Skip to content
Tathya ShastraTATHYASHASTRASTUDYOFFACTSTSTathya Shastra

What they said and what is true

What they said. What is actually true.

Every statement here is compared with what official records say — court orders, government data, Parliament's answers. Not true means the record shows otherwise. Misleading means part of it is right but the picture it gives is wrong. Every check links to the documents so you can read them yourself.

Whose claims this record follows

  • Rahul Gandhi

    Rahul Gandhi

    115 checked

  • Akhilesh Yadav

    Akhilesh Yadav

    54 checked

  • AD

    Abhijeet Dipke

    23 checked

  • Dhruv Rathee

    Dhruv Rathee

    22 checked

  • SP

    Samajwadi Party

    20 checked

  • INC

    Indian National Congress

    18 checked

  • Arvind Kejriwal

    Arvind Kejriwal

    17 checked

  • Cockroach Janta Party

    Cockroach Janta Party

    12 checked

  • AAP

    Aam Aadmi Party

    12 checked

  • SD

    Saurav Das

    9 checked

All claims

310 in view

Who said it

Rahul Gandhi

116 claims, Showing 3 of 116

  • Disputed: the documents do not settle it

    Were there 1,00,250 fake votes in one Bengaluru seat?

    “Both Shakun Ranis voted. This is proof of double voting.”

    Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition, Lok Sabha, 7 August 2025

    Rahul Gandhi said the Mahadevapura assembly segment had 1,00,250 suspect entries and that this won the BJP the Bangalore Central seat. No audit, court or investigation has tested that total. The one case he called proof does not hold up on what has been published: Karnataka's Chief Electoral Officer says the voter told officials she voted once, and that the marked document shown was not issued by a polling officer. Errors on a roll are real and worth fixing, but an error is not the same as a fraudulent vote. He has not filed the sworn declaration the Commission asked for. We could not find official copies of either the Commission's or the Chief Electoral Officer's letters, so this card rests on press reports.

  • 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 shows

    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]

    [10] PDF Expenditure Budget 2026-2027 — indiabudget.gov.in[13] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[15] Education ministry's share of the Union Budget has halved in ... — econiti.org

    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 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 shows

    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]

    [3] India’s GDP Performance — static.pib.gov.in[4] India’s GDP Performance - Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in

    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.

    Open official seriesHow this was checked: Checked against official records

Akhilesh Yadav

65 claims, Showing 3 of 65
  • Not trueAkhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 12 Oct 2026

    “He said rules were already being violated as Form-7 continued to be filled even after the SIR.”

    The claim treats any Form 7 filed after the SIR as a rule violation. But the record shows Form 7 is a standing statutory form, and the Election Commission's post-SIR response was to limit, not prohibit, its use during continuous updation. No official document says filing Form 7 after the SIR is illegal.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    Akhilesh Yadav said rules were already being violated because Form-7 continued to be filled even after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls.

    hindustantimes.com, checked 12 Oct 2026

    What is actually true

    Form 7 is the statutory form under Rule 13(2) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 for objecting to an inclusion or seeking deletion of a name from the electoral roll [2]. The Election Commission has not banned Form 7 after the SIR; it has capped filings at 10 during the claims-and-objections period and five per month during continuous electoral roll updates [4][8]. The SIR process itself includes a statutory period for filing Forms 6, 7 and 8 before the final roll is published [10][11].

    • Form 7 is the statutory form for objecting to inclusion or seeking deletion of a name from the electoral roll under Rule 13(2) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. [2]
    • After the SIR row, the Election Commission capped Form 7 filings at 10 during the claims-and-objections period and five per month during continuous electoral roll updates, rather than prohibiting them. [4][8]
    • The SIR process includes a statutory period for filing claims and objections through Forms 6, 7 and 8 before the final roll is published. [10][11]

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

    The claim treats any Form 7 filed after the SIR as a rule violation. But the record shows Form 7 is a standing statutory form, and the Election Commission's post-SIR response was to limit, not prohibit, its use during continuous updation. No official document says filing Form 7 after the SIR is illegal.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records
  • Not trueAkhilesh Yadavchecked 1 Oct 2026

    “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 shows

    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]

    [1] Farmers' income has more than doubled during Modi years ... — business-standard.com[2] ru643 - sansad.in — sansad.in[3] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[7] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in

    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.

    Open official seriesHow 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 shows

    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]

    [4] Unemployment Falls to 3.2% and Retail Inflation Hits Six-Year Low — knnindia.co.in[5] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[10] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in

    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.

    Open official seriesHow this was checked: Checked against official records

Abhijeet Dipke

37 claims, Showing 5 of 37

  • Contradicted by the documents

    Is the revision a plan to delete people who do not vote for the BJP?

    “This SIR is a ‘well-engineered’ plan to delete those who don’t vote for the BJP.” He asked: “why is only the Opposition at a loss with this exercise?”

    Abhijeet Dipke, Founder, Cockroach Janta Party, 8 October 2026

    The elections held after the revision do not show that. In Kerala the Congress and its ally the IUML won a majority, and in Tamil Nadu the new party TVK came first. The BJP is not among the leading parties in either state. The BJP did win West Bengal. Dipke also groups Arvind Kejriwal with leaders who lost because of the revision. Delhi voted on 5 February 2025. The Commission’s own note says the revision was ordered on 24 June 2025, four months later. A loss that predates the exercise cannot have been caused by it.

  • Misleading

    Were 1.07 crore living voters in Karnataka struck off as dead?

    “In Karnataka, 1.07 crore names were deleted. Those alive are declared dead.”

    Abhijeet Dipke, Founder, Cockroach Janta Party, 8 October 2026

    The number is the Chief Electoral Officer’s own figure, and it is real. It is not a count of living people marked dead. The draft roll published on 24 August 2026 left out 1,07,96,339 names, 19.48% of the June roll. Of those, the same note lists 16,39,864 as dead. The largest group is 65,45,679 marked permanently shifted, then 15,17,042 absent, 7,09,870 already enrolled somewhere else, and 3,83,884 under “other”. Someone left off the draft can still apply. The final roll is due on 27 October 2026.

  • Contradicted by the documents

    Is the winner of Indian elections “already predetermined”?

    “There is no point in participating in such polls, because the winner is already predetermined.”

    Abhijeet Dipke, Founder, Cockroach Janta Party, 4 October 2026

    Abhijeet Dipke says elections under the present Chief Election Commissioner are decided in advance. The Election Commission's own result sheets for May 2026 do not fit that. The voter-roll revision (SIR) had run in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Puducherry before they voted, and the BJP's opponents won two of the big states outright: the Congress and its ally the IUML won a majority in Kerala, and the new party TVK came first in Tamil Nadu. The BJP won West Bengal and Assam. Results alone cannot show whether deletions changed close seats, and we found no study that has tested that.

  • Misleading

    Is the BJP winning states it never won before “because of Gyanesh Kumar”?

    “The BJP is winning in states where it couldn't even secure a victory during the peak of the ‘Modi wave’” … “this is happening because of Gyanesh Kumar.”

    Abhijeet Dipke, Founder, Cockroach Janta Party, 4 October 2026

    The first half is backed by the documents. West Bengal had never elected a BJP government, and the Election Commission's result sheet gives the BJP 207 of its 294 seats in May 2026. The second half is an accusation with no evidence offered: Dipke names no seat where the names removed outnumbered the winning margin, and no court, audit or study has found that. The Supreme Court upheld the revision as lawful in May 2026. Press reports put the names removed in West Bengal at between about 64 lakh and 91 lakh, so the question deserves a real answer. A slogan from either side is not one.

  • A chain of documented events, not a verdict

    Who chooses the Chief Election Commissioner, and is that in dispute?

    He demands that Chief Election Commissioners be appointed transparently, with civil society involved.

    Abhijeet Dipke, Founder, Cockroach Janta Party, 1 October 2026

    Under the 2023 law, the Chief Election Commissioner is picked by a committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and a Union Cabinet minister the Prime Minister nominates, so the government side has two votes of three. Whether that is constitutional is genuinely undecided. On 23 September 2026 two Supreme Court judges split on how the challenge should be heard and sent it to the Chief Justice to consider a Constitution Bench. This is a fair question about the system, not proof that any election was rigged.

Dhruv Rathee

22 claims, Showing 3 of 22
  • 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 shows

    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]

    [1] Equalisation levy withdrawal not linked to Trump tariffs ... — indianexpress.com[3] Customs duty rationalisation to continue, equalisation levy ... — moneycontrol.com[5] Press Release: Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[6] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in

    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 trueDhruv Ratheechecked 1 Oct 2026

    “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 shows

    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]

    [2] DISCUSSION ON INDIA CHINA BORDER - Digital Sansad — sansad.in[3] Text of Raksha Mantri Shri Rajnath Singh Statement in Rajya ... — pib.gov.in[6] Position on Galwan Valley has been 'historically clear': MEA ... — indiatoday.in[7] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in

    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 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 shows

    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]

    [1] NEET leaks: As Modi promises fast-track courts, where do the ... — scroll.in[2] Press Release:Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[3] Press Release:Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[4] Press Release: Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[7] PM Modi breaks silence on NEET paper leak controversy ... — thehindu.com[8] Action Within 3 Months, 10-Year Jail, Rs 10 Crore Fine ... — ndtv.com

    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

Arvind Kejriwal

17 claims, Showing 3 of 17
  • 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 shows

    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]

    [1] ECI Clears Air On ECINet Row: What Sandhu And Joshi Told ... — oneindia.com[2] Election commissioners’ letter to cabinet secretary concerned ... — moneycontrol.com[3] EC says poll commissioners' letters to Cabinet Secretary not ... — hindustantimes.com[4] Letters sent to Cabinet Secretary by two ECs were not related ... — thestatesman.com[5] 'Not Related To Policy Matters': ECI On Poll Commissioners ... — news18.com[8] Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi | Dissent in the Election Commission — thehindu.com[10] Press Note — eci.gov.in

    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 trueArvind Kejriwalchecked 1 Oct 2026

    ““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.””

    8,000 schools shut down; 2,000 single-teacher schools, 0

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    8,000 schools shut down; 2,000 single-teacher schools

    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]

    [1] Closure of Government Schools in Assam — sansad.in[6] Primary schools run by single teacher in States — sansad.in

    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.

