EastEnders actress Balvinder Sopal faces a puzzling disconnect between her judged performances and public votes on Strictly Come Dancing, sparking debate over voting fairness and her personal journey in the competition.
Dressed as an ethereal underwater siren on Saturday night’s Strictly Come Dancing, Balvinder Sopal appeared poised and defiant as she danced with partner Julian Caillon. The EastEnders actress, known for her role as Suki Panesar since 2020, earned praise from the judges for her progress and technique, garnering cheers on social media. Yet, despite her consistent and steadily improving performances, she found herself in the dance-off for the third time in five weeks, a surprising fate for someone so highly regarded by viewers and critics alike.
Balvinder’s journey on this year’s Strictly has been marked by a puzzling disconnect between her dance performances, the judges’ comments, and the public vote. Each week, she has managed to deliver solid routines that showcase her growth as a dancer. However, the scores from the judges have remained curiously stagnant, with Balvinder receiving the same total score of 28 points, comprised of four sevens, three weeks running. This plateau of scores doesn’t appear to match the warmth of judges’ feedback, such as Shirley Ballas praising her as having done “very, very well indeed,” and noting her clear progress. Balvinder herself voiced her confusion on the show’s spin-off It Takes Two, saying she had tried to understand why improvement wasn’t reflected in higher scores and resolved to keep dancing “to my heart’s content” regardless.
This stagnant scoring, paired with a lack of public votes, has led to Balvinder being in the dance-off repeatedly. Her resilience has been tested emotionally, as she confessed to moments of self-doubt and tears during the contest. Observers have argued that the judges’ middling scores might be undermining her confidence, which complicates her standing in the competition. Despite praise from judges, including descriptors such as “a powerhouse” from Motsi Mabuse after a strong paso doble, Balvinder’s repeated presence in the bottom two has sparked widespread viewer frustration and questioning of the voting dynamics.
Part of the difficulty Balvinder faces may stem from her professional circumstances on the show. While celebrities are the intended focus of votes, fans often have strong attachments to the professional dancers themselves. Balvinder’s partner, Julian Caillon, is one of this year’s new professionals, relatively unknown to British viewers despite his prior experience on Australia’s Dancing With the Stars. Unlike well-established Strictly professionals who bring along devoted fanbases, newcomers like Julian do not benefit from this added layer of viewer loyalty, which can impact the popularity and thus voting of their celebrity partners.
Another element affecting Balvinder’s public appeal is how closely she is associated with her EastEnders character, Suki Panesar, a role that has become a fan favourite but may overshadow her own persona. Fans often find it challenging to separate long-term soap actors from their fictional characters, especially on reality competitions where personality outside the role can influence votes. Balvinder identified herself as more reserved compared to Suki, and critics and fans have highlighted that because viewers primarily know her as Suki, they may not feel as personally connected to her as an individual performer. Moreover, unlike many Strictly contestants with open social media profiles who share aspects of their personal lives, Balvinder maintains a more private stance. Her 83,000 Instagram followers mostly see her professional work with few glimpses into her personal life, unlike contemporaries who have cultivated broader public profiles, such as Vicky Pattison or George Clarke. This limited public familiarity might also hinder the extent of viewer engagement and support.
In addition to these challenges, Balvinder occupies an ambiguous position in the competition’s dance experience spectrum. Though she has performed in stage productions and soap operas, which involve a degree of performance training, she is not a formally trained dancer, unlike some contestants with West End or musical theatre backgrounds. This status often invites debate among viewers about fairness and expectations in judging and voting, with some seeing actors as neither complete novices nor trained dancers, complicating the way they are perceived in such shows.
Despite being at risk of elimination in the coming weeks, there is a groundswell of support rallying around Balvinder. Fans have openly criticised the voting process, feeling it has been unfair to her and many have called for more public backing to reflect her skill and dedication. The combination of her improving performances, emotional honesty, and steady progress on the dancefloor could yet shift momentum. Though the public vote remains unpredictable, the warmth from the judging panel and an engaged fanbase might still give her the chance to stay longer and prove her capabilities on Strictly Come Dancing.
📌 Reference Map:
- [1] (Daily Mail) – Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
- [2] (The Independent) – Paragraphs 3, 4
- [3] (The Independent) – Paragraph 3
- [4] (Magzter) – Paragraph 5
- [6] (TV Guide) – Paragraph 7
- [7] (GB News) – Paragraph 4
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative presents recent events from the 2025 series of Strictly Come Dancing, with specific dates and details aligning with current coverage. The earliest known publication date of similar content is 5 days ago, indicating timely reporting. The narrative includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. The presence of a press release suggests a high freshness score, as press releases are typically current and directly from the source.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
Direct quotes from Balvinder Sopal and judges are consistent with those found in other reputable outlets, indicating originality. However, some quotes appear in earlier material, suggesting potential reuse. Variations in wording across sources may indicate paraphrasing or selective quoting. No online matches were found for some quotes, raising the score but flagging them as potentially original or exclusive content.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The narrative originates from The Daily Mail, a reputable organisation known for its extensive coverage. However, the presence of a press release suggests a high freshness score, as press releases are typically current and directly from the source. The inclusion of content from The Independent and other reputable outlets strengthens the reliability of the information.
Plausability check
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative’s claims about Balvinder Sopal’s performances and public reception are consistent with recent reports from reputable outlets. The inclusion of specific details, such as the dance-off against Ross King and the judges’ comments, adds credibility. However, the lack of supporting detail from other reputable outlets on certain claims raises questions about their verifiability. The tone and language used are consistent with typical media reporting on reality TV competitions.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative presents timely and detailed information about Balvinder Sopal’s journey on Strictly Come Dancing, with quotes and events corroborated by reputable sources. However, the presence of recycled content, potential reuse of quotes, and some unverifiable claims warrant further scrutiny. The inclusion of a press release suggests a high freshness score, as press releases are typically current and directly from the source. The lack of supporting detail from other reputable outlets on certain claims raises questions about their verifiability.
