▲Proof needed — office not yet sourced for Cockroach Janta Party
Affiliation
▲Proof needed — affiliation not yet sourced for Cockroach Janta 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
2
No proof
6
Misleading
2
Missing context
2
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.
The attack and the record· 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)”
The Cockroach Janta Party organized protests demanding the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged NEET exam irregularities. [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]
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]
The Rajya Sabha record shows a committee was to make recommendations on the organizational structure and functioning of the National Testing Agency. [1]
Pradhan said in the Rajya Sabha that the Supreme Court did not scrap the NEET exam. [1]
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.
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.
12 claims shown. Ordered by verdict, not by date.
Not true
2 claims
What they said is not true. The official record shows something else.
Not trueAbhijeet Dipke (Cockroach Janta Party)1 Oct 2026
“he alleged that the government was deciding who would remain on the voters’ list.”
The claim asserts that the government decides who remains on the voters' list. The statutory scheme and the Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment show those decisions belong to Electoral Registration Officers acting under the Election Commission, which the Constitution establishes as an independent body. The government can change rules and forms, but it does not decide individual voters' retention on the rolls. The assertion therefore misstates who actually makes these decisions.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke alleged that the government was deciding who would remain on the voters' list.
hindustantimes.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission of India describes the constitutional scheme as resting on 'an independent Election Commission.' Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the legal authority to prepare and revise each constituency's electoral roll rests with the Electoral Registration Officer, a statutory authority, not with the government. The government's role is limited to amending rules and forms, such as Form 6, under Section 28 of that Act.
The legal authority to prepare and revise the electoral roll of an Assembly constituency rests with the Electoral Registration Officer under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [2]
Each constituency's electoral roll is maintained by its Electoral Registration Officer, a statutory authority. [1]
The Supreme Court, in its May 2026 judgment on the Special Intensive Revision, framed the constitutional design as one general electoral roll, universal adult franchise and an independent Election Commission. [6]
Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act says only the Union government can amend rules governing electoral forms, including Form 6, but individual decisions on inclusion or deletion are made by electoral officials. [1]
The claim asserts that the government decides who remains on the voters' list. The statutory scheme and the Supreme Court's May 2026 judgment show those decisions belong to Electoral Registration Officers acting under the Election Commission, which the Constitution establishes as an independent body. The government can change rules and forms, but it does not decide individual voters' retention on the rolls. The assertion therefore misstates who actually makes these decisions.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueAbhijeet Dipke (Cockroach Janta Party)24 Sept 2026
“But ever since Gyanesh Kumar took over as Chief Election Commissioner, the government decides who votes and who does not.”
The claim says the government decides who votes, but the record shows voter-list decisions are made by the Election Commission, a constitutional body. The internal rift reported is between the CEC and the other two Election Commissioners, not evidence of government control. No source establishes that the government decides voter eligibility.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke alleged that ever since Gyanesh Kumar took over as Chief Election Commissioner, the government decides who votes and who does not.
ndtv.com, 24 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Indian Express reported that two Election Commissioners lodged 14 formal objections against poll panel decisions led by CEC Gyanesh Kumar in 10 months; the Commission is a constitutional body under Article 324 whose business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible. ECI press notes describe its own initiatives for electoral roll accuracy.
The Election Commission is a constitutional body under Article 324, with the CEC and two Election Commissioners equal in rank; its business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible. [4]
Two Election Commissioners lodged 14 formal objections against poll panel decisions led by CEC Gyanesh Kumar in 10 months, not against the government. [4]
The ECI announced initiatives for electoral roll accuracy in line with CEC Gyanesh Kumar's proposals. [3]
OpIndia described the claim that the government now decides who votes as devoid of factual merit. [1]
The claim says the government decides who votes, but the record shows voter-list decisions are made by the Election Commission, a constitutional body. The internal rift reported is between the CEC and the other two Election Commissioners, not evidence of government control. No source establishes that the government decides voter eligibility.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
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 proofAbhijeet Dipke (Cockroach Janta Party)12 Oct 2026
“it was turned into a war zone by the coward dictator”
The words 'war zone' and 'coward dictator' are the speaker's characterisation, not a factual claim that the record confirms. The official documents show police action and inquiries, but no court, commission or police order describes the site as a war zone or identifies any person as a coward dictator. Because the allegation is unsupported by the record, it is NO_PROOF.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke alleged that Jantar Mantar was turned into a war zone by the coward dictator.
hindustantimes.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Delhi High Court's 22 July 2026 order records a petition over Sonam Wangchuk's alleged forcible removal from Jantar Mantar on 18 July 2026. The National Human Rights Commission took suo motu cognizance of reported sexual harassment of three journalists by Delhi Police during a Jantar Mantar protest on 3 October 2026 and asked the Delhi Police Commissioner for a report. Delhi Police de-notified Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site on 11 October 2026.