    Open official seriesHow this was checked: Checked against official records
  • Not trueArvind Kejriwalchecked 30 Sept 2026

    “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 shows

    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]

    [1] SIR draft rolls see over 13 crore deletions so far, Delhi ... — indianexpress.com[2] SIR draft rolls see over 13 cr deletions so far, Delhi leads ... — civilsdaily.com[4] SIR Voter Roll Exercise 13.37 Crore Names Left Out Across 30 ... — news.abplive.com[5] ECI's Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls Being ... — pib.gov.in[6] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in

    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

Mallikarjun Kharge

10 claims, Showing 3 of 10
  • 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 shows

    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]

    [2] Annual Report | Official Website of Reserve Bank of India — rbi.org.in[7] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMETN OF ... — sansad.in[8] Economic Survey 2016-17 Volume-2 : State of the Economy - An ... — pib.gov.in

    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.

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

    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]

    [5] 1 year and 700 lives lost, but Indian protestors have succeeded in repealing anti-farming laws — theconversation.com[7] LOK SABHA DEBATES — sansad.in[8] 08.02.2021.pdf — sansad.in

    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
  • MisleadingMallikarjun Kharge (Indian National Congress)30 Sept 2026

    “It is shocking that as many as 13.3 crore voters have blatantly been removed from voter list,”

    13.3 crore voters

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    13.3 crore voters

    Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said in September 2026 that 13.3 crore voters had been blatantly removed from the voter list.

    thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026

    What is actually true

    The Election Commission's press release of 30 September 2025 on Bihar's completed Special Intensive Revision (SIR) shows 65 lakh names were removed from the draft list, but 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added, leaving a final roll of about 7.42 crore against 7.89 crore before the exercise — a net reduction of about 47 lakh. Media reports say over 13 crore names have been deleted from draft rolls in 30 States/Union Territories so far, and that those incorrectly deleted can apply for inclusion in the final roll over the next month.

    • The Election Commission's 30 September 2025 press release on Bihar's SIR says 65 lakh names were removed from the draft list, 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added, and the final roll had about 7.42 crore electors against 7.89 crore before the exercise — a net reduction of about 47 lakh. [9]
    • Indian Express reported that the SIR has led to over 13 crore names being deleted from draft rolls in 30 States/Union Territories so far, with Delhi's draft roll dropping from 1.45 crore to 97.53 lakh and Maharashtra's from 9.78 crore to 7.71 crore; Deccan Herald put the figure at 13.3 crore names wiped out of draft voter lists. [1][5]
    • Those incorrectly deleted in the draft roll can apply for inclusion in the final roll over the next month, and 93% of appeals decided by tribunals resulted in the eventual inclusion of voters. [1][2]

    [1] SIR draft rolls see over 13 crore deletions so far, Delhi ... — indianexpress.com[2] SIR explained: Why the voter roll revision has become so ... — scroll.in[5] SIR: 13.3 crore names wiped out of draft voter lists so far ... — deccanherald.com[9] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in

    The number is not invented: media reports show over 13 crore names deleted from draft rolls. But the claim presents these draft deletions as if 13.3 crore voters have been finally removed from the voter list. The Election Commission's own Bihar data shows the final net reduction was much smaller than the draft deletions, and those incorrectly deleted can be restored. That omission makes the claim misleading.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records

Saurav Das

9 claims, Showing 3 of 9
  • 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 shows

    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]

    [2] EC orders review of ECINET amid SIR row; Delhi, Maharashtra ... — indianexpress.com[3] SIR notices do not mean voter names will be deleted: Delhi ... — thestatesman.com[4] Maharashtra poll chief seeks more power for local election ... — indianexpress.com[9] ECI's Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls Being ... — pib.gov.in

    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 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 shows

    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]

    [1] Gen Z voters in limbo as ECI’s annual roll revision remains ... — newindianexpress.com[2] Congress says Modi fears Gen-Z voters, criticizes voter ... — newsbytesapp.com[3] Gen Z voting rights on hold as special summary revision stays ... — ground.news[6] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[7] ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA — elections24.eci.gov.in[10] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in

    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.

    Open official seriesHow this was checked: Checked against official records
  • MisleadingSaurav Daschecked 30 Sept 2026

    “pointing to reports of approximately 13 crore voters being deleted in the past 18 months through SIR”

    approximately 13 crore voters

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    approximately 13 crore voters

    Saurav Das said approximately 13 crore voters were deleted in the past 18 months through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

    news9live.com, checked 30 Sept 2026

    What is actually true

    The Election Commission's final figures for Bihar's Special Intensive Revision, published on 30 September 2025, show 65 lakh electors removed from the draft list, with the final roll containing about 7.42 crore electors, down from 7.89 crore before the exercise. In July 2026 the Commission said the SIR is carried out in phases, with draft rolls followed by claims, objections and appeals before deletions are finalised, and that names are restored where grievances are found valid. The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment held that deletions under the SIR were not contrary to Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules.

    • Media reports that cite Election Commission data describe the 13.3 crore figure as names missing from draft electoral rolls across 30 states and union territories, not as final deletions of voters. [2][7]
    • In Bihar's completed SIR, official final figures show 65 lakh electors were removed from the draft list, and the final roll had about 7.42 crore electors, compared with 7.89 crore before the exercise. [8]
    • The Election Commission's process includes a claims and objections period after the draft roll, appeals, and restoration of names where grievances are found valid; one report says 38 lakh appeals were pending, including 22.21 lakh filed by deleted voters seeking restoration. [10][1]
    • The official PIB note and Supreme Court documents in the record do not provide a national total of 13 crore final voter deletions. [10][11]

    [1] 14 times in 10 months, two Election Commissioners objected on record to poll panel steps — indianexpress.com[2] Voter List Deletions: Election Commission Data Shows 13.3 ... — deccanherald.com[7] SIR draft rolls see over 13 crore deletions so far, Delhi ... — indianexpress.com[8] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[10] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[11] 2026 INSC 564 Page 1 of 124 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA — eci.gov.in

    The 13 crore number is drawn from draft-roll exclusions during an ongoing revision, not from a final count of voters who have lost their place on the rolls. The Election Commission's own published process shows that draft exclusions can be reversed through claims, objections and appeals before the final roll is published. Using the draft-roll figure as if it were a final deletion count therefore overstates what the record shows.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records

Sanjay Singh

5 claims, Showing 3 of 5
  • 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 shows

    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]

    [1] RJD’s wins and losses in Bihar Assembly elections 2025 — indianexpress.com[2] RJD wins 25 seats in Bihar 2025 polls: Full list of Tejashwi ... — cnbctv18.com[6] Bihar election final results: Breakdown of how many seats BJP ... — hindustantimes.com[7] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in

    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 shows

    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]

    [1] Mahagathbandhan names Tejashwi Yadav as chief ministerial ... — ddnews.gov.in[2] Bihar Elections: 130 Seats For RJD, 50 For Congress In ... — news18.com[3] RJD’s Tejashwi Yadav to be CM face of INDIA bloc in Bihar — thehindu.com[4] Tejashwi CM face, Mukesh Sahani makes his way to Deputy CM as ... — indianexpress.com[7] Bihar elections: Mahagathbandhan declares Tejashwi Yadav as ... — moneycontrol.com

    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
  • 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 shows

    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]

    [2] Rajya Sabha Chairman, Lok Sabha Speaker reject opposition bid ... — ddnews.gov.in[5] Impeachment motion to remove CEC Gyanesh Kumar rejected by ... — indiatoday.in[13] Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha reject Opposition's impeachment motion ... — thestatesman.com[14] Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha reject Opposition's notices seeking ... — hindustantimes.com

    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.

    Open official seriesHow this was checked: Checked against official records

Jairam Ramesh

5 claims, Showing 3 of 5
  • MisleadingJairam Ramesh (Indian National Congress)1 Oct 2026

    “Nearly 14 crore voters have already been disenfranchised by the SIR,”

    nearly 14 crore voters, 47 lakh

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    nearly 14 crore voters

    Jairam Ramesh said that nearly 14 crore voters have already been disenfranchised by the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

    thehindu.com, 1 Oct 2026

    What is actually true

    47 lakh

    net reduction in Bihar electoral roll after SIR, ECI PIB, 30 Sep 2025

    pib.gov.in

    The Election Commission's press note on Bihar's Special Intensive Revision, published on 30 September 2025, says the final roll had about 7.42 crore electors, down from 7.89 crore before the exercise — a net reduction of about 47 lakh. It also records that 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added during the process. The Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India, examined the SIR and held that it is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate, as recorded in the PIB note of 25 July 2026.

    • The Election Commission's official press note on Bihar's SIR says the final electoral roll published on 30 September 2025 contained about 7.42 crore electors, compared with 7.89 crore on 24 June 2025 — a net reduction of about 47 lakh. [10]
    • The same press note says 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added to the draft list through Form 6 during the Bihar SIR. [10]
    • The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026 in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India, 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. [12][9]
    • The figure of nearly 14 crore deleted voters appears in statements by Congress leaders and media reports, not in the Election Commission's official press notes on the SIR phases. [1][6]
    • The Election Commission has stated that the SIR is meant to make rolls accurate and free of ineligible or duplicate entries while ensuring no eligible elector is left out, with safeguards such as house-to-house visits, claims and objections, and appeals. [12]

    [1] 'Method to Disenfranchise Indians': Congress Brands SIR a … — deccanchronicle.com[6] 'Piecemeal damage control won't mitigate mass disenfranchisement ... — newindianexpress.com[9] Association For Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission Of ... — indiankanoon.org[10] Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls in Bihar ... — pib.gov.in[12] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in

    The claim treats all deletions during the SIR as disenfranchisement of eligible voters. The official record shows a different picture: in Bihar, the only state for which the sources give an official before-and-after count, the net reduction was about 47 lakh, and 21.53 lakh eligible voters were added back. The 14 crore figure is not an Election Commission number; it comes from Congress leaders' statements and media reports. The Supreme Court has also upheld the SIR process as lawful.

    Open official seriesHow this was checked: Checked against official records
  • No proofJairam Ramesh (Rahul Gandhi)1 Oct 2026

    “Form 6 changes were introduced by the CEC unconstitutionally in mid-July 2026 to remove Gen Z voters from the electoral roll. Clearly, the move was orchestrated by the PM-HM (Narendra Modi-Amit Shah) duo.”

    Jairam Ramesh's statement is an allegation of unconstitutional action and of a motive and hand behind it. The record includes the Congress's own allegations and the Election Commission's denial, but no order, judgment or other official document proves that the Form 6 changes were unconstitutional, that their purpose was to remove Gen Z voters, or that Narendra Modi and Amit Shah orchestrated them. The Supreme Court judgment cited in the record upheld the Special Intensive Revision framework but does not itself settle the July 2026 Form 6 issue, so the claim remains unproven.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    Jairam Ramesh said that Form 6 changes were introduced by the Chief Election Commissioner unconstitutionally in mid-July 2026 to remove Gen Z voters from the electoral roll, and that the move was orchestrated by the PM-HM (Narendra Modi-Amit Shah) duo.

    thehindu.com, 1 Oct 2026

    What is actually true

    The Election Commission, which runs elections, has maintained that there was no change to the statutory Form 6 and that an additional declaration was added under the Special Intensive Revision process. The Delhi High Court order of 3 September 2026 records that the Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment, upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, read with Article 324 of the Constitution. No official or court document in the record finds the July 2026 change unconstitutional, aimed at removing Gen Z voters, or linked to the Prime Minister and Union Home Minister.

