#FactCheck - AI-Generated Video of Monkey Falsely Linked to Hanuman Devotion

Introduction

The Telecommunications Act of 2023 was passed by Parliament in December, receiving the President's assent and being published in the official Gazette on December 24, 2023. The act is divided into 11 chapters 62 sections and 3 schedules. Sections 1, 2, 10-30, 42-44, 46, 47, 50-58, 61 and 62 already took effect on June 26, 2024. 

On July 04, 2024, the Centre issued a Gazetted Notification and sections 6-8, 48 and 59(b) were notified to be effective from July 05, 2024. The Act aims to amend and consolidate the laws related to telecommunication services, telecommunication networks, and spectrum assignment and it ‘repeals’ certain older colonial-era legislations like the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and Indian Wireless Telegraph Act 1933. Due to the advancements in technology in the telecom sector, the new law is enacted. 

On 18 July 2024 Thursday, the telecom minister while launching the theme of Indian Mobile Congress (IMC), announced that all rules and provisions of the new Telecom Act would be notified within the next 180 days, hence making the Act operational at full capacity. 

Important definitions under Telecommunications Act, 2023

1. Authorisation: Section 2(d) entails “authorisation” means a permission, by whatever name called, granted under this Act for— (i) providing telecommunication services; (ii) establishing, operating, maintaining or expanding telecommunication networks; or (iii) possessing radio equipment.
2. Telecommunication: Section 2(p) entails “Telecommunication” means transmission, emission or reception of any messages, by wire, radio, optical or other electro-magnetic systems, whether or not such messages have been subjected to rearrangement, computation or other processes by any means in the course of their transmission, emission or reception.
3. Telecommunication Network: Section 2(s) entails “telecommunication network” means a system or series of systems of telecommunication equipment or infrastructure, including terrestrial or satellite networks or submarine networks, or a combination of such networks, used or intended to be used for providing telecommunication services, but does not include such telecommunication equipment as notified by the Central Government.
4. Telecommunication Service: Section 2(t) entails “telecommunication service” means any service for telecommunication.

‍

Measures for Cyber Security for the Telecommunication Network/Services

Section 22 of the Telecommunication Act, 2023 talks about the protection of telecommunication networks and telecommunication services. The section specifies that the centre may provide rules to ensure the cybersecurity of telecommunication networks and telecommunication services. Such measures may include the collection, analysis and dissemination of traffic data that is generated, transmitted, received or stored in telecommunication networks. ‘Traffic data’ can include any data generated, transmitted, received, or stored in telecommunication networks – such as type, duration, or time of a telecommunication. 

Section 22 further empowers the central government to declare any telecommunication network, or part thereof, as Critical Telecommunication Infrastructure. It may further provide for standards, security practices, upgradation requirements and procedures to be implemented for such Critical Telecommunication Infrastructure. 

CyberPeace Policy Wing Outlook:

The Telecommunication Act, 2023 marks a significant change & growth in the telecom sector by providing a robust regulatory framework, encouraging research and development, promoting infrastructure development, and measures for consumer protection. The Central Government is empowered to authorize individuals for (a) providing telecommunication services, (b) establishing, operating, maintaining, or expanding telecommunication networks, or (c) possessing radio equipment. Section 48 of the act provides no person shall possess or use any equipment that blocks telecommunication unless permitted by the Central Government. 

The Central Government will protect users by implementing different measures, such as the requirement of prior consent of users for receiving particular messages, keeping a 'Do Not Disturb' register to stop unwanted messages, the mechanism to enable users to report any malware or specified messages received, the preparation and maintenance of “Do Not Disturb” register, to ensure that users do not receive specified messages or class of specified messages without prior consent. The authorized entity providing telecommunication services will also be required to create an online platform for users for their grievances pertaining to telecommunication services. 

In certain limited circumstances such as national security measures, disaster management and public safety, the act contains provisions empowering the Government to take temporary possession of telecom services or networks from authorised entity; direct interception or disclosure of messages, with measures to be specified in rulemaking. This entails that the government gains additional controls in case of emergencies to ensure security and public order. However, this has to be balanced with appropriate measures protecting individual privacy rights and avoiding any unintended arbitrary actions. 