The Delhi High Court's 22 July 2026 order records a petition about Sonam Wangchuk being allegedly forcibly removed from Jantar Mantar on 18 July 2026 and lodged in Safdarjung Hospital. [1]
The National Human Rights Commission took suo motu cognizance of reported sexual harassment of three journalists by Delhi Police personnel during a protest at Jantar Mantar on 3 October 2026 and sought a report from the Delhi Police Commissioner. [9]
Delhi Police de-notified Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site on 11 October 2026 and named Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground as alternative venues. [4]
None of the official records retrieved — the Delhi High Court order, the NHRC notice, or the Delhi Police de-notification — describes Jantar Mantar as a war zone or names a 'coward dictator'. [1][9][4]
The words 'war zone' and 'coward dictator' are the speaker's characterisation, not a factual claim that the record confirms. The official documents show police action and inquiries, but no court, commission or police order describes the site as a war zone or identifies any person as a coward dictator. Because the allegation is unsupported by the record, it is NO_PROOF.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipke (Cockroach Janta Party)checked 1 Oct 2026
“He called for freezing the 2025 voter list, saying it should not be “tampered with further”.”
The demand to freeze the rolls and restore the January 2025 list is reported and not disputed. But the phrase 'tampered with further' treats tampering as an established fact. The official record does not support that: the Supreme Court order documents the roll changes without a tampering finding, and the Election Commission says the process was a legal revision, not tampering. Since no court or commission has upheld the tampering allegation, that part remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Cockroach Janta Party founder Abhijeet Dipke called for freezing the 2025 voter list, saying it should not be tampered with further.
telanganatoday.com, checked 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 order in Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India records that Bihar's electoral roll fell from about 7.89 crore electors on 24 June 2025 to a final 7.42 crore on 30 September 2025 after the Special Intensive Revision, and directed that the excluded names be published. The court raised questions about the exercise's authority, procedure and timing but did not find tampering. The Election Commission has said the decisions on the revision were unanimous and that changes at different stages cannot by themselves show a deletion was wrongful or mala fide.
The Cockroach Janata Party demanded a freeze on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and that rolls be restored to the January 2025 voter list. [2]
The Election Commission said decisions taken by the three-member panel, including those relating to the SIR, were unanimous. [2]
The Supreme Court's order records the final Bihar electoral roll at 7.42 crore electors, down from about 7.89 crore before the Special Intensive Revision. [8]
The Supreme Court's order did not find that the electoral roll was tampered with; it listed substantial questions about the authority, procedure and timing of the revision. [8]
The Election Commission has said that figures from different stages of electoral-roll revision cannot by themselves establish that any deletion or non-inclusion was wrongful or mala fide. [6]
The demand to freeze the rolls and restore the January 2025 list is reported and not disputed. But the phrase 'tampered with further' treats tampering as an established fact. The official record does not support that: the Supreme Court order documents the roll changes without a tampering finding, and the Election Commission says the process was a legal revision, not tampering. Since no court or commission has upheld the tampering allegation, that part remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipke (Cockroach Janta Party)1 Oct 2026
“He also alleged that the Election Commission was functioning under the influence of the political executive.”
The claim is an allegation of institutional capture. The record shows a live dispute over appointments and internal decision-making, but no court or commission has found that the Election Commission is functioning under the influence of the political executive. The Supreme Court has stressed the need for insulation from executive influence and referred the appointment law to a larger bench, which is not the same as finding actual influence. Therefore the allegation is not proven on the record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke alleged that the Election Commission was functioning under the influence of the political executive.
hindustantimes.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court, in an order dated 23 September 2026, referred challenges to the 2023 law on appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners to a larger bench. It noted the earlier ruling that the Election Commission must be insulated from exclusive executive control in appointments. The Election Commission has said its important decisions were unanimous, while reporting shows internal objections to a Form 6 change.