    • The Election Commission has said there was no change to the statutory Form 6 and that an additional declaration was added under the Special Intensive Revision process. [2]
    • The Delhi High Court's 3 September 2026 order records that the Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment, upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, read with Article 324 of the Constitution. [9]
    • The reports contain Congress's charges of illegal and unconstitutional changes, but no official or court record shows that the changes were introduced to remove Gen Z voters or orchestrated by Narendra Modi and Amit Shah. [2][7]

    [2] Jairam Ramesh Slams EC Over Form 6 Changes, Alleges Hurdles for Gen Z Voters — deccanchronicle.com[7] Congress blasts CEC for ‘illegal’ Form 6 changes, seeks Supreme Court action — nationalheraldindia.com[9] Devender Yadav & Anr vs Election Commission Of India & Anr on ... — indiankanoon.org

    Jairam Ramesh's statement is an allegation of unconstitutional action and of a motive and hand behind it. The record includes the Congress's own allegations and the Election Commission's denial, but no order, judgment or other official document proves that the Form 6 changes were unconstitutional, that their purpose was to remove Gen Z voters, or that Narendra Modi and Amit Shah orchestrated them. The Supreme Court judgment cited in the record upheld the Special Intensive Revision framework but does not itself settle the July 2026 Form 6 issue, so the claim remains unproven.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records
  • No proofJairam Ramesh (Rahul Gandhi)1 Oct 2026

    “Congress general secretary (communications) Jairam Ramesh claimed that the change in Form 6 was orchestrated by “the PM-HM duo” to remove Gen Z voters from the voter list.”

    The claim is an allegation about who ordered the Form 6 change and why. The official material retrieved gives an administrative explanation—approval by the full Commission and an IT change over e-signing—and does not show Prime Minister or Home Minister involvement or a plan to remove Gen Z voters. Because no court, commission or official document in the record supports the allegation, it remains unproven.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    Jairam Ramesh claimed that the change in Form 6 was orchestrated by the PM-HM duo to remove Gen Z voters from the voter list.

    thehindu.com, 1 Oct 2026

    What is actually true

    No official record in the sources states that the Prime Minister or Home Minister directed the Form 6 change. Election Commission officials maintain that the declaration attached to Form 6 was approved by the full Commission when the Special Intensive Revision began in Bihar and later ratified, and that the online submission problem came from an IT change to avoid double e-signing. The Election Commission's press note on the Bihar revision describes it as a statutory exercise under Article 326 with the stated aim that no eligible voter be left out.

    • Jairam Ramesh said the Form 6 changes were introduced by the Chief Election Commissioner 'unconstitutionally' in mid-July 2026 to remove Gen Z voters from the electoral roll. [1][2]
    • Election Commission officials maintain the separate declaration with Form 6 was approved by the full Commission when the Special Intensive Revision began in Bihar and was ratified in later phases. [2]
    • According to those officials, the online submission issue arose because the IT department changed the form so a person did not have to e-sign twice, and the declaration then had to be filled for submission. [2]
    • The Election Commission's press note on the Bihar Special Intensive Revision describes it as a statutory revision under Article 326, aimed at including eligible voters and removing ineligible ones, with political parties and booth-level agents involved. [7]

    [1] Rahul Gandhi asks who at EC ordered ‘illegal’ Form 6 change, whether TCS was pressured — newindianexpress.com[2] Congress Claims “Illegal” Changes in Form 6 Carried out at the Behest of “PM-HM Duo” — english.revoi.in[7] Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls in Bihar ... — pib.gov.in

    The claim is an allegation about who ordered the Form 6 change and why. The official material retrieved gives an administrative explanation—approval by the full Commission and an IT change over e-signing—and does not show Prime Minister or Home Minister involvement or a plan to remove Gen Z voters. Because no court, commission or official document in the record supports the allegation, it remains unproven.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records

Pawan Khera

2 claims
  • 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 shows

    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]

    [1] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[5] 'Diverting Indus Waters Will Be Treated As Act Of War': Pakistan PM Warns India At UN — news18.com

    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
  • No proofPawan Khera, Congress (Indian National Congress)checked 30 Sept 2026

    “Today, the whole country is worried about vote theft. They feel like the entire mandate is being stolen. Governments built on theft and robbery are in power.”

    The claim is a sweeping allegation of systemic fraud. Pawan Khera offers no document, court finding or official figure to prove vote theft across India; the record before us contains none. The Election Commission denies the allegation and describes its exercise as routine, but its denial alone cannot settle the matter. The Supreme Court's interventions raise questions about the revision's power, procedure and timing, yet the court record provided does not uphold a finding that votes were stolen or that any government obtained power through theft.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    Congress leader Pawan Khera alleged that vote theft is happening across India, that the entire mandate is being stolen, and that governments built on 'theft and robbery' are in power.

    thenewsmill.com, checked 30 Sept 2026

    What is actually true

    The Election Commission, which runs elections, has said the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls is a routine, legally mandated process to remove names of dead, shifted or duplicate voters, and has denied the allegation of vote theft. For Bihar, the Commission's official figures show 7.89 crore electors as of 24 June 2025, 65 lakh removed from the draft list of 1 August 2025, 3.66 lakh ineligible electors removed, and 21.53 lakh eligible electors added, with a final roll of about 7.42 crore published on 30 September 2025. The Supreme Court, hearing challenges to the Bihar exercise, identified questions about the Commission's power, procedure and timing; the court record provided contains no finding that votes were stolen or that any mandate was robbed.

    • The Election Commission has stated that the Special Intensive Revision is designed to identify and remove names of voters who are dead, have moved away, or appear twice, and has denied claims that it amounts to vote theft or manipulation. [2][4]
    • According to the Commission's press release on Bihar, there were 7.89 crore electors as on 24 June 2025; 65 lakh were removed from the draft list, 3.66 lakh ineligible electors were removed from that draft, and 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added, giving a final roll of about 7.42 crore on 30 September 2025. [12]
    • The Supreme Court's order of 10 July 2025 in the petitions against the Bihar Special Intensive Revision recorded three prima facie questions: the Commission's authority to do the exercise, the procedure and manner, and the timing, given that Bihar elections were due in November 2025. [5]
    • For the 2024 general election, the Election Commission published electoral rolls showing 96.88 crore registered voters across the country, an increase of about 8 percent over 2019, with 2.63 crore new electors added. [11]

    [2] Election Commission Defends SIR Amid ‘Vote Theft’ Allegations — growingindia.co.in[4] EC on ‘vote theft’ row: Parties should have flagged roll ... — timesofindia.indiatimes.com[5] CORRECTED (*) ITEM NO.40+43+44+45+46 COURT NO.11 SECTION PIL ... — api.sci.gov.in[11] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[12] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in

    The claim is a sweeping allegation of systemic fraud. Pawan Khera offers no document, court finding or official figure to prove vote theft across India; the record before us contains none. The Election Commission denies the allegation and describes its exercise as routine, but its denial alone cannot settle the matter. The Supreme Court's interventions raise questions about the revision's power, procedure and timing, yet the court record provided does not uphold a finding that votes were stolen or that any government obtained power through theft.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records

Aam Aadmi Party

2 claims
  • 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 shows

    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]

    [2] Gujarat emerges as major hub for drug trafficking, over 1.3… — english.gujaratsamachar.com[3] 1169 E — sansad.in[4] Press Release:Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[6] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS RAJYA SABHA ... — sansad.in

    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
  • No proofAam Aadmi Partychecked 1 Oct 2026

    “AAP accused the Rekha Gupta-led administration of failing in its duties”

    The accusation that the administration failed in its duties is broad, and the record does not contain a finding that it did. The NHRC has begun an inquiry by issuing notices, which is not the same as a conclusion of failure. Delhi Police's official position disputes the suggestion of a worsening problem. The claim therefore remains an allegation without proof in the record.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    AAP accused the Rekha Gupta-led Delhi administration of failing in its duties.

    indiatoday.in, checked 1 Oct 2026

    What is actually true

    The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which investigates human rights complaints, took suo motu cognizance on 9 February 2026 of reports that 807 people went missing in Delhi in the first two weeks of January 2026 and issued notices to the Delhi Chief Secretary and the Police Commissioner seeking a detailed report within two weeks [4]. Delhi Police said there was no significant surge in missing-person reports, that January 2026 saw a decline compared with the same period in earlier years, and that standard operating procedures are followed with priority for children [2][6][7].

    • The NHRC issued notices to the Delhi Chief Secretary and Police Commissioner on 9 February 2026, asking for a detailed report within two weeks on the reported 807 missing persons in the first two weeks of January 2026 [4]. [4]
    • Delhi Police said there was no significant surge in missing-person cases and that January 2026 saw fewer reports than the same period in previous years [2][6][7]. [2][6][7]
    • No court order, commission finding or official data in the record concludes that the Rekha Gupta-led Delhi administration failed in its duties [4][2][6][7]. [4][2][6][7]

    [2] Delhi Police asks people not to panic after hundreds go ... — indiatoday.in[4] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[6] Fact-check: Over 800 missing in 15 days? Delhi Police data ... — wionews.com[7] Delhi Police missing data | Delhi Police says no cause for ... — telegraphindia.com

    The accusation that the administration failed in its duties is broad, and the record does not contain a finding that it did. The NHRC has begun an inquiry by issuing notices, which is not the same as a conclusion of failure. Delhi Police's official position disputes the suggestion of a worsening problem. The claim therefore remains an allegation without proof in the record.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records

पवन पांडेय

2 claims
  • No proofपवन पांडेय (Samajwadi Party)checked 12 Oct 2026

    “कैंटोनमेंट बोर्ड में भ्रष्टाचार हो रहा है. यह बोर्ड केंद्र सरकार और रक्षा मंत्रालय के तहत आता है.”

