notes that Gujarat's long coastline and ports create trafficking challenges, but it does not rank Gujarat against other states or call it 'a major gateway for the country'. Without that official comparison or label, the assertion is not fully established.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP asserted that Gujarat has emerged as a major gateway for drugs in the country.
babushahi.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
A Home Ministry reply in Rajya Sabha on 13 December 2023 says Gujarat has vast maritime borders that pose challenges to containing maritime trafficking, and it lists NCRB drug seizure data under the NDPS Act for 2018-2022. A PIB release of 15 November 2024 records a joint seizure of about 700 kg of methamphetamine in Gujarat's territorial waters. Neither document, nor the April 2025 Rajya Sabha reply on Gujarat seizures, describes Gujarat as a major gateway for drugs or compares its role with other states.
A Rajya Sabha answer from the Home Ministry states that Gujarat has vast maritime borders that pose challenges before law enforcement agencies to contain maritime trafficking of drugs. [3]
The same answer includes National Crime Records Bureau data on drug-wise seizures under the NDPS Act in Gujarat from 2018 to 2022, including cannabis-based, opium-based and psychotropic drugs. [3]
A PIB release of 15 November 2024 says the Narcotics Control Bureau, Indian Navy and Gujarat Police ATS together seized about 700 kg of methamphetamine from a vessel in India's territorial waters. [4]
An April 2025 Rajya Sabha answer gives quantities of prohibited narcotic drugs seized in Gujarat from 2022 to January 2025 and lists government measures against trafficking, but does not use the term 'major gateway'. [6]
Some Gujarat news reports describe the state as a major drug hub or transit route, citing more than 1.3 lakh kg of narcotics seized over 2020-2025. [2]
The claim is a characterisation about Gujarat's role nationally. The official record confirms significant drug seizures and notes that Gujarat's long coastline and ports create trafficking challenges, but it does not rank Gujarat against other states or call it 'a major gateway for the country'. Without that official comparison or label, the assertion is not fully established.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)12 Oct 2026
“Modi-ji enacted a law in 2023 granting legal protection to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. They were given immunity not even enjoyed by the President of India or the Chief Justice of the country,”
The first part of the claim is supported: the 2023 Act exists and Section 16 grants protection from court proceedings for official acts. But the comparison to the President and the Chief Justice is not established by any official document in the record; it is the petitioner's argument and an oral observation by a bench. The protection is also limited to acts in discharge of official duty and is under challenge, which the claim omits. That missing context changes how the comparison reads.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Mallikarjun Kharge said that Modi enacted a law in 2023 granting legal protection to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, giving them immunity not enjoyed by the President of India or the Chief Justice.
ndtv.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Parliament passed the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023; a Supreme Court order records it was brought into effect on 2 January 2024. Section 16, as quoted in reporting, bars any court from entertaining or continuing civil or criminal proceedings against a CEC or EC for acts done in discharge of official duty. The Supreme Court has issued notice on a challenge to Section 16 but refused to stay it, and a bench has orally observed the protection is greater than judges' — but no final ruling compares it to the President or Chief Justice.
Parliament enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, and a Supreme Court order records it was brought into effect on 2 January 2024. [7][9]
Section 16 of the Act says no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against a person who is or was a Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner for any act, thing or word done or spoken in the discharge of official duty. [5]
The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging Section 16 but refused to stay the provision. [5]
The argument that this immunity was not granted even to the President, Governors or judges was made by the petitioner Lok Prahari, not by a court. [5][6]
A Supreme Court bench orally remarked that the CEC and Election Commissioners enjoy greater legal immunity than even judges, but no final order in the sources settles that comparison. [4]
The first part of the claim is supported: the 2023 Act exists and Section 16 grants protection from court proceedings for official acts. But the comparison to the President and the Chief Justice is not established by any official document in the record; it is the petitioner's argument and an oral observation by a bench. The protection is also limited to acts in discharge of official duty and is under challenge, which the claim omits. That missing context changes how the comparison reads.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 1 Oct 2026
“In a post on social media platform X, Rahul Gandhi said while Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar "will go", the ...”
727 voters
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
727 voters
Rahul Gandhi, in a post on social media platform X, flagged 727 voter exclusions in Delhi and said Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar "will go".
ndtv.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, said in a 20 March 2025 press note that any addition or deletion to the draft electoral roll is governed by claims and objections under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Reporting of the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer's figures says 47.7 lakh of Delhi's 1.45 crore electors were excluded from the draft roll after the Special Intensive Revision, and eligible voters can file Form 6 by 30 September; the final roll is due on 4 November.
The Election Commission of India's 20 March 2025 press note says inclusions and deletions to the draft electoral roll are governed by the claims and objections process under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [9]
Reporting of the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer's figures says 47.7 lakh of Delhi's 1.45 crore electors were excluded from the draft roll after the Special Intensive Revision, and eligible voters can file Form 6 by 30 September. [7]
News reports say Rahul Gandhi alleged 727 or 728 voters were deleted from Delhi's Bela Estate after the Special Intensive Revision. [1][2]
Separate reporting on the electoral records put the earlier number of registered voters at the Bela Estate polling part at 729, of whom 728 were excluded, leaving one voter, a discrepancy with the figures cited by Gandhi. [4]
The official record confirms that Delhi's draft electoral roll excluded a large number of electors after the Special Intensive Revision, so the broad claim of voter exclusions is not baseless. But the specific 727 figure is not confirmed: reporting on the electoral records says 728 of 729 voters were excluded at Bela Estate, not 727 of 728. The poll body also says the draft roll is not final and eligible voters can be added through Form 6, which changes how the exclusions read. The 'will go' statement is a prediction, not a factual claim that can be checked.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingDhruv Ratheechecked 1 Oct 2026
““One was a Muslim, one a Christian, and the remaining were Hindus.””