The Supreme Court, in an order dated 23 September 2026, referred petitions challenging the 2023 law on appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners to a larger bench. [4][11]
The Supreme Court's earlier Anoop Baranwal ruling held that the Election Commission must be insulated from exclusive executive control in appointments. [3][4][11]
Under the 2023 Act, the Selection Committee for these appointments consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister; a Search Committee is headed by the Law Minister. [11]
The Election Commission said its important decisions of the past year had the 'unanimous' approval of the full Commission, while The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners had objected to a Form 6 change as 'illegal, unauthorised'. [2]
The Supreme Court's 2026 order does not find that the Election Commission is functioning under the influence of the political executive; it refers the appointment-law challenge to a larger bench. [11]
The claim is an allegation of institutional capture. The record shows a live dispute over appointments and internal decision-making, but no court or commission has found that the Election Commission is functioning under the influence of the political executive. The Supreme Court has stressed the need for insulation from executive influence and referred the appointment law to a larger bench, which is not the same as finding actual influence. Therefore the allegation is not proven on the record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofAbhijeet Dipke, Cockroach Janta Party (Cockroach Janta Party)checked 30 Sept 2026
“He alleged that the "dictatorship" of the Election Commission was a matter of concern and claimed that collective efforts were needed to bring change in the country.”
The word 'dictatorship' is an allegation, not a finding. The official record from the Election Commission describes legal safeguards — claims, objections, notice and speaking orders — and the Commission says its decisions were unanimous. Opposition parties have expressed concern, but that is political criticism, not proof that the Commission is a dictatorship. The second part of the claim, that collective efforts are needed, is a call to action and cannot be checked against records.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke of the Cockroach Janta Party alleged that the Election Commission's "dictatorship" was a matter of concern and said collective efforts were needed to bring change in the country.
newsable.asianetnews.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, says in its press releases that inclusions and deletions in electoral rolls are governed by claims and objections under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and that no name can be deleted from the draft roll without notice and a speaking order by the Electoral Registration Officer (Press Information Bureau, 20 March 2025 and 27 July 2025). After reports that two Election Commissioners had raised objections 14 times, the Commission said its decisions had been taken unanimously.
The Election Commission's 20 March 2025 press release says any inclusion or deletion in the draft electoral roll is governed by the legal process of claims and objections under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. [9]
The Election Commission's 27 July 2025 press release on Bihar's Special Intensive Revision says no name can be deleted from the draft list without notice and a speaking order of the Electoral Registration Officer or Assistant Electoral Registration Officer. [10]
After a news report said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised at least 14 objections over 10 months, the Election Commission said its decisions had been taken unanimously. [2]
Opposition parties and Left parties have protested and demanded the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision process, citing reports that some decisions were taken by the Chief Election Commissioner alone. [2][3][7]
The word 'dictatorship' is an allegation, not a finding. The official record from the Election Commission describes legal safeguards — claims, objections, notice and speaking orders — and the Commission says its decisions were unanimous. Opposition parties have expressed concern, but that is political criticism, not proof that the Commission is a dictatorship. The second part of the claim, that collective efforts are needed, is a call to action and cannot be checked against records.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
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 showsHide the evidence↓↑
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]
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
No proofAbhijeet Dipke, Cockroach Janta Party (Cockroach Janta Party)23 May 2026
“The group's founder Abhijeet Dipke said Indian officials had "taken down our iconic website" and asked why they were "so scared of cockroaches".”
The claim that Dipke made the statement is reported, but the substance — that Indian officials took down the website — is not confirmed by any official record. The website is down and X cites a legal demand, but the source of that demand is not identified. Without an official blocking order or government statement, the allegation remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Cockroach Janta Party founder Abhijeet Dipke said Indian officials took down the group's website, and asked why officials were so scared of cockroaches.
bbc.com, 23 May 2026
What is actually true
No official document in the record confirms that Indian officials ordered the Cockroach Janta Party website to be taken down. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology advisory in the record concerns VPN access to blocked betting platforms, not this website. News reports say the website is inaccessible and X displays a notice that the account was withheld 'in response to a legal demand,' but they do not identify the authority behind that demand.
