▲Proof needed — office not yet sourced for Saurav Das
Affiliation
▲Proof needed — affiliation not yet sourced for Saurav Das
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.
9
claims retrieved and put through the check.
False
2
No proof
3
Misleading
2
Missing context
2
Claims on the record
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
9 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 trueSaurav Daschecked 30 Sept 2026
“Das claims that the powers of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) at the constituency level to add and delete voters have been usurped and concentrated in the Delhi Election Commission, where an IT officer reporting to the government now controls these crucial functions.”
The official process described by the Election Commission and the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer still places additions and deletions with Electoral Registration Officers, with notices, recorded reasons and appeals. The claim that these powers have been usurped and concentrated in a Delhi Election Commission where an IT officer controls them names a mechanism the cited records do not show. The ECINet dispute is real, but it involves concerns about ERO discretion, not an established takeover by an IT officer.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Saurav Das claimed that the powers of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to add and delete voters have been usurped and concentrated in the Delhi Election Commission, where an IT officer reporting to the government controls these functions.
news9live.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Election Commission of India, which runs elections, has said field officers have role-based access to the ECINet system 'as per their statutory powers'. The Press Information Bureau, publishing the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision safeguards on 25 July 2026, states that deletion happens only after reasons are recorded and the process under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 is followed, with appeals to the District Magistrate and then the Chief Electoral Officer. The Delhi Chief Electoral Officer's office has also said notices in the revision do not by themselves mean deletion, and that Electoral Registration Officers consider relevant material while deciding individual cases.
The Election Commission has said field officers have role-based access to the ECINet system according to their statutory powers, not that an IT officer controls voter additions or deletions. [2]
The Election Commission's published safeguards for the Special Intensive Revision say deletion requires recording of reasons and following the statutory process under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, with a right to appeal to the District Magistrate and then the Chief Electoral Officer. [9]
The Delhi Chief Electoral Officer's office has clarified that Special Intensive Revision notices are part of verification and do not automatically mean deletion; Electoral Registration Officers consider relevant material while deciding individual cases. [3]
Two Election Commissioners did flag on record that the ECINet software was curtailing the powers of Electoral Registration Officers, and the Maharashtra Chief Electoral Officer sought changes to restore ERO discretion, but this is an internal concern about software, not evidence that an IT officer has taken over the Delhi election machinery. [4]
The official process described by the Election Commission and the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer still places additions and deletions with Electoral Registration Officers, with notices, recorded reasons and appeals. The claim that these powers have been usurped and concentrated in a Delhi Election Commission where an IT officer controls them names a mechanism the cited records do not show. The ECINet dispute is real, but it involves concerns about ERO discretion, not an established takeover by an IT officer.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
Not trueSaurav Daschecked 30 Sept 2026
“A particularly stark allegation is that since 2024, the Election Commission has ceased enrolling Gen Z voters, a move reportedly objected to by two other Election Commissioners.”
1,84,81,610
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Saurav Das alleged that since 2024, the Election Commission has ceased enrolling Gen Z voters.
news9live.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
1,84,81,610
electors aged 18-19 in final 2024 roll, ECI/PIB
pib.gov.in
The Election Commission's release of 9 February 2024, published by the Press Information Bureau, says the Special Summary Revision 2024 was completed and final electoral rolls were published with 1 January 2024 as the qualifying date. It lists 1,84,81,610 electors in the 18-19 age group in the final roll and says over 2.63 crore new electors were included. Media reports about a stalled annual revision concern later revision cycles, not the 2024 cycle itself.
The Election Commission's 2024 Special Summary Revision was completed and final rolls were published on 8 February 2024; the final roll had 96.88 crore registered electors, including 1,84,81,610 electors aged 18-19 and over 2.63 crore new electors. [6]
Election Commission documents for the 2024 cycle record that the Special Summary Revision was conducted with 1 January 2024 as the qualifying date and applications were invited from eligible citizens seeking registration. [7]
Media reports describe a stalled annual summary revision cycle in 2026, with possible delay in adding new 18-year-old voters and divisions within the Election Commission, but this is about later revision cycles, not a total halt to enrolling young voters from 2024. [1][2][3]
Election Commission data for the 2024 Lok Sabha election counted 97,97,51,847 registered electors, an increase of 7.43 percent over 2019, showing rolls continued to grow through the 2024 election cycle. [10]
The claim says enrolment of Gen Z voters has ceased since 2024, but the official record for 2024 shows the Election Commission enrolled millions of young voters, including 1.84 crore electors aged 18-19. Reporting that the annual revision later stalled does not support the absolute assertion that enrolment stopped from 2024. The official data directly contradicts the claim as worded.