one Muslim, one Christian, and the remaining were Hindus
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
one Muslim, one Christian, and the remaining were Hindus
Dhruv Rathee said that of the 26 male victims killed in the 22 April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack in Anantnag, Jammu & Kashmir, one was Muslim, one Christian, and the remainder were Hindus.
thecommunemag.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Press Information Bureau (PIB), the government's official publicity office, said in a 14 May 2025 note that the 22 April 2025 Pahalgam attack killed 26 innocent civilians, mostly Hindu tourists [6]. Home Minister Amit Shah's 29 July 2025 Lok Sabha statement also records 26 people killed but gives no religion-wise breakdown [5]. No official list in the provided record states how many of the dead were Muslim, Christian or Hindu.
The PIB's 14 May 2025 note says the Pahalgam attack killed 26 innocent civilians, mostly Hindu tourists. [6][7]
Wikipedia's entry says the attackers targeted Hindu tourists, though a Christian tourist and a local Muslim pony ride operator were also killed. [1][3]
The same Wikipedia entry also says an initial list verified by local officials showed 25 of the 26 killed were Hindus and one was a local Muslim pony operator. [1]
News18 reported that of the 26 victims, 25 were non-Muslims, primarily Hindus, and the lone Muslim fatality was a local horse operator. [4]
The official record confirms the total of 26 dead and that most were Hindu tourists, but it does not support the precise breakdown Rathee gave. Media reports conflict: one says a Christian tourist was killed, while an initial verified list said 25 Hindus and one Muslim. Because the exact religious composition is not established by the official record and the available reports disagree, the claim needs that missing context.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingDhruv Ratheechecked 1 Oct 2026
“In the GST Council meeting held on December 21, 2024, crucial tax decisions affected everyday items like popcorn and vehicles, dramatically impacting India's middle class.”
18%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee said that in the GST Council meeting held on December 21, 2024, crucial tax decisions affected everyday items like popcorn and vehicles, dramatically impacting India's middle class.
youtube.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
18%
GST on old/used vehicles, 55th Council, 21 Dec 2024
cbic-gst.gov.in
The Ministry of Finance's 21 December 2024 press release on the 55th GST Council meeting says the Council recommended increasing GST from 12% to 18% on the sale of all old and used vehicles, including EVs, with GST applicable only on the margin. It also clarified popcorn rates: 5% for ready-to-eat salted/spiced popcorn sold not pre-packaged or labelled, 12% if pre-packaged and labelled, and 18% for caramel popcorn.
The 55th GST Council met on 21 December 2024 in Jaisalmer, chaired by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. [5][6]
The Council recommended raising GST on old and used vehicles, including EVs, from 12% to 18%, but only on the margin between purchase price and selling price. [5][6]
The Council clarified popcorn GST: 5% for ready-to-eat salted/spiced popcorn sold not pre-packaged or labelled, 12% if pre-packaged and labelled, and 18% for caramel popcorn. [5][6]
The official press release describes the popcorn change as a clarification to settle interpretation disputes; it does not state that the decisions dramatically impact India's middle class. [5][6]
The meeting and the popcorn and vehicle decisions are real, so the first part of the claim is accurate. But the official record does not support the 'dramatically impacting India's middle class' part. The vehicle rate increase applies only to old and used vehicles and only on the margin, not the full sale price, and the popcorn rates are clarifications of existing classification, not a new tax on all popcorn. That context is missing from the claim.
MisleadingSanjay Singh (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
““As far as the impeachment of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is concerned, we have already signed it. If an impeachment motion against Gyanesh Kumar is brought in Parliament and any action is taken, we will join hands with all the opposition parties and fight this battle together.””
130 Lok Sabha and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP MP Sanjay Singh said AAP has already signed an impeachment motion against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and that if such a motion is brought in Parliament the party will join hands with all opposition parties.
editorji.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
130 Lok Sabha and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs
signed notices to remove CEC, official bulletins, April 2026
ddnews.gov.in
Parliament's official bulletins said the Rajya Sabha Chairman and Lok Sabha Speaker refused to admit the impeachment notices against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on 6 April 2026. The notices were signed by 130 Lok Sabha members and 63 Rajya Sabha members, but they do not list signatories by party.
The Rajya Sabha Chairman and Lok Sabha Speaker rejected the impeachment motion notice against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. [2][14]
The Lok Sabha notice was signed by 130 members and the Rajya Sabha notice by 63 members. [2][5][14]
At least 193 opposition MPs signed the notice seeking the CEC's removal. [13]
The available parliamentary records do not identify AAP or its MPs among the signatories. [2][5][14]
The record confirms that opposition MPs moved and signed impeachment notices against the CEC, so the general claim of an impeachment push is accurate. But the notices were rejected by both presiding officers, which the claim does not mention, and no source lists AAP as a signatory. The specific assertion that AAP has already signed is therefore not established by the record.
“If 15-20 lakh youths are unemployed, it is not good for any state, he said.”
