▲Proof needed — office not yet sourced for Aam Aadmi Party
Affiliation
▲Proof needed — affiliation not yet sourced for Aam Aadmi Party
An office or a party is a dated factual claim in its own right, so neither is printed here without a citation. Where one is missing above it reads as unsourced — it is never guessed at, and never quietly left out.
Verification outcomes
Each number below counts individual statements that this pipeline retrieved and rated. It is a tally of checks on claims, not a score for a person, and it cannot be compared between entities — a larger number means more of that entity’s speech happened to be picked up by a feed.
12
claims retrieved and put through the check.
False
3
No proof
6
Missing context
3
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· 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!”
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
Each entry shows what was said, the official series it was compared with, and why the verdict was reached. A statement with no comparable official series stays unverified rather than being guessed at.
Topic
12 claims shown. Ordered by verdict, not by date.
Not true
3 claims
What they said is not true. The official record shows something else.
Not trueSanjay Singh, Aam Aadmi Party (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“What Congress is doing with Akhilesh in Uttar Pradesh today is what they did with Tejashwi in Bihar. The first time, they contested 77 seats and lost many of them, and the government fell short of the majority by just five seats.”
77 seats and five seats short
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
77 seats and five seats short
AAP MP Sanjay Singh alleged that Congress's actions prevented the Rashtriya Janata Dal from forming the government in the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections, saying Congress had earlier contested 77 seats, lost many of them, and the government fell short of a majority by just five seats.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India published statistical reports on the 2025 Bihar election on 19 November 2025, though the excerpts do not give party tallies. Reporting of the final results says the NDA won 202 seats, above the 122-seat majority mark, while the Mahagathbandhan—including the RJD and Congress—won 34 seats (RJD 25, Congress 6).
The Election Commission of India published statistical reports for the 2025 Bihar Assembly election on 19 November 2025, within five days of the poll results. [7]
Final result reporting shows the NDA won 202 seats and the Mahagathbandhan won 34 seats, against a majority mark of 122. [6]
In that tally, the RJD won 25 seats and the Congress won six seats. [6]
The RJD contested 143 seats in the 2025 election, according to election result reporting. [1][2]
The claim's 'fell short by just five seats' conflicts with the final 2025 tally: the opposition alliance had 34 seats, leaving it 88 seats below the 122-seat majority, not five. No retrieved source shows the Congress contesting 77 seats in that election; reporting puts the Congress at six seats won. If the speaker was referring to an earlier Bihar election, the provided record does not cover it.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueSanjay Singh, Aam Aadmi Party (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“The second time, in the recent Assembly elections, Congress kept Tejashwi Yadav hanging until the last moment. They kept talking to contest an equal number of seats, took most of the seats, and did not announce Tejashwi as the chief ministerial candidate in time. We all know what the result was.”
The claim is partly accurate: Congress did delay endorsing Tejashwi, and the CM announcement came late. But the specific assertion that Congress took most of the seats is contradicted by the reported seat-sharing, which gave the RJD 130 seats and Congress 50. No source in the record supports the claim that Congress negotiated for an equal number of seats. Because a load-bearing specific is wrong, the claim is false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP MP Sanjay Singh said that in the recent 2025 Bihar Assembly elections Congress kept Tejashwi Yadav waiting until the last moment, negotiated for an equal number of seats, took most of the seats, and did not announce Tejashwi Yadav as chief ministerial candidate in time.
thenewsmill.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
Reporting on the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections shows the Mahagathbandhan announced Tejashwi Yadav as its chief ministerial candidate on 23 October 2025, after days of negotiations. The Indian Express reported that Congress's refusal to endorse Tejashwi as the CM face before the polls was among the issues holding up the seat-sharing deal. News18 reported the seat-sharing arrangement as 130 seats for the RJD and 50 for Congress.