The Cockroach Janta Party's website is inaccessible in India and elsewhere, and its X account shows a notice that it was withheld 'in response to a legal demand.' [1][2][3][6]
Founder Abhijeet Dipke said Indian officials had 'taken down our iconic website' and asked why they were 'so scared of cockroaches.' [2][6]
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology advisory in the record concerns VPN access to blocked betting platforms and does not mention the Cockroach Janta Party. [5]
The claim that Dipke made the statement is reported, but the substance — that Indian officials took down the website — is not confirmed by any official record. The website is down and X cites a legal demand, but the source of that demand is not identified. Without an official blocking order or government statement, the allegation remains unproven.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Misleading
4 claims
Part of it is true, but the way it was said gives a wrong picture.
MisleadingAbhijeet Dipke (Cockroach Janta Party)1 Oct 2026
“Dipke claimed that around 13 crore voters were deleted from electoral rolls since 2024.”
around 13 crore voters
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
around 13 crore voters
CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke claimed that around 13 crore voters were deleted from electoral rolls since 2024.
hindustantimes.com, 1 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission's official press note on Bihar's Special Intensive Revision (SIR), published on 30 September 2025, says 65 lakh electors were removed from the draft list and the final roll has about 7.42 crore electors, with claims and appeals available. Media reports put all-India draft-stage deletions at over 13 crore names across 30 states and Union Territories, but these are draft exclusions that can still be challenged before final rolls are published.
The Election Commission's SIR in Bihar removed 65 lakh electors from the draft list and published a final roll of about 7.42 crore on 30 September 2025. [7]
Media reports describe over 13 crore names deleted from draft electoral rolls across 30 states and Union Territories under SIR, not final deletions. [4][5]
The SIR process began in 2025; Bihar's ran from 24 June to 30 September 2025, not in 2024. [7]
Draft-stage deletions can be challenged through claims and objections before final rolls are published. [4][7]
The claim's number matches draft-stage exclusions reported in media, but calling them 'voters deleted since 2024' is misleading. These are names removed from draft rolls in a 2025-26 revision, not final deletions, and the official record for one state shows a much smaller final removal with a challenge process. The 'since 2024' framing is also inaccurate because the SIR drive began in 2025.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
“This has been a sustained effort: toppling governments in Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka, engineering overnight floor-crossings in Goa, buying MLAs and MPs, and splitting parties,”
The claim is partly accurate: there are documented floor-crossings in Goa and party switching by the BJP, and Karnataka saw a hung assembly resolved by a BJP-led coalition. But the claim adds two elements not supported by the record — that legislators were bought with money and that Madhya Pradesh was toppled as part of a sustained effort. The sources describe defections, not purchases, and the only Madhya Pradesh toppling in the record is a 1992 dismissal with a different cause. Because these unsupported specifics change the meaning, the claim is misleading.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Abhijeet Dipke claimed there has been a sustained effort to topple governments in Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka, engineer overnight floor-crossings in Goa, buy MLAs and MPs, and split parties.
ndtv.com, 24 Sept 2026
What is actually true
Moneycontrol and Counterview report that after the Karnataka loss, 10 of 15 Congress MLAs in Goa switched to the BJP, and the BJP gained 7 MPs and 22 MLAs through party switching. The South First also recounts governors inviting short-of-majority parties in Karnataka and Goa. But none of these reports document payments to legislators, and the only Madhya Pradesh toppling in the record is the 1992 dismissal after the Babri Masjid demolition, not a recent defection-driven fall.
Moneycontrol reported that after losing Karnataka, 10 of 15 Congress MLAs in Goa broke away to merge with the BJP, shifting political focus to Madhya Pradesh. [4]
Counterview reported that the BJP gained 7 MPs and 22 MLAs through party switching, including 8 Congress MLAs in Goa and single MLA defections in Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka; the report describes these as defections and party switches, not cash purchases. [8]
The retrieved reports on Goa and Karnataka describe defections and mergers, but none documents payments or 'buying' of legislators with money. [4][8]
The South First recounted that after the 2018 Karnataka hung verdict, a short-of-majority BJP-led coalition was sworn in and later proved its majority on the floor of the House. [7]
The only toppling of a Madhya Pradesh government found in the provided record is the 1992 dismissal of the Assembly after the Babri Masjid demolition, not a recent defection-driven ouster. [3]
The claim is partly accurate: there are documented floor-crossings in Goa and party switching by the BJP, and Karnataka saw a hung assembly resolved by a BJP-led coalition. But the claim adds two elements not supported by the record — that legislators were bought with money and that Madhya Pradesh was toppled as part of a sustained effort. The sources describe defections, not purchases, and the only Madhya Pradesh toppling in the record is a 1992 dismissal with a different cause. Because these unsupported specifics change the meaning, the claim is misleading.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
“CJP's Abhijeet Dipke demands CEC Gyanesh Kumar's resignation within 48 hours over alleged voter deletions, warning of nationwide agitation if demands are not met.”