15-20 lakh youths, 3.3%
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
15-20 lakh youths
Abhijeet Dipke said that 15-20 lakh youths are unemployed, which is not good for any state.
freepressjournal.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
3.3%
Maharashtra unemployment rate, age 15+, PLFS 2023-24
pib.gov.in
The Ministry of Labour & Employment's Periodic Labour Force Survey data put Maharashtra's unemployment rate for persons aged 15 and above at 3.3% in 2023-24, down from 4.8% in 2017-18. The sources do not state an official count of 15–20 lakh unemployed youths for Maharashtra. Other reported figures include over 71 lakh youth registered as job-seekers with government employment offices in 2025 and 17.76 lakh applications for 17,471 police constable posts.
The Periodic Labour Force Survey reports Maharashtra's unemployment rate among persons aged 15 and above fell from 4.8% in 2017-18 to 3.3% in 2023-24. [2]
An unofficial data article says more than 71 lakh youth were registered as job-seekers with Maharashtra government employment offices in 2025. [6]
Maharashtra Police received 17.76 lakh applications for 17,471 constable posts, indicating a very large number of job applicants in the state. [8]
The speaker's broad point about youth unemployment is consistent with evidence that large numbers of young people in Maharashtra are seeking work. But the specific figure of 15–20 lakh unemployed youths does not appear in official PLFS data, which report only unemployment rates for the state. The number may also understate the reported scale of youth job-seeking, since one data report gives over 71 lakh registered job-seekers.
“केजरीवाल ने दावा किया कि पिछले कुछ वर्षों में बड़ी संख्या में विधायक पाला बदल चुके हैं और इसके पीछे राजनीतिक दबाव, जांच एजेंसियों तथा पैसे के इस्तेमाल जैसे आरोप लगते रहे हैं।”
193
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal claimed that in recent years a large number of MLAs have defected, and allegations of political pressure, investigative agencies, and use of money have persisted behind it.
deshbandhu.co.in, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
193
ED cases against MPs, MLAs and political leaders in ten years, Rajya Sabha answer, March 2025
sansad.in
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), an election watchdog, reported in September 2026 that 111 sitting MPs and MLAs changed parties after being elected since 2022; 78 of them were MLAs. On the Enforcement Directorate, a Rajya Sabha reply of 18 March 2025 put the number of cases registered against MPs, MLAs and political leaders in ten years at 193, with only two convictions, and said the agency does not keep party-wise data or distinguish cases by political affiliation. Neither the ADR analysis nor the official reply links the party switches to political pressure, investigative agencies or money.
ADR counted 111 sitting MPs and MLAs who changed parties after winning elections since 2022; 78 of them were MLAs, along with 26 Lok Sabha and 7 Rajya Sabha MPs. [5][8]
A Rajya Sabha answer said the Enforcement Directorate registered 193 cases against MPs, MLAs, MLCs and political leaders or anyone affiliated with a political party between 2015-16 and February 2025, with two convictions and no acquittals on merit. [6]
The same answer said the ED does not maintain party-wise data on these cases and stated the ED does not distinguish cases based on political affiliation, religion or otherwise. [6]
The ADR report describes which parties gained and lost lawmakers, but it does not present evidence that political pressure, investigative agencies or money caused the switches. [5][8]
The factual core of the claim — that a large number of MLAs switched parties — matches ADR's count of 78 MLAs since 2022. But the claim also says political pressure, investigative agencies and money were behind this, and that is not shown by the provided record. The official Rajya Sabha reply on ED cases against legislators gives no party-wise data and states the agency does not act by political affiliation, while the ADR study lists recipients, not causes. So the defection count is supported, but the causal allegations remain unproven.
“Due to lack of jobs & opportunities in the state, Goan youth migrating to different states and also abroad.”
The claim reflects a real trend reported in Goa: limited opportunities have pushed Goans to look beyond the state and move abroad [9][3]. But it leaves out that many jobs in Goa are filled by outsiders because Goan youth often prefer government or white-collar jobs, and that unemployment is described as underemployment, skill mismatch and a shortage of quality jobs rather than a simple absence of jobs [4]. Official data do not measure Goa-specific youth migration, and the sources do not show data on movement to other Indian states specifically [6][9][3].
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke said that because of a lack of jobs and opportunities in Goa, Goan youth are migrating to other states and abroad.
x.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Labour and Employment told Parliament that migration of workers between states is continuous and dynamic, and it did not provide state-wise data on people who migrated for work after January 2021 [6]. The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation's Periodic Labour Force Survey shows the national youth unemployment rate fell from 17.8% in 2017-18 to 10.0% in 2022-23 [5].
The Ministry of Labour and Employment told Parliament that migration of workers from one state to another is a continuous process and dynamic in nature, and it did not give state-wise data on migrants after January 2021 [6]. [6]
The Periodic Labour Force Survey shows the national youth unemployment rate declined from 17.8% in 2017-18 to 10.0% in 2022-23 [5]. [5]
An Incredible Goa article says Goa's unemployment rate was the third highest in the country and that many youth travelled outside the country in search of employment [3]. [3]
A Goan op-ed says Goa has created many jobs but they are largely filled by people from outside Goa because Goans are not ready to take them; it describes unemployment as underemployment, skill mismatch and shortage of quality jobs acceptable to aspiring youth [4]. [4]
An Incredible Goa article on migration says limited or poorly paid employment opportunities and frustration with unemployment pushed many Goans to look beyond their home state, and thousands have moved abroad [9]. [9]
The claim reflects a real trend reported in Goa: limited opportunities have pushed Goans to look beyond the state and move abroad [9][3]. But it leaves out that many jobs in Goa are filled by outsiders because Goan youth often prefer government or white-collar jobs, and that unemployment is described as underemployment, skill mismatch and a shortage of quality jobs rather than a simple absence of jobs [4]. Official data do not measure Goa-specific youth migration, and the sources do not show data on movement to other Indian states specifically [6][9][3].