The Mahagathbandhan announced Tejashwi Yadav as its chief ministerial candidate on 23 October 2025. [1][3][4][7]
News18 reported the seat-sharing arrangement as 130 seats for the RJD and 50 for Congress. [2]
The Indian Express reported that Congress's refusal to endorse Tejashwi as the CM face before the polls was among the issues holding up the seat-sharing deal, and the announcement came after days of negotiations. [4]
Moneycontrol reported that the alliance fielded 253 candidates for 243 seats amid seat-sharing disputes that forced parties to file unilaterally before the nomination deadline. [7]
The claim is partly accurate: Congress did delay endorsing Tejashwi, and the CM announcement came late. But the specific assertion that Congress took most of the seats is contradicted by the reported seat-sharing, which gave the RJD 130 seats and Congress 50. No source in the record supports the claim that Congress negotiated for an equal number of seats. Because a load-bearing specific is wrong, the claim is false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueGopal Rai (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“ओलांद के खुलासे से राफेल सौदे में घोटाले की बात सामने आई है. इससे दुनिया के सामने देश को शर्मनाक स्थिति का सामना करना पड़ रहा है.”
Hollande's statement concerned the choice of an offset partner, not a proven scam in the Rafale deal. The Supreme Court considered the allegations and did not order an investigation, while the Ministry of Defence denied any government role in that selection. The official record therefore contradicts the assertion that the disclosure revealed a scam, and the 'shameful situation before the world' is a political framing rather than a recorded finding.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Gopal Rai said that Hollande's disclosure revealed a scam in the Rafale deal and that the country is facing a shameful situation before the world.
zeenews.india.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
On 14 December 2018, the Supreme Court declined to order a court-monitored investigation into the purchase of 36 Rafale jets and recorded that Dassault, Reliance and the Indian government had all called former French President François Hollande's allegations false. The Ministry of Defence also said on 22 September 2018 that the government had no role in selecting Reliance Defence as offset partner, a commercial decision of the aircraft maker.
The Supreme Court, in its 14 December 2018 decision, declined a court-monitored investigation into the Rafale purchase. [6]
The Court recorded that Dassault, Reliance and the Indian government had all said Hollande's allegations were false. [6]
The Ministry of Defence said the government had no role in selecting Reliance Defence as offset partner and called the controversy unnecessary. [3]
Hollande's statement concerned the choice of an offset partner, not a proven scam in the Rafale deal. The Supreme Court considered the allegations and did not order an investigation, while the Ministry of Defence denied any government role in that selection. The official record therefore contradicts the assertion that the disclosure revealed a scam, and the 'shameful situation before the world' is a political framing rather than a recorded finding.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proof
6 claims
A serious accusation with nothing behind it: no court, no inquiry and no official figure supports it, and the speaker gave none.
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 showsHide the evidence↓↑
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]
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 showsHide the evidence↓↑
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]
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
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 showsHide the evidence↓↑
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]
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
No proofAam Aadmi Party - Punjab (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
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 showsHide the evidence↓↑
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]
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
No proofArvind Kejriwal (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“First, you demanded the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan. Now you are demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. I say, go ahead and directly demand the boss's resignation. Everything is happening at his behest.”
Kejriwal's statement is an allegation that the Chief Election Commissioner acted at the Prime Minister's direction. The sources show that petitions have been filed and political parties have made similar allegations, but no court, Election Commission document or other official record establishes that the Prime Minister directed the Chief Election Commissioner. Because the claim is an allegation without a supporting finding in the record, it is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Arvind Kejriwal alleged that everything, including Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's actions, is happening at Prime Minister Narendra Modi's behest, and that the CEC acted for his "boss" not himself.
timesnownews.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, has said the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls is being carried out in phases with safeguards to prevent wrongful deletion of eligible voters [3]. Petitions in the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court allege that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took decisions on the revision without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners, but these are pending allegations, not findings [1][5][7]. No court order or official document in the record shows that Prime Minister Narendra Modi directed the Chief Election Commissioner.