A serious accusation with nothing behind it: no court, no inquiry and no official figure supports it, and the speaker gave none.
No proofSaurav Das12 Oct 2026
“We suspect that, as alleged in similar cases involving activists in the past, phones could have been hacked or cloned to plant documents or other material that might later be used as evidence against us,”
This is an allegation or suspicion, not a statement of fact confirmed by any official record. The only support in the retrieved sources is Das's own statement carried by news outlets. Because no police response, forensic examination or court finding is present, the claim cannot be verified and is rated NO_PROOF. The reference to 'past cases involving activists' is also not tied to any specific case in the retrieved record.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Saurav Das said he suspects the phones taken from detained CJP leaders could have been hacked or cloned to plant documents or material for later use as evidence against them, as alleged in past cases involving activists.
thehindu.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
The retrieved sources are news reports that quote Saurav Das as saying he suspects the phones were hacked or cloned and that documents or material could be planted as evidence. No police response, seizure memo, forensic report, court order or other official document in the retrieved record confirms that any phone was hacked, cloned or tampered with. The court judgments retrieved concern unrelated matters and contain no finding about activists' phones.
News reports quote Saurav Das as saying he suspects the phones were hacked or cloned and that documents or material could be planted as evidence. [1][2]
The retrieved sources are news reports and do not include any police statement, seizure memo, forensic report or court order confirming that a phone was hacked, cloned or tampered with. [1][2]
The court judgments in the retrieved record concern unrelated matters — a bank service dispute, an Arms Act prosecution, the Bhopal gas case and a Delhi Excise case — and contain no finding about phone hacking or cloning of activists' devices. [3][4][5][6]
This is an allegation or suspicion, not a statement of fact confirmed by any official record. The only support in the retrieved sources is Das's own statement carried by news outlets. Because no police response, forensic examination or court finding is present, the claim cannot be verified and is rated NO_PROOF. The reference to 'past cases involving activists' is also not tied to any specific case in the retrieved record.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofSaurav Das12 Oct 2026
“Delhi Police officials had taken away their phones during their detention without issuing any seizure memo, Mr. Das claimed, raising concerns that the devices might have been hacked or cloned.”
The claim is an allegation of police misconduct. Das offered no document, court finding or official figure for it, and the retrieved material contains no independent record that supports it. Delhi Police had not responded to the specific claims. The court records retrieved are from unrelated cases and do not bear on this incident.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
CJP co-convener Saurav Das said Delhi Police officials took away their phones during their detention without issuing any seizure memo, and raised the concern that the devices might have been hacked or cloned.
thehindu.com, 12 Oct 2026
What is actually true
No court order, police document or other official record in the retrieved material confirms that Delhi Police took the phones without a seizure memo or that the devices were hacked or cloned. The reports quote Das making the allegation, and one report notes Delhi Police had not publicly responded to the specific claims.
Saurav Das alleged at a press conference that Delhi Police seized phones without a seizure memo and that the devices may have been hacked or cloned. [2][6]
Delhi Police had not publicly responded to the specific allegations regarding the seizure of phones, the absence of a seizure memo, or claims that the devices may have been compromised. [1]
The retrieved court records concern unrelated criminal cases and do not mention this detention or any seizure of phones from CJP leaders. [7][8][9][10][11]
The claim is an allegation of police misconduct. Das offered no document, court finding or official figure for it, and the retrieved material contains no independent record that supports it. Delhi Police had not responded to the specific claims. The court records retrieved are from unrelated cases and do not bear on this incident.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
No proofSaurav Das24 Sept 2026
“Nothing is going to work because the Election Commission of India is compromised.”