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingAbhijeet Dipkechecked 1 Oct 2026
“Trust in judiciary, EC eroded”
The claim states an erosion of trust as a settled fact, but the retrieved record contains only media commentary, not an independent survey or official measure of public trust. The body at the centre of the claim, the Election Commission, publicly asserts that trust remains intact. The court record does not address the question, so the erosion is asserted rather than demonstrated.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke said that trust in the judiciary and the Election Commission has eroded.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, at a media conference on 17 July 2026, said the highest-ever poll participation in recent Assembly elections was proof of the trust Indian electors have in the electoral system [12]. The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment on the Special Intensive Revision upheld the Commission's mandate and made no finding about eroded public trust [7][8]. In contrast, several opinion pieces and editorials state that trust in the Election Commission has eroded, and one describes courts as having remained 'mute spectators' and 'collaborators' in the controversy [1][3][4][5].
A Hindustan Times commentary says 'People's trust in the EC has eroded' and notes opposition claims of partisanship against the Chief Election Commissioner. [1]
Frontline and Asian Age pieces use phrases such as 'erosion of public trust', 'trust eroded', and one says courts remained mute spectators and became collaborators in the Election Commission controversy. [3][4]
The Election Commission said on 17 July 2026 that the highest-ever poll participation in recent Assembly elections was proof of electors' trust in the electoral system. [12]
The claim states an erosion of trust as a settled fact, but the retrieved record contains only media commentary, not an independent survey or official measure of public trust. The body at the centre of the claim, the Election Commission, publicly asserts that trust remains intact. The court record does not address the question, so the erosion is asserted rather than demonstrated.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingArvind Kejriwalchecked 1 Oct 2026
“The AAP leader further alleged that the Election Commission was being run by the CEC without adequate participation of the other two commissioners.”
Kejriwal's statement describes the Commission as run by the CEC without adequate participation of the other two Commissioners. That is not what the Election Commission's own record says: its press note describes key SIR decisions as unanimous. But independent reporting documents repeated internal objections by the two Election Commissioners, including over orders issued without their knowledge, so the claim is disputed rather than settled one way.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal alleged that the Election Commission was being run by CEC Gyanesh Kumar without adequate participation of the other two commissioners.
hindustantimes.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, said in a press note on 26 September 2026 that the Special Intensive Revision orders of 24 June 2025 and schedules of 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. But The New Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times over 10 months, and that Sandhu flagged communications being issued in the Commission's name without approval from the full Commission. The Hindu also reported that the two Commissioners had flagged anomalies in the SIR process.
An Election Commission press note of 26 September 2026 states that SIR orders and schedules were issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission. [9]
The New Indian Express reported Sandhu and Joshi raised objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months, with Sandhu flagging communications issued in the Election Commission's name without full Commission approval. [1]
The Hindu reported that the two Election Commissioners had flagged many anomalies in the ongoing SIR process over the last 10 months. [7]
Kejriwal's statement describes the Commission as run by the CEC without adequate participation of the other two Commissioners. That is not what the Election Commission's own record says: its press note describes key SIR decisions as unanimous. But independent reporting documents repeated internal objections by the two Election Commissioners, including over orders issued without their knowledge, so the claim is disputed rather than settled one way.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingSaurav Daschecked 30 Sept 2026
“Now just imagine how insulting this is. If BJP governments had put this much energy into addressing the real problems of Anganwadi workers, such as extremely low salaries (Rs 5,000 to 10,000), heavy workload, shortage of staff, lack of social security or health facilities, and Anganwadi centres operating in dilapidated buildings, then perhaps these women would not have needed anyone to order them to praise them.”
Rs 5,000 to 10,000
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rs 5,000 to 10,000
Saurav Das said Anganwadi workers face extremely low salaries of Rs 5,000 to 10,000, heavy workload, staff shortage, lack of social security or health facilities, and Anganwadi centres operating in dilapidated buildings.
news.abplive.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The parliamentary answers retrieved on facilities at Anganwadi (Lok Sabha questions 425 and 3392) are truncated and state no figure in the text provided, so no official document in the retrieved record states the honorarium range or addresses workload, staffing, social security or building condition. Non-official material shows a more varied pay picture: a news report says West Bengal notified a ₹5,000 monthly hike bringing Anganwadi workers to ₹14,000 from 1 August 2026, and a state-wise comparison lists ₹15,000 in Maharashtra, ₹13,000 in Karnataka and ₹10,000 in Uttar Pradesh.
A news report states the West Bengal government notified a flat ₹5,000 a month increase for Anganwadi workers, bringing their pay to ₹14,000 per month effective 1 August 2026. [3]
A 2026 state-wise comparison article lists Anganwadi worker pay at ₹15,000 in Maharashtra, ₹13,000 in Karnataka and ₹10,000 in Uttar Pradesh. [5]
Anganwadi workers in most states are classified as honorary workers paid through the Integrated Child Development Services scheme, not as regular government employees. [4]
The retrieved Lok Sabha answers on facilities at Anganwadi do not state a figure on honorarium, workload, staffing, social security or building condition in the text provided. [1][2]
The salary range in the claim captures only part of the picture. Non-official sources show some states pay at or below ₹10,000 a month, but several now pay above the claimed top end — Karnataka ₹13,000, Maharashtra ₹15,000 and West Bengal ₹14,000 after a 2026 hike. The other parts of the claim — heavy workload, staff shortage, lack of social security or health facilities, and dilapidated buildings — are not supported by any retrieved source. The official parliamentary answers that would normally state the honorarium schedule and staffing data are truncated in the retrieved text.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingSaurav Daschecked 30 Sept 2026
“CJP Live Updates: ‘System Is Broken And Corrupt’: Saurav Das Calls For Change”
The claim is a subjective generalisation. While official sources acknowledge corruption in specific sectors like the public distribution system and outline anti-corruption measures, they do not support a sweeping statement that the system as a whole is broken and corrupt. The statement omits that these are targeted findings with official responses, not evidence of systemic breakdown. Therefore the claim is missing context rather than accurate or false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Saurav Das said the system is broken and corrupt and called for change.
