SimplifieD on Instagram: "This report will blow your mind because it exposes how our most important institution, the protector of our democracy, the election commission of India might be compromised
That it is not acting as a Commission
And is acting like a one man agency
I try to explain
But after this we all need to ask if we are still a democracy?
Can we win it back ?"
Verdict: Mixed: the video accurately cites some EC procedure issues, but it overstates and muddles key numbers.
Instagram · Unknown creator · Unknown · Oct 3, 2026
The transcript is broadly based on a real Indian Express investigation, but it simplifies the law and mixes up some voter-roll figures.
Claim-by-claim breakdown
Accurate (89% confidence): Election Commission decisions are not supposed to rest on one person's whim; business is meant to be handled unanimously if possible, and disputes are decided by majority. The Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991 says business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously; if there is a difference of opinion, the majority view…
Accurate (96% confidence): In Goa, 97 eligible voters were left off the final electoral roll after local officers found them eligible but the central software blocked their restoration. Indian Express reported that 97 eligible Goa voters were left out of the roll because ECINet software blocked ground-level EROs from restoring them.
Accurate (90% confidence): In West Bengal, about 27 lakh voters were deleted from the rolls during the SIR process. Indian Express reported that 27 lakh voters were deleted in West Bengal during the SIR process.
Accurate (94% confidence): About 16 lakh West Bengal appeals were filed against inclusions after the roll revisions. The Indian Express said 16.10 lakh appeals were filed against inclusions in West Bengal.
Misleading (72% confidence): The Election Commission was acting like a single-person agency rather than a three-member commission. The investigation reports disputed decisions and overruled local officers, but the claim is an interpretive judgment rather than a directly verifiable fact.