The claim that the Election Commission is compromised is an allegation about the body's integrity. No court order, parliamentary answer or official document in the record supports it. The Supreme Court examined the SIR and ruled on the Commission's legal powers, not on whether it is compromised. The Commission's own statement says the SIR orders were unanimous, so the allegation remains unproven.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Saurav Das said nothing is going to work because the Election Commission of India is compromised.
thehindu.com, 24 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment in ADR v ECI examined the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision in Bihar and held that the Commission cannot decide citizenship, which belongs to the Ministry of Home Affairs. The judgment does not record any finding that the Commission is compromised. The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 states that the SIR order of 24 June 2025 for all States and Union Territories was issued with the unanimous approval of the full Commission.
The Supreme Court's 27 May 2026 judgment in ADR v ECI held that the Election Commission cannot decide citizenship under the pretext of electoral roll revision, but it did not record any finding that the Commission is compromised. [1]
The Election Commission's press note of 26 September 2026 says the SIR order issued on 24 June 2025 for all States and Union Territories, starting with Bihar, was issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. [10]
A PIB release of 14 May 2026 shows the Election Commission directed the Special Intensive Revision in 16 States and 3 Union Territories covering 36,73,87,831 electors. [2]
The claim that the Election Commission is compromised is an allegation about the body's integrity. No court order, parliamentary answer or official document in the record supports it. The Supreme Court examined the SIR and ruled on the Commission's legal powers, not on whether it is compromised. The Commission's own statement says the SIR orders were unanimous, so 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.
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 showsHide the evidence↓↑
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]
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
MisleadingSaurav Das28 Sept 2026
“The Supreme Court ENSURED that the SIR happened in Bengal in whatever manner barely months before the election. When the consequences of mass voters deletions became impossible to ignore, Justice Joymalya Bagchi in that bench made an extraordinary observation that those unable to vote “this time” could vote “next time”,”
The claim's first part is substantially supported: the Supreme Court ordered or entrusted the SIR-related process and the exercise began in West Bengal in late February 2026, shortly before April polling. However, the attributed quotation to Justice Bagchi about voting 'next time' is not found in the official 13 April orders or the contemporaneous media report, which instead record different remarks. Pairing the true fact with an unsupported quotation gives a misleading impression of what the court actually said.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Saurav Das said the Supreme Court ensured the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls took place in West Bengal barely months before the election, and that Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that voters unable to vote 'this time' could vote 'next time' once the consequences of mass voter deletions became impossible to ignore.
awazthevoice.in, 28 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Supreme Court's 13 April 2026 order notes that the SIR exercise commenced in West Bengal in the last week of February 2026 'in compliance of the orders passed by this Court', and polling was set for 23 and 29 April 2026. The same order records the Bench's appreciation for the task and states that if an appeal is allowed, directions for inclusion or exclusion would be effectuated before polling. Frontline's account of the 13 April hearing quotes Justice Bagchi as saying the Election Commission had 'deviated' from its Bihar position, not as telling excluded voters to vote next time.
The SIR exercise in West Bengal commenced in the last week of February 2026 in compliance with Supreme Court orders, a few weeks before polling on 23 and 29 April 2026. [4][6]
The Supreme Court's 13 April 2026 order records appreciation for the task and says allowed appeals for inclusion or exclusion would be effectuated before polling; it contains no observation that those unable to vote 'this time' could vote 'next time'. [4][6]
Frontline's report of Justice Bagchi's remarks on 13 April says he stated the Election Commission had 'deviated' from its position in the Bihar SIR litigation, not that excluded voters could vote next time. [1]
The claim's first part is substantially supported: the Supreme Court ordered or entrusted the SIR-related process and the exercise began in West Bengal in late February 2026, shortly before April polling. However, the attributed quotation to Justice Bagchi about voting 'next time' is not found in the official 13 April orders or the contemporaneous media report, which instead record different remarks. Pairing the true fact with an unsupported quotation gives a misleading impression of what the court actually said.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingSaurav Daschecked 30 Sept 2026
“Now just imagine how insulting this is. If BJP governments had put this much energy into addressing the real problems of Anganwadi workers, such as extremely low salaries (Rs 5,000 to 10,000), heavy workload, shortage of staff, lack of social security or health facilities, and Anganwadi centres operating in dilapidated buildings, then perhaps these women would not have needed anyone to order them to praise them.”