timesnownews.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Consumer Affairs told the Rajya Sabha that there have been complaints about irregularities and corruption in the public distribution system, and the government has taken measures such as computerisation. The Government of India has also listed measures to combat corruption across departments. However, no official document in the provided record supports the assertion that the entire system is broken and corrupt; the documents show specific instances and official responses.
The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution told the Rajya Sabha that there have been complaints about irregularities in the Targeted Public Distribution System including corruption, and the government has taken measures like computerisation. [3]
The Government of India has stated it has taken several measures to combat corruption, including discontinuing interviews for Group 'B' and 'C' posts and amending service rules on disciplinary timelines. [1][2]
Media reports record Saurav Das saying the electoral system is corrupt and broken, but these reports do not provide independent evidence that the entire system is broken and corrupt; they only report his opinion. [11][12]
The claim is a subjective generalisation. While official sources acknowledge corruption in specific sectors like the public distribution system and outline anti-corruption measures, they do not support a sweeping statement that the system as a whole is broken and corrupt. The statement omits that these are targeted findings with official responses, not evidence of systemic breakdown. Therefore the claim is missing context rather than accurate or false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
““Having a house or not has no connection to the right to vote. These people have been living here for decades. They have already voted in the 2024 Lok Sabha election and the 2025 Delhi election,””
The claim that the residents lived there for decades and voted in the 2024 Lok Sabha and 2025 Delhi elections is not confirmed by the official record. What the record shows is that they were on the electoral roll at Bela Estate and were then removed from the draft roll in the Special Intensive Revision. The Election Commission's stated reason was demolished homes, and the process has legal safeguards. The claim leaves out the Election Commission's action and the reason it gave.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said that not having a house has no connection to the right to vote, and that the Bela Estate JJ cluster residents have lived there for decades and have already voted in the 2024 Lok Sabha election and the 2025 Delhi election.
thehindu.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 25 July 2026 on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) says the exercise is meant to make electoral rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries while ensuring no eligible elector is left out, with safeguards such as door-to-door visits, recorded reasons for deletion, claims and objections, and appeals. It also records that the Supreme Court upheld the SIR process on 27 May 2026. News reports on Bela Estate say 728 of the 729 voters at the cluster's polling part were dropped from the draft roll, and the Election Commission linked the deletions to demolished homes.
The Election Commission's SIR press note says the revision is being done with safeguards so that no eligible elector is left out. [5]
The Supreme Court held on 27 May 2026 that the SIR exercise is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate. [5]
News reports say 728 of 729 voters at Bela Estate were dropped from the draft roll, leaving only one voter. [1][2]
The Election Commission linked the Bela Estate deletions to demolished homes, according to the report. [2]
The Election Commission's 2024 Lok Sabha data is aggregate and does not show whether Bela Estate residents voted. [3]
The claim that the residents lived there for decades and voted in the 2024 Lok Sabha and 2025 Delhi elections is not confirmed by the official record. What the record shows is that they were on the electoral roll at Bela Estate and were then removed from the draft roll in the Special Intensive Revision. The Election Commission's stated reason was demolished homes, and the process has legal safeguards. The claim leaves out the Election Commission's action and the reason it gave.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“He tweeted the video with a Hindi post where he wrote that 728 people live in the region and that after the SIR, only one name remains on the voter list while the other 727 names have been struck off.”
728 people live in Bela Estate; only one name remains, 727 s
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
728 people live in Bela Estate; only one name remains, 727 s
Rahul Gandhi said in a Hindi post that 728 people live in Bela Estate, Delhi, and that after the SIR only one name remains on the voter list while the other 727 names have been struck off.
indiatoday.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 25 July 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision in Delhi is being carried out with safeguards and that deletions are made only for death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries or untraceable electors. ThePrint reports that the polling station covering Bela Estate had 909 voters in January 2025 and 729 in August 2026, and that two named Bela Estate residents were listed as 'permanently shifted' in the Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi's ASDD list and have submitted Form 6 for re-registration.