    The claim has two parts. The part that Cantonment Boards come under the central government and the Ministry of Defence is supported by the official Ministry of Defence page. The part that corruption is happening is an allegation; the record shows CBI investigations but no court finding or official figure establishing corruption. Therefore the corruption allegation is not proven.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    पवन पांडेय ने आरोप लगाया कि कैंटोनमेंट बोर्ड में भ्रष्टाचार हो रहा है और यह बोर्ड केंद्र सरकार तथा रक्षा मंत्रालय के तहत आता है।

    abplive.com, checked 12 Oct 2026

    What is actually true

    The Ministry of Defence's Department of Defence states that it has administrative control over Cantonment Boards and the Indian Defence Estates Service. A Rajya Sabha answer of 6 December 2021 about Agra Cantonment Board describes unauthorised occupation of quarters and eviction proceedings, not corruption. Media reports say the CBI has registered cases against a former CEO of Deolali Cantonment Board under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but these are investigations, not findings of corruption.

    • The Ministry of Defence's Department of Defence page says it has administrative control over Cantonment Boards and the Indian Defence Estates Service. [3]
    • Media reports say the CBI has registered cases against a former CEO of Deolali Cantonment Board under the Prevention of Corruption Act, based on a complaint from the Ministry of Defence, but these are investigations, not findings of corruption. [1][2][5]
    • A Rajya Sabha answer of 6 December 2021 about Agra Cantonment Board describes unauthorised occupation of quarters and eviction proceedings, not corruption. [6]

    [1] CBI books former CEO of cantonment board in corruption case — dynamitenews.com[2] India News | CBI Books Former CEO of Cantonment Board in ... — latestly.com[3] Cantonment | Department Of Defence — mod.gov.in[5] CBI Books Ex-Deolali Cantonment Board CEO In ₹5.72 Crore ... — freepressjournal.in[6] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE ... — sansad.in

    The claim has two parts. The part that Cantonment Boards come under the central government and the Ministry of Defence is supported by the official Ministry of Defence page. The part that corruption is happening is an allegation; the record shows CBI investigations but no court finding or official figure establishing corruption. Therefore the corruption allegation is not proven.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records
  • No proofपवन पांडेय (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026

    “यह सब बीजेपी के संरक्षण में हो रहा है.”

    The claim is an allegation that corruption in the Cantonment Board was happening under BJP protection. The record does show an anti-corruption agency acting against a Cantonment Board official, but it contains no independent document, court order or official inquiry showing that BJP shielded the corruption. Because the core protective allegation is unsupported in the retrieved record, the claim is unproven rather than false.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    पवन पांडेय ने आरोप लगाया कि कैंटोनमेंट बोर्ड में भ्रष्टाचार बीजेपी के संरक्षण में हो रहा है।

    abplive.com, checked 1 Oct 2026

    What is actually true

    The Central Bureau of Investigation, India's central anti-corruption agency, arrested an Assistant Sanitation Inspector posted with the Ayodhya Cantonment Board for allegedly accepting a ₹60,000 bribe to facilitate sanitation worker recruitment. The CBI registered a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and said it was investigating the recruitment process. No retrieved official document or court order states that BJP provided protection to the corruption.

    • The CBI arrested an Assistant Sanitation Inspector with the Ayodhya Cantonment Board for allegedly accepting a ₹60,000 bribe in exchange for facilitating sanitation worker recruitment. [2]
    • The CBI registered a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and launched an investigation into the recruitment process, including possible involvement of other individuals. [2]
    • One media report says the CBI raided the Ayodhya Cantonment Board and that Samajwadi Party accused the BJP, but it provides no evidence of BJP protection. [3]
    • Cantonment Boards are civic bodies under the Directorate General Defence Estates; the official record describes their administration but does not link the Ayodhya Cantonment Board corruption to BJP protection. [4][5]

    [2] Assistant Sanitation Inspector Arrested While Accepting Bribe ... — the420.in[3] CBI ने अयोध्या के कैंटोनमेंट बोर्ड में मारा छापा, सपा ने BJP ... — 4pm.co.in[4] Cantonment Boards | Directorate General Defence Estates | India — dgde.gov.in[5] Echhawani — echhawani.gov.in

    The claim is an allegation that corruption in the Cantonment Board was happening under BJP protection. The record does show an anti-corruption agency acting against a Cantonment Board official, but it contains no independent document, court order or official inquiry showing that BJP shielded the corruption. Because the core protective allegation is unsupported in the retrieved record, the claim is unproven rather than false.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records

Loton Ram Nishad

2 claims
  • No proofLoton Ram Nishad (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026

    “उन्होंने आरोप लगाया कि भाजपा सरकार पीडीए समाज के हक व अधिकारों को छीनना चाहती है।”

    The claim is an accusation about the BJP government's intent and conduct towards the PDA community. The retrieved sources contain only allegations by political leaders and a party-made audit report, not an official finding or data supporting the assertion. Because there is no independent official record, court ruling or parliamentary answer in the retrieved material that establishes the claim, and no retrieved source disproves it, the appropriate verdict is NO_PROOF.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    Samajwadi Party leader Loton Ram Nishad accused the BJP government of wanting to snatch the rights of the PDA community.

    livehindustan.com, checked 1 Oct 2026

    What is actually true

    No official document, court order, Election Commission figure or parliamentary answer in the retrieved record shows that the BJP government has taken or intends to take away the rights of the PDA community. The record contains only party leaders' claims: The Hindu reported Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav's allegation that the BJP government is snatching reservation of PDA and left 1,133 Scheduled Tribe-reserved posts unfilled, based on a 'Samajwadi Audit Report'. A separate report quotes Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party leader Om Prakash Rajbhar making counter-claims about Dalit-related incidents during the Samajwadi Party government.

    • The Hindu reported Akhilesh Yadav's allegation that the BJP government is snatching reservation of PDA and that it left 1,133 posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes unfilled. [1]
    • The 1,133 figure in that report is attributed to a 'Samajwadi Audit Report', not to any official or judicial source. [1]
    • A report quotes Om Prakash Rajbhar claiming that atrocities against Dalits increased during the Samajwadi Party government and that many statues of B.R. Ambedkar were broken then. [5]
    • None of the retrieved court records concerns PDA rights or reservation implementation in Uttar Pradesh. [7][8][9][10]

    [1] BJP government snatching reservation of PDA in U.P., alleges Akhilesh — thehindu.com[5] Om Prakash Rajbhar Attacks Akhilesh Yadav Over PDA Slogan, Raises Dalit Rights Issues — freepressjournal.in[7] Sanjeev Saxena vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 15 May, 2015 — indiankanoon.org[8] Chanpreet Singh Rayat vs Enforcement Directorate on 9 ... — indiankanoon.org[9] G. Narasimhan & Ors. Etc vs T. V. Chokkappa (Will Connected ... — indiankanoon.org[10] Janatha Dal Party vs The Indian National Congress on 21 ... — indiankanoon.org

    The claim is an accusation about the BJP government's intent and conduct towards the PDA community. The retrieved sources contain only allegations by political leaders and a party-made audit report, not an official finding or data supporting the assertion. Because there is no independent official record, court ruling or parliamentary answer in the retrieved material that establishes the claim, and no retrieved source disproves it, the appropriate verdict is NO_PROOF.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records
  • No proofLoton Ram Nishad (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026

    “इसमें लोटन राम निषाद ने सपा के साथ एकजुटता का आह्वान किया एवं भाजपा सरकार पर आरोप लगाया कि वह पिछड़ा वर्ग के अधिकारों का हनन कर रही है।”

    The claim is an allegation by a political leader. The retrieved sources include similar allegations by other opposition leaders, but none supplies an official document, court order or data establishing that the BJP government has actually violated the rights of backward classes. Without such a record the allegation is unproven.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    Samajwadi Party leader Loton Ram Nishad accused the BJP government of violating the rights of backward classes.

    livehindustan.com, checked 1 Oct 2026

    What is actually true

    The official record in the retrieved sources contains no court order, parliamentary answer, or commission finding that the BJP government has violated the rights of backward classes. The documents that do define safeguards — Article 15 of the Constitution, the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, and a 1986 Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment on backward-class reservations — describe legal protections, not any violation by the BJP.

    • Article 15 of the Constitution bars the State from discriminating on grounds of caste and permits special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. [5]
    • The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 defines human rights and sets up commissions, but contains no finding about any violation of backward-class rights by the BJP government. [7]
    • Media reports quote Congress leaders accusing the BJP in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana of curbing rights of Dalits and backward classes, but these are political allegations, not official findings. [2][3][4]

    [2] Rahul claims BJP 'snatched' rights of Dalits, backward classes in ... — dtnext.in[3] BJP is anti-backward classes, anti-dalit: Hooda - Hindustan Times — hindustantimes.com[4] Atrocities against Dalits backward classes increased manifold in BJP ... — theweek.in[5] Article 15 in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon — indiankanoon.org[7] PDF The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 — nhrc.nic.in

    The claim is an allegation by a political leader. The retrieved sources include similar allegations by other opposition leaders, but none supplies an official document, court order or data establishing that the BJP government has actually violated the rights of backward classes. Without such a record the allegation is unproven.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records

Manish Sisodia

2 claims
  • No proofManish Sisodia (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026

    “BJP (Dictator Modi) Wants to Take Over Punjab through ED Raids after Its Campaign Fails”

    4,000 ED officers

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    4,000 ED officers

    Manish Sisodia said the BJP, under Narendra Modi, wants to take over Punjab through Enforcement Directorate raids after its campaign in the state failed.

    oneindia.com, checked 1 Oct 2026

    What is actually true

    The Enforcement Directorate said the Punjab searches were conducted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and covered locations in Punjab, Chandigarh and neighbouring areas. No court order, parliamentary record or official finding in the retrieved material says the raids were aimed at taking over Punjab or followed a failed BJP campaign. Sisodia's claim appears in reporting only as his own allegation at a press conference.

    • Manish Sisodia made the allegation at a press conference in Chandigarh, saying the BJP turned to ED raids after its Punjab campaign failed to attract public support. [2][5]
    • The Enforcement Directorate said the searches were conducted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and covered multiple locations in Punjab, Chandigarh and neighbouring areas. [5]
    • Reporting on the raids says ED searched the GMADA office and the residence of a Punjab minister's nephew in a land 'fraud' case; Punjab BJP president Kewal Singh Dhillon said the AAP government should address the issues through facts and records rather than political allegations. [6]
    • The court orders among the retrieved sources concern the Delhi excise policy cases, not the Punjab raids, and contain no finding about a BJP plan to take over Punjab. [9][10][11]

    [2] ED Raids Aimed at Taking Control of Punjab After BJP Campaign ... — yespunjab.com[5] Sisodia accuses Centre of using ED raids to pressure Punjab ahead of polls — hindustantimes.com[6] ED raids sparks political uproar in Punjab - The Hindu — thehindu.com[9] Arvind Kejriwal vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 9 April, 2024 — indiankanoon.org[10] Amandeep Singh Dhall vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 17 ... — indiankanoon.org[11] Sanjay Singh vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 7 February, 2024 — indiankanoon.org

    This is an allegation about the motive behind Enforcement Directorate action. The record confirms that raids took place and that Sisodia accused the BJP of using them to take over Punjab, but it contains no independent evidence—no court order, official inquiry, or election data—showing that the raids had that purpose or that the BJP's Punjab campaign had failed. The ED gives a different, law-enforcement reason for the searches, and the BJP denies the political-motive charge.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records
  • No proofManish Sisodia (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026

    “They go to traders’ homes and start demanding money from them.”