Rs 5,000 to 10,000
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Rs 5,000 to 10,000
Saurav Das said Anganwadi workers face extremely low salaries of Rs 5,000 to 10,000, heavy workload, staff shortage, lack of social security or health facilities, and Anganwadi centres operating in dilapidated buildings.
news.abplive.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The parliamentary answers retrieved on facilities at Anganwadi (Lok Sabha questions 425 and 3392) are truncated and state no figure in the text provided, so no official document in the retrieved record states the honorarium range or addresses workload, staffing, social security or building condition. Non-official material shows a more varied pay picture: a news report says West Bengal notified a ₹5,000 monthly hike bringing Anganwadi workers to ₹14,000 from 1 August 2026, and a state-wise comparison lists ₹15,000 in Maharashtra, ₹13,000 in Karnataka and ₹10,000 in Uttar Pradesh.
A news report states the West Bengal government notified a flat ₹5,000 a month increase for Anganwadi workers, bringing their pay to ₹14,000 per month effective 1 August 2026. [3]
A 2026 state-wise comparison article lists Anganwadi worker pay at ₹15,000 in Maharashtra, ₹13,000 in Karnataka and ₹10,000 in Uttar Pradesh. [5]
Anganwadi workers in most states are classified as honorary workers paid through the Integrated Child Development Services scheme, not as regular government employees. [4]
The retrieved Lok Sabha answers on facilities at Anganwadi do not state a figure on honorarium, workload, staffing, social security or building condition in the text provided. [1][2]
The salary range in the claim captures only part of the picture. Non-official sources show some states pay at or below ₹10,000 a month, but several now pay above the claimed top end — Karnataka ₹13,000, Maharashtra ₹15,000 and West Bengal ₹14,000 after a 2026 hike. The other parts of the claim — heavy workload, staff shortage, lack of social security or health facilities, and dilapidated buildings — are not supported by any retrieved source. The official parliamentary answers that would normally state the honorarium schedule and staffing data are truncated in the retrieved text.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
MisleadingSaurav Daschecked 30 Sept 2026
“CJP Live Updates: ‘System Is Broken And Corrupt’: Saurav Das Calls For Change”
The claim is a subjective generalisation. While official sources acknowledge corruption in specific sectors like the public distribution system and outline anti-corruption measures, they do not support a sweeping statement that the system as a whole is broken and corrupt. The statement omits that these are targeted findings with official responses, not evidence of systemic breakdown. Therefore the claim is missing context rather than accurate or false.
What the evidence showsHide the evidence↓↑
What they said
Saurav Das said the system is broken and corrupt and called for change.
timesnownews.com, checked 30 Sept 2026
What is actually true
The Ministry of Consumer Affairs told the Rajya Sabha that there have been complaints about irregularities and corruption in the public distribution system, and the government has taken measures such as computerisation. The Government of India has also listed measures to combat corruption across departments. However, no official document in the provided record supports the assertion that the entire system is broken and corrupt; the documents show specific instances and official responses.
The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution told the Rajya Sabha that there have been complaints about irregularities in the Targeted Public Distribution System including corruption, and the government has taken measures like computerisation. [3]
The Government of India has stated it has taken several measures to combat corruption, including discontinuing interviews for Group 'B' and 'C' posts and amending service rules on disciplinary timelines. [1][2]
Media reports record Saurav Das saying the electoral system is corrupt and broken, but these reports do not provide independent evidence that the entire system is broken and corrupt; they only report his opinion. [11][12]
The claim is a subjective generalisation. While official sources acknowledge corruption in specific sectors like the public distribution system and outline anti-corruption measures, they do not support a sweeping statement that the system as a whole is broken and corrupt. The statement omits that these are targeted findings with official responses, not evidence of systemic breakdown. Therefore the claim is missing context rather than accurate or false.
How this was checked: Checked against official records
This page reports claims and the verdicts reached on them. It does not characterise Saurav Das, and no aggregate rating of any entity is published here — see the methodology.