The Election Commission's 25 July 2026 press note says SIR deletions are made only after verification for death, permanent shifting of residence, duplicate entries or untraceable electors, and that affected voters can file claims and objections. [6][8]
ThePrint reported that the polling station covering Bela Estate had 909 voters in January 2025 and 729 voters in August 2026, not one, though the JJ cluster of Bela Estate was left with one voter. [4]
ThePrint also reported that two named Bela Estate residents were listed as 'permanently shifted' in the Chief Electoral Officer Delhi's ASDD list and have submitted Form 6 for registration as new voters. [4]
The core event is corroborated in reporting, but Rahul Gandhi's numbers are not confirmed in any Election Commission document in the record. The fuller picture shows a polling station with 729 voters, not a single name, and election officials explaining the deletions through the ASDD list as 'permanently shifted', with residents able to file Form 6. That context changes how the 'only one name remains' claim reads.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
“This government is deaf to your pain and will only listen when it's under pressure”
The statement is a political judgement about the government's motives, not a measurable factual claim. The official record shows both sides: crimes against women have increased and systemic problems remain, but the government has also created many schemes and laws. The think-tank source supports the view that reform slows when public pressure fades, but no official finding states that the government is deaf to women's pain or acts only under pressure. The claim omits existing measures, so it needs that context.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said the government is deaf to people's pain over crimes against women and will only listen when it is under public pressure.
newindianexpress.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
National Crime Records Bureau figures tabled in a Rajya Sabha answer on 23 July 2025 show registered crimes against women rose from 3,78,236 in 2018 to 4,45,256 in 2022. A parliamentary standing committee reported in March 2021 that such crimes are often not registered at police stations and conviction rates are low. At the same time, the Ministry of Women and Child Development has listed many responses: One Stop Centres, Women Helpline 181, emergency number 112, fast-track courts and laws such as the 2013 workplace sexual harassment Act.
National Crime Records Bureau data tabled in Rajya Sabha show crimes against women registered in India rose from 3,78,236 in 2018 to 4,45,256 in 2022. [4]
A parliamentary standing committee noted in 2021 that crimes against women and children are often not registered at police stations and the conviction rate is low. [7]
The Ministry of Women and Child Development has documented measures including One Stop Centres, Women Helpline 181, the 112 emergency system, fast-track courts and legislation such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the 2013 workplace sexual harassment law. [4][5][6]
A policy analysis says institutional reform on women's safety loses urgency once public attention fades, which partly supports the idea that public pressure drives action. [2]
The statement is a political judgement about the government's motives, not a measurable factual claim. The official record shows both sides: crimes against women have increased and systemic problems remain, but the government has also created many schemes and laws. The think-tank source supports the view that reform slows when public pressure fades, but no official finding states that the government is deaf to women's pain or acts only under pressure. The claim omits existing measures, so it needs that context.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingAkhilesh Yadavchecked 30 Sept 2026
“10 महीने में चुनाव आयोग के दो निर्वाचन आयुक्तों ने गलत फैसलों पर 14 आपत्तियां दर्ज कराईं। लेकिन, कुछ नहीं हुआ।”
The number of objections and the identity of the two Election Commissioners are supported by the record, so that part of the claim is accurate. But the record does not show an official finding that the decisions were 'wrong'; the Commission said they were unanimous. The claim that 'nothing happened' also leaves out the Commission's public response and its 26 September press note, though no source shows that any objected-to decision was reversed. The omission of that response is why the claim is better read with context rather than accepted or rejected outright.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Akhilesh Yadav said that in 10 months two election commissioners of the Election Commission filed 14 objections against wrong decisions, but nothing happened.
bhaskar.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
An Indian Express investigation, reported by multiple outlets, found that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded at least 14 formal objections over 10 months to orders issued in the Election Commission's name without their knowledge or approval. In response, the Commission said all its decisions, including those on the Special Intensive Revision, were unanimous and that the concerns did not change final decisions. On 26 September 2026, the full Commission issued a press note stating that directions by Commissioners must be complied with and that some work-redistribution orders had not actually been implemented.
Two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, recorded at least 14 formal objections over 10 months to orders issued in the Election Commission's name without their knowledge or approval. [1]
The objections concerned electoral roll management, including registration and deletion of voters, changes to Form 6, appeals against voters included during the Special Intensive Revision in West Bengal, and software issues in Goa. [1]
The Election Commission said its decisions, including those on the Special Intensive Revision, were unanimous and that the concerns raised by the two commissioners did not alter the Commission's final decisions. [6]
The full Commission later issued a press note on 26 September 2026 stating that all directions issued by Commissioners must be meticulously complied with and that some work-redistribution orders had not actually been implemented. [11]
The number of objections and the identity of the two Election Commissioners are supported by the record, so that part of the claim is accurate. But the record does not show an official finding that the decisions were 'wrong'; the Commission said they were unanimous. The claim that 'nothing happened' also leaves out the Commission's public response and its 26 September press note, though no source shows that any objected-to decision was reversed. The omission of that response is why the claim is better read with context rather than accepted or rejected outright.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingRahul Gandhichecked 30 Sept 2026
““728 people live in Bela Estate along the Yamuna. After SIR, only one name remained on the voter list, the other 727 names were deleted,” Gandhi said.”
The arithmetic in the claim matches what reports and the Election Commission's explanation describe. But saying the names were deleted without noting that this is a draft roll, that the removals are attributed to demolished homes, and that affected voters can still be added back through claims and objections leaves out context that changes how the deletion appears. The claim is therefore accurate only up to a point, not as a complete account.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rahul Gandhi said that 728 people live in Bela Estate along the Yamuna and that after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), only one name remained on the voter list, with the other 727 names deleted.
freepressjournal.in, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
News reports and the Election Commission's explanation say that only one name remained on the draft electoral roll at Bela Estate's polling station after the Special Intensive Revision, with nearly 99.8% of names removed. The Election Commission says the removals followed demolition of homes in the area, and that eligible voters can seek inclusion during the claims and objections period. The Supreme Court has also said that deletions under the Special Intensive Revision were not contrary to the prescribed procedure.