    The claim accuses ED officials of specific conduct: going to traders' homes and demanding money. The record shows ED searches and political allegations of harassment, but no court order, agency document or official finding shows ED officials demanding money at traders' homes. The one court case about extortion in the sources points to a different set of accused. Therefore the allegation remains unproven on the record provided.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    Manish Sisodia alleged that ED officials go to traders' homes in Punjab and demand money from them.

    patialapolitics.com, checked 1 Oct 2026

    What is actually true

    The Enforcement Directorate (ED), which probes money laundering, conducted searches in Punjab in cases involving a Punjab minister and jewellers, according to reports. A Punjab and Haryana High Court order of 28 October 2025 records an extortion demand, but it was made by a gang using an international number, not by ED officials.

    • The ED conducted searches in Punjab in a money-laundering probe involving Punjab minister Sanjeev Arora, with raids reported at locations including Ludhiana and Jalandhar. [2][3]
    • The ED also searched jewellers and associated entities at 14 premises in Chandigarh, Mohali and Panchkula in a separate money-laundering case linked to an IDFC First Bank matter. [4]
    • AAP leaders, including Manish Sisodia, said traders were being harassed or targeted through ED raids, but the reports do not describe ED officials going to homes and demanding money. [3][7][8]
    • Arvind Kejriwal separately alleged that a group he calls the 'ED Party' extorted ₹60 crore from Punjab traders by threatening ED raids, but this is an allegation by a political leader, not an official finding. [6]
    • The only court record of an extortion demand in the sources involves a gang led by Balwinder Singh alias Doni and associates, not ED officials. [1]

    [1] Manoj Kumar Uppal Alias Manu And Another vs State Of Punjab ... — indiankanoon.org[2] ED raids in Punjab: BJP misusing Central agencies to harass ... — thehindu.com[3] ED Raids in Punjab: Mann, Kejriwal Allege Harassment of Hindu ... — truescoopnews.com[4] ED raids jewellers in Haryana, Punjab over money laundering linked to IDFC First Bank case — newindianexpress.com[6] Kejriwal Accuses 'ED Party' of Extorting Punjab Traders — nationpress.com[7] Sisodia Questions ED Raids In Punjab, Alleges AAP ... - News18 — news18.com[8] Kejriwal's 'ED Party' Jibe: BJP Using Raids To Harass Punjab ... — timesnownews.com

    The claim accuses ED officials of specific conduct: going to traders' homes and demanding money. The record shows ED searches and political allegations of harassment, but no court order, agency document or official finding shows ED officials demanding money at traders' homes. The one court case about extortion in the sources points to a different set of accused. Therefore the allegation remains unproven on the record provided.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records

Dimple Yadav

2 claims
  • No proofDimple Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026

    “SP had claimed voter list rigging all along; strict action should be taken against officials: Dimple Yadav on SIR row”

    The claim rests on the Samajwadi Party having previously and consistently alleged that the voter list was rigged. The retrieved sources document the SIR process and its legal challenge, but none records the Samajwadi Party or Dimple Yadav making that claim before or during the row. The court record examined the legality of the SIR and did not find rigging; it upheld the exercise. Therefore the specific assertion is not proven on the record.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    Dimple Yadav said the Samajwadi Party had claimed all along that the voter list was rigged, in the row over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

    msn.com, checked 30 Sept 2026

    What is actually true

    A Press Information Bureau note of 25 July 2026 says the Election Commission is conducting the SIR to remove ineligible or duplicate entries while ensuring no eligible elector is left out, with safeguards such as door-to-door visits and claims-and-objections periods [5]. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026, held that the SIR is within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Article 324 of the Constitution [11]. Neither record mentions the Samajwadi Party having claimed all along that the voter list was rigged.

    • The Election Commission's SIR involves house-to-house enumeration and a statutory period for claims and objections before the final roll is published [5]. [5]
    • The Supreme Court, in its 27 May 2026 judgment, held the SIR exercise to be within the Election Commission's statutory mandate and constitutional obligation to ensure free and fair elections [11]. [11]

    [5] ECI's Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls Being ... — pib.gov.in[11] 2026 INSC 564 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL ... — api.sci.gov.in

    The claim rests on the Samajwadi Party having previously and consistently alleged that the voter list was rigged. The retrieved sources document the SIR process and its legal challenge, but none records the Samajwadi Party or Dimple Yadav making that claim before or during the row. The court record examined the legality of the SIR and did not find rigging; it upheld the exercise. Therefore the specific assertion is not proven on the record.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records
  • No proofDimple Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026

    “SP MP Dimple Yadav accused the Election Commission of rigging voter lists, demanding action against officials.”

    Dimple Yadav's statement is an allegation of rigging. The official record shows a large revision of rolls, with removals and additions, and the Election Commission says its final decisions were unanimous. Media reports show internal objections and very large deletions, which raise questions, but none of the sources contains a court order, Election Commission figure or inquiry report that establishes rigging. The Election Commission's denial is its own position, not independent proof, but the independent reporting also stops short of finding rigging.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    Samajwadi Party MP Dimple Yadav alleged that the Election Commission rigged voter lists and demanded action against the officials responsible.

    msn.com, checked 30 Sept 2026

    What is actually true

    The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, announced on 30 September 2025 that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar was complete: the final roll had about 7.42 crore electors, 65 lakh names were removed from the draft list, 3.66 lakh ineligible electors were removed, and 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added. The Commission said the exercise followed its motto of leaving out no eligible voter and including no ineligible person. The Indian Express has reported that two Election Commissioners raised objections 14 times in 10 months, but that is reporting of internal disagreement, not a finding that the rolls were rigged.

    • The Election Commission's 30 September 2025 press note on Bihar's Special Intensive Revision says the final roll had about 7.42 crore electors; 65 lakh names were removed from the draft list, 3.66 lakh ineligible electors were removed, and 21.53 lakh eligible electors were added. [3]
    • The Election Commission has said internal technical notes and written queries are routine in a multi-member body, and that all final decisions on the SIR process were unanimous and approved by all three commissioners. [1]
    • The Indian Express reported that the SIR struck more than 13 crore names off draft voter rolls in 30 states and union territories, and that two Election Commissioners objected on record 14 times in 10 months. [6]
    • The Election Commission's March 2025 press note said inclusions and deletions are governed by claims and objections under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and that only 89 first appeals and one second appeal had been filed at that point. [9]

    [1] Dimple Yadav demands action over alleged voter list rigging in SIR — thenewsmill.com[3] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[6] 14 times in 10 months, two Election Commissioners objected on record to poll panel steps — indianexpress.com[9] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in

    Dimple Yadav's statement is an allegation of rigging. The official record shows a large revision of rolls, with removals and additions, and the Election Commission says its final decisions were unanimous. Media reports show internal objections and very large deletions, which raise questions, but none of the sources contains a court order, Election Commission figure or inquiry report that establishes rigging. The Election Commission's denial is its own position, not independent proof, but the independent reporting also stops short of finding rigging.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records

Protest organisers and a petition in the Supreme Court

1 claim

  • Disputed: the documents do not settle it

    Were 13 crore voters wrongly struck off?

    The petition asks for a judicial or SIT probe into “the deletion of 13 crore voters” in the revision.

    Protest organisers and a petition in the Supreme Court, W.P.(Crl.) 401/2026, Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, 2–5 October 2026

    The Commission’s own account, as reported, is that the figure is a draft-stage list, not a count of people struck off for good. About 13 crore electors were marked absent, shifted, dead or duplicate while draft rolls were prepared: about 2.8 crore dead, about 3 crore absent or untraced, about 6.3 crore permanently shifted, and about 1 crore enrolled in more than one place. We could not open that questions-and-answers sheet ourselves. What an official document does show, for Bihar, is the same kind of split. How many living, eligible people lost their vote has not been measured by anyone, the Commission included. The Supreme Court has listed the petition but has not ruled on it.

Opposition parties

1 claim

  • Disputed: the documents do not settle it

    Did Gyanesh Kumar override the other two election commissioners?

    They say Gyanesh Kumar ran the revision over the objections of his two fellow commissioners, and should go.

    Opposition parties, including the Congress and the CPI(M), Demanding the Chief Election Commissioner's removal, September–October 2026

    This is the protesters' strongest point, and the documents do not settle it. The Indian Express reported that the two other commissioners formally objected at least 14 times in about 10 months, including to a change in the voter registration form that one of them called “illegal”. The Election Commission's own press note says every decision was unanimous and that differing views are a normal part of deliberation. The commissioners' notes are not public, and the matter is now before the Supreme Court.

Anurag Dhandha

1 claim
  • 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 shows

    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]

    [7] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[9] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[12] ECI's Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls Being ... — pib.gov.in

    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

Gopal Rai

1 claim
  • 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 shows

    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]

    [3] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[6] Judgment in Plain English - Supreme Court Observer — scobserver.in

    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

Cockroach Janata Party

1 claim
  • 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 shows

    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]

    [2] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[6] The Special Intensive Revision of India's electoral rolls — indiastand.com[7] ECI's Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls Being ... — pib.gov.in[9] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in

    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

Indian National Congress

1 claim
  • MisleadingIndian National Congress (Congress Working Committee) (Indian National Congress)29 Sept 2026

    “The Congress Working Committee demanded restoration of 130 million deleted voters in the electoral rolls and a halt to the special intensive revision or SIR.”

    130 million voters

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    130 million voters

    The Congress Working Committee demanded that 130 million voters deleted from the electoral rolls be restored and that the special intensive revision (SIR) be halted.

    hindustantimes.com, 29 Sept 2026

    What is actually true

    The Election Commission's press note of 25 July 2026 says the Special Intensive Revision is being carried out in phases with safeguards so that no eligible elector is left out: draft rolls are published, claims and objections are invited, and names are restored where valid before the final roll. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2026, held that the exercise is within the Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and not contrary to the prescribed procedure.