A public interest litigation in the Supreme Court seeks action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged unilateral decisions on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, despite objections from the other two Election Commissioners [1][5]. [1][5]
Two petitions in the Bombay High Court challenge 14 orders issued by the Chief Election Commissioner in connection with the Special Intensive Revision in Maharashtra and seek restoration of deleted voters [1]. [1]
The Election Commission of India has said the revision includes safeguards such as door-to-door visits by Booth Level Officers, publication of draft rolls, a claims and objections period, and appeals before names are finally deleted [3]. [3]
The Congress Working Committee demanded the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner and the resignation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, alleging voter list manipulation and bias, but this is a political demand, not a finding by any court or official body [4]. [4]
Former Union minister R K Singh asked whether the Chief Election Commissioner was directed by his bosses, but the record contains no answer or finding on that question [6]. [6]
Kejriwal's statement is an allegation that the Chief Election Commissioner acted at the Prime Minister's direction. The sources show that petitions have been filed and political parties have made similar allegations, but no court, Election Commission document or other official record establishes that the Prime Minister directed the Chief Election Commissioner. Because the claim is an allegation without a supporting finding in the record, it is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofSanjay Singh (AAP) (Aam Aadmi Party)30 Sept 2026
“He raised questions over changes made to Form 6, which is used for inclusion of names in electoral rolls, and alleged that the changes were "illegal" and "unconstitutional".”
Calling the Form 6 changes 'illegal' and 'unconstitutional' is an allegation, not a finding. The record contains internal objections from two Election Commissioners and political criticism, but no court order or Election Commission adjudication declaring the July 2026 online Form 6 change illegal or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment upheld the SIR exercise broadly but did not specifically rule on that online Form 6 modification.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP MP Sanjay Singh alleged that changes made to Form 6, used for inclusion of names in electoral rolls, were 'illegal' and 'unconstitutional'.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Law and Justice's PIB note of 25 July 2026 says the Supreme Court examined the legality of the Special Intensive Revision and held it within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Article 324. The Election Commission said on 30 September 2026 that it had removed the extra SIR-related declaration from online Form 6 in states where the SIR was complete, and that it made no legal changes to the statutory Form 6. Reporting notes the Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment did not specifically review the July 2026 online Form 6 modification.
The Election Commission removed the additional SIR-related declaration from online Form 6 in states where the Special Intensive Revision is complete, and said it made no legal changes to the original statutory Form 6 prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. [1]
Within the Election Commission, Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to the change; Joshi said a form prescribed under the 1960 rules could not be modified without amending the rules, while Sandhu called it 'illegal' and sought removal. [1][5]
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment upheld the Election Commission's power to conduct the Special Intensive Revision, but reporting says it did not specifically review the July 2026 online Form 6 change. [5]
The official PIB note of 25 July 2026 states the Supreme Court held the SIR exercise to be within the Election Commission's statutory mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and in consonance with Article 324. [9]
Calling the Form 6 changes 'illegal' and 'unconstitutional' is an allegation, not a finding. The record contains internal objections from two Election Commissioners and political criticism, but no court order or Election Commission adjudication declaring the July 2026 online Form 6 change illegal or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment upheld the SIR exercise broadly but did not specifically rule on that online Form 6 modification.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Misleading
3 claims
Part of it is true, but the way it was said gives a wrong picture.
MisleadingAam Aadmi Partychecked 12 Oct 2026
“We have been saying that Gujarat has emerged as a major gateway for drugs in the country.”
The claim is a characterisation about Gujarat's role nationally. The official record confirms significant drug seizures and notes that Gujarat's long coastline and ports create trafficking challenges, but it does not rank Gujarat against other states or call it 'a major gateway for the country'. Without that official comparison or label, the assertion is not fully established.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP asserted that Gujarat has emerged as a major gateway for drugs in the country.
babushahi.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
A Home Ministry reply in Rajya Sabha on 13 December 2023 says Gujarat has vast maritime borders that pose challenges to containing maritime trafficking, and it lists NCRB drug seizure data under the NDPS Act for 2018-2022. A PIB release of 15 November 2024 records a joint seizure of about 700 kg of methamphetamine in Gujarat's territorial waters. Neither document, nor the April 2025 Rajya Sabha reply on Gujarat seizures, describes Gujarat as a major gateway for drugs or compares its role with other states.