Taking into account the cyber security in the telecommunication sector, the government is empowered under the act to introduce standards for cyber security for telecommunication services and telecommunication networks; and encryption and data processing in telecommunication. 

The act also promotes the research and development and pilot projects under Digital Bharat Nidhi. The act also promotes the approach of digital by design by bringing online dispute resolution and other frameworks. Overall the approach of the government is noteworthy as they realise the need for updating the colonial era legislation considering the importance of technological advancements and keeping pace with the digital and technical revolution in the telecommunication sector. 

References:

1. The Telecommunications Act, 2023 https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:88cb04ff-2cce-4663-ad41-88aafc81a416
2. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2031057
3. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2027941
4. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/telecom/telecom-news/new-telecom-act-will-be-notified-in-180-days-bsnl-4g-rollout-is-monitored-on-a-daily-basis-scindia/articleshow/111851845.cms?from=mdr
5. https://www.azbpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Update-Staggered-Enforcement-of-Telecommunications-Act-2023.pdf
6. https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/blog/analysing-the-impact-of-telecommunications-act-2023-on-digital-india-mission/111828226

‍

Executive Summary:

‍
A video circulating online claims to show a man being assaulted by BSF personnel in India for selling Bangladesh flags at a football stadium. The footage has stirred strong reactions and cross border concerns. However, our research confirms that the video is neither recent nor related to the incident that occurred in India. The content has been wrongly framed and shared with misleading claims, misrepresenting the actual incident.

‍

Claim:

‍

It is being claimed through a viral post on social media that a Border Security Force (BSF) soldier physically attacked a man in India for allegedly selling the national flag of Bangladesh in West Bengal. The viral video further implies that the incident reflects political hostility towards Bangladesh within Indian territory.

‍

Fact Check:

‍
After conducting thorough research, including visual verification, reverse image searching, and confirming elements in the video background, we determined that the video was filmed outside of Bangabandhu National Stadium in Dhaka, Bangladesh, during the crowd buildup prior to the AFC Asian Cup. A match featuring Bangladesh against Singapore.

‍

‍

‍

‍

Second layer research confirmed that the man seen being assaulted is a local flag-seller named Hannan. There are eyewitness accounts and local news sources indicating that Bangladeshi Army officials were present to manage the crowd on the day under review. During the crowd control effort a soldier assaulted the vendor with excessive force. The incident created outrage to which the Army responded by identifying the officer responsible and taking disciplinary measures. The victim was reported to have been offered reparations for the misconduct.

‍

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍
Our research confirms that the viral video does not depict any incident in India. The claim that a BSF officer assaulted a man for selling Bangladesh flags is completely false and misleading. The real incident occurred in Bangladesh, and involved a local army official during a football event crowd-control situation. This case highlights the importance of verifying viral content before sharing, as misinformation can lead to unnecessary panic, tension, and international misunderstanding.

‍

• Claim: Viral video claims BSF personnel thrashing a person selling Bangladesh National Flag in West Bengal‍
• Claimed On: Social Media‍
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

Introduction

‍

“an intermediary, on whose computer resource the information is stored, hosted or published, upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction or on being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act, shall not ‍, which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality; in relation to contempt of court; defamation; incitement to an offence relating to the above, or any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force”

‍

Law grows by confronting its absences, it heals itself through its own gaps. The most recent notification from MeitY, G.S.R. 775(E) dated October 22, 2025, is an illustration of that self-correction. On November 15, 2025, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025, will come into effect. They accomplish two crucial things: they restrict who can use "actual knowledge” to initiate takedown and require senior-level scrutiny of those directives. By doing this, they maintain genuine security requirements while guiding India’s content governance system towards more transparent due process. 