    • A press note issued through PIB on 25 July 2026 states that the Special Intensive Revision includes a draft roll, a statutory period for claims and objections, and publication of the final roll after verification, with safeguards against wrongful deletion. [3]
    • The same note records that the Supreme Court, in a judgment dated 27 May 2026, upheld the legality of the SIR as within the Election Commission's statutory mandate and its Article 324 obligation to ensure free and fair elections. [3]
    • The widely reported figure of over 13 crore deletions concerns draft electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories, not the final electoral rolls. [8]
    • The revision schedule provides for disposal of claims and objections and checking of electoral roll health before the final roll is published on the notified date. [7]
    • The Supreme Court's judgment says the deletions effected pursuant to the SIR cannot be said to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. [10]

    [3] ECI's Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls Being ... — pib.gov.in[7] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[8] SIR draft rolls see over 13 cr deletions so far, Delhi leads ... — civilsdaily.com[10] 2026 INSC 564 Page 1 of 124 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA — eci.gov.in

    The Congress demand rests on the number 130 million 'deleted voters'. That number matches reporting of over 13 crore names removed at the draft-roll stage, before the claims-and-objections period and final roll. Calling those 130 million final deletions overstates what the Election Commission's process shows, since eligible voters can be restored. The legality of the SIR itself has been upheld by the Supreme Court, so the factual basis for the number as permanent deletion is misleading.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records

Cockroach Janta Party

1 claim
  • 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 shows

    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]

    [1] Pradhan Mantri Annadata Aay Sanrakshan Abhiyan (PM-AASHA) — static.pib.gov.in[2] to Self-Sufficiency — static.pib.gov.in

    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

Vidyasagar Yadav

1 claim
  • No proofVidyasagar Yadav (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026

    “जिलाध्यक्ष विद्यासागर यादव ने आरोप लगाया कि भाजपा सरकार संविधान व आरक्षण व्यवस्था को कमजोर कर पीडीए समाज को नौकरियों से वंचित करना चाहती है।”

    This is a political allegation. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure. The court and Constituent Assembly records discuss constitutional and reservation provisions but do not show the BJP government weakening them or depriving the PDA community of jobs. Therefore the allegation is not proved by the retrieved record.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    Samajwadi Party district president Vidyasagar Yadav accused the BJP government of weakening the Constitution and the reservation system and of wanting to deprive the PDA community of jobs.

    livehindustan.com, checked 1 Oct 2026

    What is actually true

    The retrieved record contains no document, court order or official figure that supports the allegation. The Constituent Assembly debates discuss reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes in services and legislatures, but they are historical debates, not findings about the present BJP government [2]. A 2026 Supreme Court judgment on appointment of Election Commissioners restates constitutional principles, but it does not find that the BJP government weakened the Constitution or reservation or deprived the PDA community of jobs [4].

    • The Constituent Assembly debates of 14 October 1949 record discussion of claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts, and of reservation for backward classes, but contain no finding about the present BJP government [2]. [2]
    • The Supreme Court's 2026 judgment on Election Commission appointments says India is a government of laws and discusses constitutional safeguards, but it does not hold that the BJP government weakened the Constitution or reservation or deprived the PDA community of jobs [4]. [4]
    • The Delhi High Court bail order concerns the Delhi excise policy and does not bear on reservation or jobs for the PDA community [3]. [3]

    [2] Constituent Assembly Debates On 14 October, 1949 Part I — indiankanoon.org[3] Chanpreet Singh Rayat vs Enforcement Directorate on 9 ... — indiankanoon.org[4] 2026 INSC 1040 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL ... — api.sci.gov.in

    This is a political allegation. The speaker offered no document, court finding or official figure. The court and Constituent Assembly records discuss constitutional and reservation provisions but do not show the BJP government weakening them or depriving the PDA community of jobs. Therefore the allegation is not proved by the retrieved record.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records

Samajwadi Party

1 claim
  • No proofSamajwadi Partychecked 1 Oct 2026

    “अखिलेश यादव की ओर से कहा जा रहा है कि वोटों की चोरी हुई”

    The claim is an allegation of vote theft. The official record contains no document, court order or Election Commission figure establishing that votes were stolen in the 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly election. Where allegations of EVM tampering after that election were examined, courts held the machines credible and tamperproof, and the Supreme Court found no material showing the Election Commission acted in breach. The claim therefore remains an unsupported allegation.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    समाजवादी पार्टी के अध्यक्ष अखिलेश यादव ने कहा कि 2017 के उत्तर प्रदेश विधानसभा चुनाव में वोटों की चोरी हुई।

    khaskhabar.com, checked 1 Oct 2026

    What is actually true

    The Election Commission, which runs elections, said in a press note after the 2017 assembly elections that some parties had alleged tampering of electronic voting machines (EVMs), but that High Courts had held EVMs credible, reliable and tamperproof [9]. The Supreme Court, in its 26 April 2024 order in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, recorded that the petitioners did not attribute motive to the Election Commission and observed there was no material to indicate the Commission acted in breach of its mandate; it said the system ensures accurate electoral results [10]. The Election Commission's official statistical data for the 2017 Uttar Pradesh election contains results and elector numbers but no finding of vote theft [6].

    • After the 2017 assembly elections, the Election Commission said some parties had alleged EVM tampering, but that High Courts had held EVMs credible, reliable and tamperproof. [9]
    • In a 26 April 2024 order, the Supreme Court recorded that petitioners did not attribute motive to the Election Commission and observed there was no material to indicate the Commission acted in breach; it said the system ensures accurate electoral results. [10]
    • The Election Commission's official statistical data for the 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly election lists results and elector numbers but contains no finding of vote theft. [6]

    [6] उत्तर प्रदेश विधानसभा निर्वाचन का सांख्यिकीय डेटा, 2017 — hindi.eci.gov.in[9] Credibility of Electronic Voting Machines- regarding. — pib.gov.in[10] Association For Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission Of ... — indiankanoon.org

    The claim is an allegation of vote theft. The official record contains no document, court order or Election Commission figure establishing that votes were stolen in the 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly election. Where allegations of EVM tampering after that election were examined, courts held the machines credible and tamperproof, and the Supreme Court found no material showing the Election Commission acted in breach. The claim therefore remains an unsupported allegation.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records

Mohibbullah Naqvi

1 claim
  • No proofMohibbullah Naqvi (Samajwadi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026

    “People with a specific ideology have taken over the country’s resources and institutions.”

    The claim is a broad allegation that a specific ideology has captured the country's resources and institutions. No retrieved source provides an official document, court order, parliamentary answer or data that supports it. The only source that mentions the statement is a news report of the MP's own assertion, which is not independent proof. Because the record contains nothing that bears on the substance of the allegation, the claim is unproven.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    Samajwadi Party MP Mohibbullah Naqvi said people with a specific ideology have taken over the country’s resources and institutions.

    thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026

    What is actually true

    The only retrieved source that mentions the statement is a news report of a protest outside the Election Commission, which quotes Mohibbullah Naqvi making the assertion but offers no document or data to support it. The other retrieved official records concern unrelated matters: a Ministry of Home Affairs release on Left Wing Extremism, a Rajya Sabha answer on women's safety schemes, and a 1971 Allahabad High Court ruling on election petition procedure. None of these addresses any takeover of national resources or institutions by a specific ideology.

    • A news report of a protest outside the Election Commission quotes Mohibbullah Naqvi as saying people with a specific ideology have taken over the country's resources and institutions, but it provides no document, court finding or official figure to support the assertion. [1]
    • The other retrieved official records concern Left Wing Extremism, women's safety schemes and a 1971 election-petition procedure ruling, and do not address any takeover of national resources or institutions by a specific ideology. [2][3][4]

    [1] MCIM members, SP MPs detained during protest against CEC in Delhi — devdiscourse.com[2] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau — pib.gov.in[3] Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Gandhi And Ors. on 14 September, 1971 — indiankanoon.org[4] RAJYA SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1436 - sansad.in — sansad.in

    The claim is a broad allegation that a specific ideology has captured the country's resources and institutions. No retrieved source provides an official document, court order, parliamentary answer or data that supports it. The only source that mentions the statement is a news report of the MP's own assertion, which is not independent proof. Because the record contains nothing that bears on the substance of the allegation, the claim is unproven.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records

Aam Aadmi Party - Punjab

1 claim
  • No proofAam Aadmi Party - Punjab (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026

    “2007-17 ਵਿੱਚ ਸ਼੍ਰੋਮਣੀ ਅਕਾਲੀ ਦਲ ਨਾਲ਼ ਮਿਲ ਕੇ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਨੂੰ ਨਸ਼ੇ ਦੀ ਭੱਠੀ ‘ਚ ਝੋਕਣ ਵਾਲ਼ੀ ਭਾਜਪਾ”

    The claim is an allegation of responsibility. The sources contain no court order, official inquiry, or data that connects the BJP-SAD government to pushing Punjab into a drug crisis. The statements repeating the charge come from AAP spokespersons, so they are the party's position, not proof. Because the record does not uphold the allegation, the verdict is NO_PROOF.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    AAP Punjab alleged that the BJP, in alliance with Shiromani Akali Dal during 2007-17, pushed Punjab into a drug furnace.

    facebook.com, checked 30 Sept 2026

    What is actually true

    The official record in the sources is limited. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), the central agency that enforces drug laws, reported a seizure of 55 kg of heroin and 95 g of opium in Amritsar on 7 December 2017, made with the Border Security Force. That shows heroin was being trafficked in Punjab in 2017, but it does not say who was behind it. An academic study of the 2007-2017 Akali-BJP government lists controlling drugs as one of the challenges it faced, not as something it caused.

    • AAP spokespersons have repeatedly alleged that the drug network expanded during the 2007-2017 Akali-BJP government and that drugs reached every household. [1][4][8]
    • An academic study of the Akali-BJP government's performance lists controlling drugs among the challenges it faced, but does not find the government responsible for spreading drugs. [3]
    • The Narcotics Control Bureau reported seizing 55 kg of heroin and 95 g of opium in Amritsar on 7 December 2017, which shows trafficking existed but does not attribute it to the BJP or Shiromani Akali Dal. [6]

    [1] AAP’s Anurag Dhanda blames BJP for spread of drug trade in Punjab — thenewsmill.com[3] Performance of Shiromani Akali — api.bharatglobalpublications.com[4] Seeds of ‘Chitta’ & gangsterism were sown during Akali rule ... — dnpindia.in[6] CHAP 1 12 PM 20 MAR 18 SD - ncb.gov.in — ncb.gov.in[8] Punjab AAP calls for wider probe into drug network and border smuggling — livemint.com

    The claim is an allegation of responsibility. The sources contain no court order, official inquiry, or data that connects the BJP-SAD government to pushing Punjab into a drug crisis. The statements repeating the charge come from AAP spokespersons, so they are the party's position, not proof. Because the record does not uphold the allegation, the verdict is NO_PROOF.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records

Ashutosh Ranka

1 claim
  • No proofAshutosh Ranka (CJP) (Cockroach Janta Party)27 Sept 2026

    “Himanta Biswa Sarma fears that we will reveal the truth about Assam’s schools, Kaziranga National Park, and the state’s “man-made” floods to the nation”

    The claim asserts a motive — that Sarma fears the Cockroach Janta Party will reveal a hidden truth — and that such truths exist about schools and man-made floods. The record provided does not show Sarma expressing fear of the party, nor any evidence about school problems or that Assam's floods were man-made. On Kaziranga, the record shows a real public controversy over the eco-sensitive zone, but Sarma has publicly defended his government's proposal rather than concealing it. Without a document or recording from the party or an official finding, the assertion remains an unsupported allegation.