News reports state that after the Special Intensive Revision at Bela Estate, only one of 728 voters remained on the draft electoral roll, with 727 names removed. [1][6]
The Election Commission said the names were removed because homes in the area had been demolished, and that eligible voters can seek inclusion during the claims and objections period. [1][3]
This is a draft electoral roll, not a final roll; the Election Commission's process provides for claims and objections and for restoration of valid names before finalisation. [10]
The Supreme Court has held that deletions under the Special Intensive Revision were not contrary to the procedure prescribed under the election rules. [12]
The arithmetic in the claim matches what reports and the Election Commission's explanation describe. But saying the names were deleted without noting that this is a draft roll, that the removals are attributed to demolished homes, and that affected voters can still be added back through claims and objections leaves out context that changes how the deletion appears. The claim is therefore accurate only up to a point, not as a complete account.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026
“His two fellow members have written 14 times in 10 months! It questions his very integrity and intentions. Therefore, he should be removed from his position.”
14 times in 10 months
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
14 times in 10 months
Kharge said in September 2026 that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's two fellow Election Commissioners had written 14 times in 10 months, which he said questions the CEC's integrity, and that the CEC should be removed from his position.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 states that the SIR orders issued on 24 June 2025, 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission, and that the press note itself has the approval of the full Commission. No official document in the record confirms that the two Election Commissioners wrote 14 objections; the number appears in media reports tracing it to an investigation by The Indian Express.
Media reports trace the figure of 14 objections in 10 months to an investigation by The Indian Express, saying the objections came from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. [2][5][6]
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the SIR orders were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission, and the press note has the approval of the full Commission. [10]
The number Kharge quoted rests on a newspaper investigation, not an official record. The Election Commission's own press note says the SIR decisions were unanimous and approved by the full Commission, which disputes the framing of one-man decision-making. Because the claim omits that denial, the matter is disputed rather than settled.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
“Mr. Singh also questioned the deletion of names from electoral rolls and alleged that 13.37 crore names had been removed across the country.”
The number itself is supported by media reporting, so it is not false. But the claim says names had been removed from electoral rolls without noting that the figure is from draft rolls and that the SIR process includes a statutory window for claims, objections and restoration. That omission could make a large routine revision look like permanent disenfranchisement.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP MP Sanjay Singh alleged that 13.37 crore names had been removed from electoral rolls across the country.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
News reports said around 13.37 crore names were deleted from draft electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories during the Special Intensive Revision, with Indian Express reporting over 13 crore deletions so far. The Election Commission's SIR process removes names after verification by Booth Level Officers for reasons such as death, permanent shifting of residence, duplicate entries or being untraceable. Draft-roll deletions can be contested through a claims and objections period before the final roll is published, and wrongly removed voters can be restored.
Indian Express and Outlook reported around 13.37 crore deletions from draft electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision. [1][6]
The Election Commission's SIR process deletes names only after verification by Booth Level Officers, for reasons such as death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries or untraceable voters. [4][9]
There is a claims and objections period after the draft roll is published, and names found to have been wrongly removed can be restored before the final roll. [4][8]
The reported 13.37 crore deletions are draft-roll deletions across 30 States and Union Territories, not necessarily final removals from the electoral roll. [6]
The number itself is supported by media reporting, so it is not false. But the claim says names had been removed from electoral rolls without noting that the figure is from draft rolls and that the SIR process includes a statutory window for claims, objections and restoration. That omission could make a large routine revision look like permanent disenfranchisement.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingDhruv Rathee28 Sept 2026
“This video breaks down what Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly raised”
The claim is that the two Election Commissioners reportedly raised objections or concerns inside the Election Commission. That is supported by reporting, including the Indian Express investigation. But the official record from the Election Commission says the SIR decisions were unanimous, which is important context the claim leaves out. So the claim is not false, but it is incomplete.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee says Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly raised objections or concerns inside the Election Commission of India.
youtube.com, 28 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India's press note of 26 September 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) order of 24 June 2025 and the schedules of 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. It also says work re-distribution orders were not actually implemented after the orders of the two Commissioners.
The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions issued in the Commission's name without their knowledge or approval. [2][5]
The reported objections related to electoral roll management, voter registration and deletion, changes to Form 6, and the functioning of the Commission's voter database. [2][5]
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the SIR orders were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission, but it does not say the two Commissioners raised no objections on other matters. [9]
The claim is that the two Election Commissioners reportedly raised objections or concerns inside the Election Commission. That is supported by reporting, including the Indian Express investigation. But the official record from the Election Commission says the SIR decisions were unanimous, which is important context the claim leaves out. So the claim is not false, but it is incomplete.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingDhruv Rathee28 Sept 2026
“An Indian Express investigation has revealed internal objections over voter lists, ECINet, Form 6 and the SIR process. This video breaks down what Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly raised, the questions surrounding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and the Election Commission’s response.”
The claim is accurate about what the Indian Express investigation reported, but it presents those reported objections as established fact. The Election Commission's own record says the SIR decisions were unanimous and describes the reported objections as part of the normal deliberative process. Because the official record does not confirm the internal objections over voter lists, ECINet, Form 6 and SIR, the claim needs that context.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee states that an Indian Express investigation revealed internal objections inside the Election Commission of India over voter lists, ECINet, Form 6 and the SIR process, raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, with questions surrounding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
youtube.com, 28 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the SIR orders of 24 June 2025, 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission [11]. It also says work re-distribution orders were not implemented after the orders of the two Commissioners and oversight over the IT division by the DEC was never actually withdrawn [11]. Reporting says the Indian Express investigation claimed the two Election Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections over 10 months on voter registration, deletions, database and appeals [6][8].