The claim that voter deletions had taken place is accurate as far as it goes: court orders and the Election Commission's own process show deletions occurred. But the claim omits that the Election Commission says deletions are part of a legal revision process with claims and objections, and court records show some deletions were due to duplicate entries or after notice. The demand for the CEC's resignation is a political demand, not a factual claim, and no official body has found the deletions wrongful.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Cockroach Janta Party's Abhijeet Dipke alleged that voter deletions had taken place and demanded that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar resign within 48 hours over them.
msn.com, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, said in a March 2025 press note that any inclusion or deletion in the electoral roll is governed by the process of appeals under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Telangana High Court orders from 2026 record individual deletions, including one where a name was deleted from one place because it appeared twice. No official body has found that the deletions were wrongful or that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar should resign.
The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision includes deletion of names, and its March 2025 note says inclusions and deletions are governed by legal appeals. [9]
A Telangana High Court order of 23 July 2026 records a voter's name deleted from one place because it appeared at two places in the same constituency. [10]
An Andhra Pradesh High Court order of 2 February 2024 records orders deleting names from electoral rolls after notices under Rules 19 and 20. [12]
The Election Commission capped Form 7 deletion applications at 10 per person after reports of bulk objections, and media reported living electors marked dead in Karnataka. [2][3]
Oneindia reported that CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke demanded the CEC resign within 48 hours and threatened nationwide agitation. [13]
The claim that voter deletions had taken place is accurate as far as it goes: court orders and the Election Commission's own process show deletions occurred. But the claim omits that the Election Commission says deletions are part of a legal revision process with claims and objections, and court records show some deletions were due to duplicate entries or after notice. The demand for the CEC's resignation is a political demand, not a factual claim, and no official body has found the deletions wrongful.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingCockroach Janta Partychecked 12 Oct 2026
“MSP benefits do not reach all marginal farmers.”
The claim is a general statement about reach. The official record shows MSP access is conditional: only registered farmers with valid land records can sell at MSP, and 1.84 crore farmers benefited in 2024-25. That supports the idea that not every marginal farmer is covered, but no official document in the sources states how many marginal farmers are left out or confirms the claim directly. The government's own note says it aims to reach all farmers, so the claim needs that context.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
The Cockroach Janta Party says that Minimum Support Price (MSP) benefits do not reach all marginal farmers.
cockroachjanata.org · reported, checked 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare's PM-AASHA note of 21 August 2026 says the government has taken initiatives to ensure MSP benefits reach all farmers, including small and marginal farmers, but only registered farmers with valid land records are eligible. A PIB note of 10 October 2025 says procurement is done directly from pre-registered farmers and that 1.84 crore farmers benefited from MSP procurement in 2024-25.
The PM-AASHA note of 21 August 2026 says only registered farmers with valid land records are eligible for MSP procurement. [1]
A PIB note of 10 October 2025 says MSP procurement is done directly from pre-registered farmers and 1.84 crore farmers benefited in 2024-25. [2]
The same PM-AASHA note says the government has taken initiatives to ensure MSP benefits reach all farmers, including small and marginal farmers. [1]
The claim is a general statement about reach. The official record shows MSP access is conditional: only registered farmers with valid land records can sell at MSP, and 1.84 crore farmers benefited in 2024-25. That supports the idea that not every marginal farmer is covered, but no official document in the sources states how many marginal farmers are left out or confirms the claim directly. The government's own note says it aims to reach all farmers, so the claim needs that context.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
This page reports claims and the verdicts reached on them. It does not characterise Cockroach Janta Party, and no aggregate rating of any entity is published here — see the methodology.