A Rajya Sabha answer from the Home Ministry states that Gujarat has vast maritime borders that pose challenges before law enforcement agencies to contain maritime trafficking of drugs. [3]
The same answer includes National Crime Records Bureau data on drug-wise seizures under the NDPS Act in Gujarat from 2018 to 2022, including cannabis-based, opium-based and psychotropic drugs. [3]
A PIB release of 15 November 2024 says the Narcotics Control Bureau, Indian Navy and Gujarat Police ATS together seized about 700 kg of methamphetamine from a vessel in India's territorial waters. [4]
An April 2025 Rajya Sabha answer gives quantities of prohibited narcotic drugs seized in Gujarat from 2022 to January 2025 and lists government measures against trafficking, but does not use the term 'major gateway'. [6]
Some Gujarat news reports describe the state as a major drug hub or transit route, citing more than 1.3 lakh kg of narcotics seized over 2020-2025. [2]
The claim is a characterisation about Gujarat's role nationally. The official record confirms significant drug seizures and notes that Gujarat's long coastline and ports create trafficking challenges, but it does not rank Gujarat against other states or call it 'a major gateway for the country'. Without that official comparison or label, the assertion is not fully established.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingSanjay Singh (Aam Aadmi Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
““As far as the impeachment of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is concerned, we have already signed it. If an impeachment motion against Gyanesh Kumar is brought in Parliament and any action is taken, we will join hands with all the opposition parties and fight this battle together.””
130 Lok Sabha and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP MP Sanjay Singh said AAP has already signed an impeachment motion against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and that if such a motion is brought in Parliament the party will join hands with all opposition parties.
editorji.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
130 Lok Sabha and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs
signed notices to remove CEC, official bulletins, April 2026
ddnews.gov.in
Parliament's official bulletins said the Rajya Sabha Chairman and Lok Sabha Speaker refused to admit the impeachment notices against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on 6 April 2026. The notices were signed by 130 Lok Sabha members and 63 Rajya Sabha members, but they do not list signatories by party.
The Rajya Sabha Chairman and Lok Sabha Speaker rejected the impeachment motion notice against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. [2][14]
The Lok Sabha notice was signed by 130 members and the Rajya Sabha notice by 63 members. [2][5][14]
At least 193 opposition MPs signed the notice seeking the CEC's removal. [13]
The available parliamentary records do not identify AAP or its MPs among the signatories. [2][5][14]
The record confirms that opposition MPs moved and signed impeachment notices against the CEC, so the general claim of an impeachment push is accurate. But the notices were rejected by both presiding officers, which the claim does not mention, and no source lists AAP as a signatory. The specific assertion that AAP has already signed is therefore not established by the record.
“Mr. Singh also questioned the deletion of names from electoral rolls and alleged that 13.37 crore names had been removed across the country.”
The number itself is supported by media reporting, so it is not false. But the claim says names had been removed from electoral rolls without noting that the figure is from draft rolls and that the SIR process includes a statutory window for claims, objections and restoration. That omission could make a large routine revision look like permanent disenfranchisement.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
AAP MP Sanjay Singh alleged that 13.37 crore names had been removed from electoral rolls across the country.
thehindu.com, 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
News reports said around 13.37 crore names were deleted from draft electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories during the Special Intensive Revision, with Indian Express reporting over 13 crore deletions so far. The Election Commission's SIR process removes names after verification by Booth Level Officers for reasons such as death, permanent shifting of residence, duplicate entries or being untraceable. Draft-roll deletions can be contested through a claims and objections period before the final roll is published, and wrongly removed voters can be restored.
Indian Express and Outlook reported around 13.37 crore deletions from draft electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision. [1][6]
The Election Commission's SIR process deletes names only after verification by Booth Level Officers, for reasons such as death, permanent shifting, duplicate entries or untraceable voters. [4][9]
There is a claims and objections period after the draft roll is published, and names found to have been wrongly removed can be restored before the final roll. [4][8]
The reported 13.37 crore deletions are draft-roll deletions across 30 States and Union Territories, not necessarily final removals from the electoral roll. [6]
The number itself is supported by media reporting, so it is not false. But the claim says names had been removed from electoral rolls without noting that the figure is from draft rolls and that the SIR process includes a statutory window for claims, objections and restoration. That omission could make a large routine revision look like permanent disenfranchisement.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
This page reports claims and the verdicts reached on them. It does not characterise Aam Aadmi Party, and no aggregate rating of any entity is published here — see the methodology.