The Indian Express report, as described by Livemint and Hindustan Times, said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised at least 14 objections over 10 months about the Election Commission's functioning, including adding and removing voters, the voter database and appeals [6][8]. [6][8]
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 states that SIR orders were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission [11]. [11]
Election Commission officials told Hindustan Times that all decisions, including SIR, were unanimous and had the approval of both Election Commissioners and the CEC [8]. [8]
The claim is accurate about what the Indian Express investigation reported, but it presents those reported objections as established fact. The Election Commission's own record says the SIR decisions were unanimous and describes the reported objections as part of the normal deliberative process. Because the official record does not confirm the internal objections over voter lists, ECINet, Form 6 and SIR, the claim needs that context.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingArvind Kejriwal23 Sept 2026
“Kejriwal alleged that the Election Commission was being run by the CEC alone and claimed that orders and official communications had been issued without the approval of the full Commission.”
The claim is not established as fact. The ECI's own statement denies it, but that is the accused body's position. Independent reporting shows the matter is disputed, with the two Election Commissioners reportedly raising the same concern. The claim therefore omits the official denial and the contested nature of the allegation, so it is MISSING_CONTEXT rather than FALSE or ACCURATE.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal alleged that the Election Commission is being run by the CEC alone and that orders and official communications were issued without the approval of the full Commission.
etvbharat.com, 23 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The ECI's 26 September 2026 press note states that the SIR order of 24 June 2025 and subsequent schedules were issued with unanimous approval of the Commission, and that the press note itself has the approval of the full Commission. However, Indian Express and Newslaundry report an internal rift, with Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi objecting to CEC Gyanesh Kumar over roll deletions and raising the issue of letters and orders issued in the Commission's name without its approval.
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the SIR order of 24 June 2025 and the schedules of 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026 were issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. [1]
The same press note says work redistribution orders were not actually implemented after the orders of the two Commissioners, and oversight over the IT division by the DEC was never actually withdrawn. [1]
Indian Express reported an internal rift, with Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objecting to CEC Gyanesh Kumar over roll deletions and flagging illegal changes. [8]
Newslaundry reported that a letter dated October 28, 2025 highlighted the issue Election Commissioners took on letters and orders issued in the Commission's name without its approval. [4]
The claim is not established as fact. The ECI's own statement denies it, but that is the accused body's position. Independent reporting shows the matter is disputed, with the two Election Commissioners reportedly raising the same concern. The claim therefore omits the official denial and the contested nature of the allegation, so it is MISSING_CONTEXT rather than FALSE or ACCURATE.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingAkhilesh Yadav23 Sept 2026
“he referred to reports that two election commissioners had formally objected 14 times in the last 10 months to decisions made by the Commission.”
14 times in 10 months
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
14 times in 10 months
Akhilesh Yadav said two election commissioners had formally objected 14 times in the last 10 months to decisions made by the Election Commission.
hindustantimes.com, 23 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission, which runs elections, has said that all decisions taken in recent months were unanimous and has rejected suggestions of a formal rift. The Indian Express investigation reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions issued in the Commission's name without their knowledge or approval. No official document from the Commission or a court in the provided record confirms the 14 objections; the Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 order on the Bihar Special Intensive Revision does not mention them.
The Indian Express investigation reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders issued in the name of the Election Commission without their knowledge or approval. [5][2][6]
The Election Commission rejected suggestions of a formal rift and maintained that final decisions, including those relating to the Special Intensive Revision, were unanimous. [4][6]
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 order on the Bihar Special Intensive Revision does not mention any objections by the two Election Commissioners. [8]
The claim rests on a media investigation, not an official record. The Election Commission itself says its decisions were unanimous and denies a formal rift. Because the only support is press reporting and the official body disputes it, the claim omits the context that the 14 objections are reported, not officially confirmed.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingDhruv Rathee24 Jul 2026
“What really happened during the students’ Parliament march in Delhi on 20 July 2026?”
The claim that a students' march towards Parliament took place in Delhi on 20 July 2026 is supported by contemporaneous media reporting, but the official record available only confirms that Parliament's Monsoon Session began that day. Because press reports alone cannot make the claim accurate, and the record leaves out that the march was CJP-led and was stopped short of Parliament, the claim is missing context rather than fully established.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Dhruv Rathee states that a students' Parliament march took place in Delhi on 20 July 2026 as part of a protest over students' demands.
youtube.com, 24 Jul 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs recorded that the Monsoon Session of Parliament commenced on 20 July 2026 [3][6]. Reporting describes a CJP-led student march moving from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament that day, which police stopped with barricades and tear gas [2][5][1]. No official document among the sources confirms the march itself or labels it as a protest over students' demands.
The Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs recorded that Parliament's Monsoon Session began on 20 July 2026. [3][6]
Contemporaneous reporting describes a CJP-led student march that moved from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament in Delhi on 20 July 2026. [2][5]
Police used barricades and tear gas to stop the crowd entering Parliament's high-security complex. [1][2][5]
The CJP protest was linked to student concerns, including demands for the resignation of the Union education minister. [4]
The claim that a students' march towards Parliament took place in Delhi on 20 July 2026 is supported by contemporaneous media reporting, but the official record available only confirms that Parliament's Monsoon Session began that day. Because press reports alone cannot make the claim accurate, and the record leaves out that the march was CJP-led and was stopped short of Parliament, the claim is missing context rather than fully established.
How this was checked: Checked against official records