    What the evidence shows

    What they said

    CJP leader Ashutosh Ranka said Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma fears that CJP will reveal the truth about Assam's schools, Kaziranga National Park and the state's 'man-made' floods to the nation.

    indianexpress.com, 27 Sept 2026

    What is actually true

    The only official document in the record, a Gauhati High Court order of 12 March 2026, noted that as of that date Assam had neither a final notification nor a draft proposal for an eco-sensitive zone around Kaziranga, so the default 10-km buffer remained operative. Media reports from August 2026 show Sarma publicly defended a proposal to reduce that zone to 1-3 km as being in line with Supreme Court guidelines, while opposition parties and conservationists criticised the move.

    • The Gauhati High Court, in an order of 12 March 2026, recorded that Assam had no final notification or draft proposal for the Kaziranga eco-sensitive zone as of that date, so the default 10-km zone was still operative. [5]
    • In August 2026, the Assam government sought an eco-sensitive zone of 1 km to 3 km around Kaziranga instead of 10 km, and Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma publicly defended this as in line with Supreme Court guidelines. [2][3][4]
    • Opposition parties and wildlife experts criticised the proposal, arguing that wildlife corridors to the Karbi Anglong Hills and floodplains and wetlands around Kaziranga could be harmed. [3][4]
    • None of the sources records Sarma saying he fears the Cockroach Janta Party, nor do they contain findings on Assam's schools or on floods being 'man-made'. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

    [1] Assam proposes shrinking of Kaziranga eco-sensitive zone — energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com[2] Assam proposes shrinking of Kaziranga National Park eco ... — timesofindia.indiatimes.com[3] Assam’s move to reduce Kaziranga eco-sensitive zone to 1 km ... — scroll.in[4] Kaziranga eco-sensitive zone reduction bid triggers ... — tribuneindia.com[5] Jiten Engjai vs The Union Of India And 15 Ors on 12 March, 2026 — indiankanoon.org[6] Kaziranga ESZ: Eco-Sensitive Zone, Wildlife Corridors & Issues — insightsonindia.com[7] Kaziranga ESZ row: Govt to consult locals before finalising ... — assamtribune.com[8] Kaziranga Eco-Sensitive Zone Furore: What Lies Behind 10-Km ... — nenow.in

    The claim asserts a motive — that Sarma fears the Cockroach Janta Party will reveal a hidden truth — and that such truths exist about schools and man-made floods. The record provided does not show Sarma expressing fear of the party, nor any evidence about school problems or that Assam's floods were man-made. On Kaziranga, the record shows a real public controversy over the eco-sensitive zone, but Sarma has publicly defended his government's proposal rather than concealing it. Without a document or recording from the party or an official finding, the assertion remains an unsupported allegation.

    How this was checked: Checked against official records

We also read 59 other reports naming these people. A statement appears here only after it has been checked against official records; opinions and demands are not checked.

The record →

The pattern

Not one claim — the whole record

A speaker can be accurate in every sentence and still mislead: by what they leave out, by what their own party did on the same issue, by protesting one thing and defending its twin. These pieces set a speaker's statements against the official record as a whole. Every line is cited; each piece is labelled analysis, not a verdict.

  • Their own record·Rahul Gandhi· 12 Oct 2026

    NEET first notified in 2010, struck down in 2013, reintroduced by 2016 amendment

    The record shows NEET was first notified on 21 December 2010, quashed by the Supreme Court on 18 July 2013, and reintroduced through the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill, 2016.

    Read the piece ↓

    What was said

    • “Rahul Gandhi’s claim that Tamil is under attack with the coming of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET)”

      12 Oct 2026, hindustantimes.com

    • “Won't let PM Modi attack Tamil language, history, culture”

      12 Oct 2026, hindustantimes.com

    What the record shows

    1. The Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India issued notifications dated 21 December 2010 amending regulations to provide for a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for MBBS/BDS admission. [2]
    2. The issue of NEET arose after the Medical Council of India decided to introduce a common entrance examination by issuing notifications under its Regulations in 2010. [3]
    3. A subsequent notification dated 15 February 2012 authorized the Central Board of School Education (CBSE) to conduct NEET-UG-2013. [4]
    4. The Supreme Court in Christian Medical College Vellore vs Union of India, decided on 18 July 2013, quashed the 21 December 2010 notifications; NEET exams held were ultimately struck down. [4]
    5. Review petitions were placed before a Three-Judge Bench, notices were issued on 23 October 2013, and the matter was referred to a Five-Judge Bench. [5]
    6. The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill, 2016 was introduced on 19 July 2016 by the Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda. [7]
    7. A Lok Sabha debate on 6 May 2016 recorded a Supreme Court judgment that NEET had to be conducted in two phases, on 1 May 2016 and 24 July 2016. [10]

    What the comparison shows

    The record shows NEET was first notified in 2010 and struck down in 2013, before being reintroduced through a 2016 amendment. That timeline does not support the claim that NEET is a new, Modi-era assault on Tamil; its first legal basis predates the current government. The record does not, however, address whether the 2016 reintroduction or its implementation had a particular effect on Tamil Nadu or Tamil language, nor does it evaluate the cultural claims.

    Sources

    1. [1]Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors vs Union Of India And ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    2. [2]Association Of Managements Of Unaided ... vs Union Of India ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    3. [3]V.S.Sai Sachin vs The State Of Tamilnadu - Indian KanoonCourt, indiankanoon.org
    4. [4]Sushriya Sachdeva vs State Of Punjab And Another on 31 August ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    5. [5]Medical Council Of India vs Christian Medical College Vellore ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    6. [6]Christian Medical College Vellore vs Union Of India on 29 ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    7. [7]Introduction Of The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    8. [8]Combined Discussion On Statutory Resolution Regarding ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    9. [9]Shahul Hameed K.S. And Ors. vs Medical Council Of India And ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    10. [10]Issue Regarding National Eligibility - Cum- Entrance Test ...Court, indiankanoon.org

    Checked against official records

  • Leaves something out·Rahul Gandhi· 1 Oct 2026

    Rahul Gandhi's election-rigging claims target the Centre but skip Congress-ruled states

    In six statements, Rahul Gandhi alleges vote theft and rigging of the 2024 elections, but none mention the special intensive revision in Karnataka, Telangana or Himachal Pradesh.

    Read the piece ↓

    What was said

    • “Elections in India are being rigged, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar acted as “deshdrohis“ (traitors) by destroying the country’s votes”

      24 Sept 2026, thehindu.com

    • ““I have shown it with proof, and let me tell you, there is already more than enough information to make this 100% certain — not 99%, 100% certain — that Indian elections, Lok Sabha elections, the 2024 election, Vidhan Sabha elections, are all being rigged.””

      24 Sept 2026, thehindu.com

    • “और एक भी वोट मिटाना सिर्फ़ कार्रवाई नहीं, वोट की चोरी है।”

      30 Sept 2026, youtube.com

    • “Vote chori is a crime against the Indian people and a direct attack on our constitution.”

      etvbharat.com

    What the record shows

    1. The Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct a special intensive revision under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [2][3]
    2. A special intensive revision was underway in Telangana in 2026, with voters challenging deletions from electoral rolls before the Telangana High Court. [7][8]
    3. The Election Commission's circular of 14 May 2026 scheduled the special intensive revision in 16 states and 3 union territories, including Telangana. [8]

    What the comparison shows

    The statements on file repeatedly accuse the Election Commission and the Chief Election Commissioner of rigging elections and stealing votes, but none mention the special intensive revision or electoral-roll deletions in Karnataka, Telangana or Himachal Pradesh, where Congress is in office and the same Election Commission conducted the exercise. The record leaves out whether Rahul Gandhi has spoken about those states elsewhere, and it does not include any state-level electoral roll data for Karnataka or Himachal Pradesh. The comparison is therefore limited to the statements on file, which show a pattern of criticism directed at the Centre and the ECI without an equivalent mention of Congress-governed states.

    Sources

    1. [1]Association For Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission Of ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    2. [2]Association For Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission Of ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    3. [3]Devender Yadav & Anr vs Election Commission Of India & Anr on ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    4. [4]Association For Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission Of ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    5. [5]The State Of Karnataka vs The Special Deputy Commissioner-Ii ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    6. [6]Association For Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission Of ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    7. [7]Smt. Nenavath Pravalika vs The State Election Commission on ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    8. [8]Syed Qutubuddin Masood vs The Election Commission Of India on ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    9. [9]Palvai Subhadra vs The State Of Telangana on 21 March, 2025Court, indiankanoon.org
    10. [10]Sri Pabbathi Phanesh Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 10 ...Court, indiankanoon.org

    Checked against official records

  • The attack and the record·Arvind Kejriwal· 1 Oct 2026

    Court record places the Special Intensive Revision under Election Commission direction with statutory verification and appeals

    The Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act read with Article 324, while Bihar's final roll moved from 7.89 crore to 7.42 crore electors.

    Read the piece ↓

    What was said

    • “Kejriwal demands CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s arrest, fresh polls over ‘vote chori’ allegations”

      centralchronicle.com

    • “AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal accused CEC Gyanesh Kumar of masterminding a vote-rigging scheme.”

      msn.com

    • “Arvind Kejriwal demands the arrest of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, accusing him of orchestrating ‘vote theft’ that impacted elections across multiple states.”

      hindustantimes.com

    What the record shows

    1. The Election Commission issued Special Intensive Revision guidelines dated 24 June 2025, and the Delhi High Court recorded on 3 September 2026 that the Supreme Court had upheld the Commission's power to conduct the SIR under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act read with Article 324 of the Constitution. [2][1]
    2. In the Bihar SIR, Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers were required to scrutinise electors' eligibility under Article 326 read with Sections 16 and 19 of the RP Act, with a first appeal to the District Magistrate and a second appeal to the Chief Electoral Officer under Section 24(b) and Rule 27. [1]
    3. Bihar's draft roll published on 1 August 2025 contained approximately 7.24 crore electors; the final roll published on 30 September 2025 contained 7.42 crore electors, compared with 7.89 crore on 24 June 2025. [1]
    4. The Supreme Court's judgment of 27 May 2026 stated that the power under Article 324(1) is wide enough to equip the Commission for electoral roll preparation and that no narrow or restrictive construction is warranted. [1]
    5. The same judgment records that the electoral process was completed in accordance with the law and results were declared on 14 November 2025; the court records provided do not contain a finding of tampering or deletion of valid voters. [1][2]

    What the comparison shows

    The demand for the Chief Election Commissioner's arrest treats the Special Intensive Revision as an unauthorised act, but the record shows the Commission directed the exercise under guidelines and statutory authority that the Supreme Court upheld. Bihar's final roll was smaller than the pre-SIR roll, yet the judgment describes scrutiny and appeals rather than a finding that valid voters were wrongly removed. The provided court record does not include the Commission's internal minutes or Delhi Chief Electoral Officer data showing deletions after verification and appeals, so the claim that no valid voter was deleted cannot be independently verified from these sources; what the record does show is the absence of any adjudicated tampering.

    Sources

    1. [1]Association For Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission Of ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    2. [2]Devender Yadav & Anr vs Election Commission Of India & Anr on ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    3. [3]Association For Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission Of ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    4. [4]Association For Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission Of ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    5. [5]Snr Edatas Pvt Ltd vs Chief Electoral Officer Delhi & Anr on ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    6. [6]Karumanchi Neelima vs The Election Commission Of India, on 2 ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    7. [7]Gyanesh Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    8. [8]Leela vs Gyanesh Bharti & Ors on 27 September, 2023Court, indiankanoon.org
    9. [9]Supreme Court Bar Co Operative House ... vs Gyanesh Bharti ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    10. [10]Kiran Gupta vs The State Election Commission on 12 October, 2020Court, indiankanoon.org

    Checked against official records

  • Leaves something out·Indian National Congress· 1 Oct 2026

    Congress’s 20 statements on SIR, Form 6 and ‘vote theft’ omit UPA-era revisions and 1980 New Delhi entry

    In 20 statements, Congress attacks the Election Commission, Prime Minister and Home Minister over 13.3 crore deletions, Form 6 changes and ‘vote theft’, without mentioning UPA-era roll revisions or the 1980 New Delhi electoral roll entry of Sonia Gandhi.

    Read the piece ↓

    What was said

    • “He quietly altered the rules regarding ‘Form 6’. This is entirely illegal”

      29 Sept 2026, hindustantimes.com

    • “First Prime Minister Narendra Modi did ‘notebandi’ now doing ‘votebandi’, taking away people’s rights”

      theprint.in

    • “Today, the whole country is worried about vote theft. They feel like the entire mandate is being stolen. Governments built on theft and robbery are in power.”

      thenewsmill.com

    • “the real “puppeteers” of the Election Commission are Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah.”

      theprint.in

    What the record shows

    1. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 set out Form 6 for claims, Form 7 for objections, and allow the roll to be revised either intensively or summarily as the Election Commission directs. [9][7]
    2. Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 permits the Election Commission to direct ordinary revisions and, for recorded reasons, special revisions of any constituency. [8]
    3. In Association For Democratic Reforms v ECI, the Supreme Court noted that the last intensive revision in Bihar was in 2003 and that for more than two decades the rolls were carried forward through summary revisions. [5]
    4. The same Supreme Court judgment recorded that political parties across the spectrum have repeatedly raised serious concerns about the accuracy of rolls prepared through summary revision. [5]

    What the comparison shows

    The 20 statements concentrate on current SIR deletions, Form 6 changes and alleged ‘vote theft’, naming the Prime Minister, Home Minister and Chief Election Commissioner. None of the quoted remarks refers to electoral roll revisions or deletions carried out under earlier Congress-led UPA governments, nor to any 1980 New Delhi entry of Sonia Gandhi. The legal record shows that intensive and summary revisions, including special revisions, are long-standing statutory processes under the 1950 Act and 1960 Rules, and that the last Bihar intensive revision predates the present government. That absence leaves the reader to weigh whether the criticism is selective.

    Sources

    1. [1]244Th Report On Electoral Disqualifications - Indian KanoonCourt, indiankanoon.org
    2. [2]Report No.255 On Electoral Reforms - Indian KanoonCourt, indiankanoon.org
    3. [3]Karumanchi Neelima vs The Election Commission Of India, on 2 ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    4. [4]C. Lakshmi Narain vs The Chief Election Commissioner, ... on ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    5. [5]Association For Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission Of ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    6. [6]Kamal Nath vs Election Commission Of India on 12 October, 2018Court, indiankanoon.org
    7. [7]Section 25 in The Registration Of Electors Rules, 1960Court, indiankanoon.org
    8. [8]Section 21 in The Representation Of The People Act, 1950Court, indiankanoon.org
    9. [9]The Registration Of Electors Rules, 1960 - Indian KanoonCourt, indiankanoon.org
    10. [10]Lal Babu Hussein & Others vs Electrol Registration Officer ...Court, indiankanoon.org

    Checked against official records

  • Their own record·Aam Aadmi Party· 30 Sept 2026

    AAP sought an FIR against a BJP minister while Delhi excise policy cases named Kejriwal, Sisodia and Sanjay Singh

    Court documents name Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh in the 2021-22 Delhi excise policy cases, with the ED alleging kickbacks to AAP leaders, even as AAP leaders asked ACB to register an FIR against a BJP minister.

    Read the piece ↓

    What was said

    • “BJP मंत्री के खिलाफ FIR की मांग लेकर ACB Office पहुंचे AAP नेता Saurabh Bharadwaj!”

      30 Sept 2026, youtube.com

    What the record shows

    1. The Delhi High Court recorded in 2026 that Vijay Nair had been charge-sheeted by the CBI, named in an Enforcement Directorate prosecution complaint, and had assets attached in the matter of irregularities in framing and implementation of the New Excise Policy 2021-22 of Delhi. [1]
    2. The CBI registered its excise policy case on 17.08.2022, and the Enforcement Directorate later registered a money-laundering case over the same policy. [7][9][10]
    3. Arvind Kejriwal, then Chief Minister of Delhi, was arrested in the ED case and moved the Delhi High Court in April 2024 challenging his arrest and remand in the 2021-22 excise policy matter. [7]
    4. Manish Sisodia was named in the CBI FIR along with 14 others under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 7/7A/8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [9]
    5. Sanjay Singh was arrested on 04.10.2023; the ED alleged before the High Court that Rs 1 crore each was given in August 2021 and between March-April 2022, and that Rs 2 crore was the money of Delhi Excise Policy. [10]
    6. The ED's case, as recorded by the Delhi High Court, alleged that the excise policy scheme comprised kickbacks/proceeds of crime paid to AAP leaders in lieu of favourable policy changes in the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. [8]
    7. The ED also alleged that the excise policy was formulated with a 12% profit margin for L1 wholesalers, of which 6% was earmarked as kickbacks to be given to AAP. [9]

    What the comparison shows

    The comparison shows that while AAP leaders sought an FIR against a BJP minister, criminal proceedings over the Delhi excise policy 2021-22 had already brought several figures from the AAP side before courts. The court record contains allegations by the CBI and ED, and decisions on bail and remand, not final findings of guilt. The CAG reports on the excise policy were not part of the record examined, so any finding from them cannot be stated. What remains is a contrast between the demand for action against a rival and the unresolved allegations in cases where the party's own leaders were named.

    Sources

    1. [1]Ms Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd Through ... vs The Excise ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    2. [2]The Delhi Excise Rules, 2010 - Indian KanoonCourt, indiankanoon.org
    3. [3]Section 1 (1) in The Delhi Excise Rules, 2010 - Indian KanoonCourt, indiankanoon.org
    4. [4]State vs Deepak on 19 May, 2025 - Indian KanoonCourt, indiankanoon.org
    5. [5]State vs Abhinandan Kumar Pandey on 24 May, 2025 - Indian KanoonCourt, indiankanoon.org
    6. [6]State vs Mohit Singh And Ans on 18 October, 2025 - Indian KanoonCourt, indiankanoon.org
    7. [7]Arvind Kejriwal vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 9 April, 2024Court, indiankanoon.org
    8. [8]Chanpreet Singh Rayat vs Enforcement Directorate on 9 ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    9. [9]Amandeep Singh Dhall vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 17 ...Court, indiankanoon.org
    10. [10]Sanjay Singh vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 7 February, 2024Court, indiankanoon.org

    Checked against official records

  • The attack and the record·Cockroach Janta Party· 29 Sept 2026

    CJP's NEET protest demand and the official record

    The Cockroach Janta Party demanded Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation over alleged NEET irregularities; the Rajya Sabha record from 2024 shows allegations and a committee, while the 2026 record shows his resignation, but no proven irregularities.

    Read the piece ↓

    What was said

    • “the protest organized by the Cockroach Janta Party demanding the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged irregularities in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET)”

      26 Sept 2026, britannica.com

    What the record shows

    1. The Cockroach Janta Party organized protests demanding the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged NEET exam irregularities. [2]
    2. Dharmendra Pradhan resigned after weeks of protests over exam paper leaks and testing irregularities; the President accepted the resignation and Pralhad Joshi was given additional charge of the education ministry. [2]
    3. In the Rajya Sabha on 31 July 2024, Pradhan laid a statement saying that after NEET(UG) 2024 was conducted on 5 May 2024, certain cases of alleged irregularities/cheating/malpractices were reported. [1]
    4. The Rajya Sabha record shows a committee was to make recommendations on the organizational structure and functioning of the National Testing Agency. [1]
    5. Pradhan said in the Rajya Sabha that the Supreme Court did not scrap the NEET exam. [1]
    6. The official Rajya Sabha record describes the cases as alleged irregularities, not proven ones; no CBI or police FIR status or court finding of proven irregularities appears in the documents. [1]

    What the comparison shows

    The CJP's demand rested on allegations, and the official record confirms that allegations were reported and a committee was set up, but it does not establish that any irregularity was proven before Pradhan resigned. The Supreme Court, as cited in the Rajya Sabha debate, did not scrap NEET. The record leaves out any CBI or police FIR status and any court finding on the specific allegations, so the factual basis of the demand remains unverified in these documents.

    Sources

    1. [1]Rajya Sabha - CMSParliament, cms.rajyasabha.nic.in
    2. [2]Dharmendra Pradhan: India's 'cockroach' protesters call off strike as education minister resigns - BBC NewsPress, bbc.com

    Checked against official records