‍

When Regulation Learns Restraint

‍

To better understand the jurisprudence of revision, one must need to understand that Regulation, in its truest form, must know when to pause. The 2025 amendment marks that rare moment when the government chooses precision over power, when regulation learns restraint. The amendment revises Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules. Social media sites, hosting companies, and other digital intermediaries are still required to take action within 36 hours of receiving “actual knowledge” that a piece of content is illegal (e.g. poses a threat to public order, sovereignty, decency, or morality). However, “actual knowledge” now only occurs in the following situations: 

(i) a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction, or

(ii) a reasoned written intimation from a duly authorised government officer not below Joint Secretary rank (or equivalent)

‍

The authorised authority in matters involving the police “must not be below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG)”. This creates a well defined, senior-accountable channel in place of a diffuse trigger. 

There are two more new structural guardrails. The Rules first establish a monthly assessment of all takedown notifications by a Secretary-level officer of the relevant government to test necessity, proportionality, and compliance with India’s safe harbour provision under Section 79(3) of the IT Act. Second, in order for platforms to act precisely rather than in an expansive manner, takedown requests must be accompanied by legal justification, a description of the illegal act, and precise URLs or identifiers. The cumulative result of these guardrails is that each removal has a proportionality check and a paper trail. 

‍

Due Process as the Law’s Conscience 

‍

Indian jurisprudence has been debating what constitutes “actual knowledge” for over a decade. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal (2015) connected an intermediary’s removal obligation to notifications from official channels or court orders rather than vague notice. But over time, that line became hazy due to enforcement practices and some court rulings, raising concerns about over-removal and safe-harbour loss under Section 79(3). Even while more recent decisions questioned the “reasonable efforts” of intermediaries, the 2025 amendment institutionally pays homage to Shreya Singhal’s ethos by refocusing “actual knowledge” on formal reviewable communications from senior state actors or judges. 

The amendment also introduces an internal constitutionalism to executive orders by mandating monthly audits at the Secretary level. The state is required to re-justify its own orders on a rolling basis, evaluating them against proportionality and necessity, which are criteria that Indian courts are increasingly requesting for speech restrictions. Clearer triggers, better logs, and less vague “please remove” communications that previously left compliance teams in legal limbo are the results for intermediaries.

‍

The Court’s Echo in the Amendment

‍

The essence of this amendment is echoed in Karnataka High Court’s Ruling on Sahyog Portal, a government portal used to coordinate takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b), was constitutional. The HC rejected X’s (formerly Twitter’s) appeal contesting the legitimacy of the portal in September. The business had claimed that by giving nodal officers the authority to issue takedown orders without court review, the portal permitted arbitrary content removals. The court disagreed, holding that the officers’ acts were in accordance with Section 79 (3)(b) and that they were “not dropping from the air but emanating from statutes.” The amendment turns compliance into conscience by conforming to the Sahyog Portal verdict, reiterating that due process is the moral grammar of governance rather than just a formality. 

‍

Conclusion: The Necessary Restlessness of Law 

‍

Law cannot afford stillness; it survives through self doubt and reinvention. The 2025 amendment, too, is not a destination, it’s a pause before the next question, a reminder that justice breathes through revision. As befits a constitutional democracy, India’s path to content governance has been combative and iterative. The next rule making cycle has been sharpened by the stays split judgments, and strikes down that have resulted from strategic litigation centred on the IT Rules, safe harbour, government fact-checking, and blocking orders. Lessons learnt are reflected in the 2025 amendment: review triumphs over opacity; specificity triumphs over vagueness; and due process triumphs over discretion. A digital republic balances freedom and force in this way. 

‍

Sources

• https://pressnews.in/law-and-justice/government-notifies-amendments-to-it-rules-2025-strengthening-intermediary-obligations/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/10/90dedea70a3fdfe6d58efb55b95b4109.pdf 
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2181719 
• https://www.scobserver.in/journal/x-relies-on-shreya-singhal-in-arbitrary-content-blocking-case-in-karnataka-hc/ 
• https://www.medianama.com/2025/10/223-content-takedown-rules-online-platforms-36-hr-deadline-officer-rank/#:~:text=It%20specifies%20that%20government%20officers,Deputy%20Inspector%20General%20of%20Police%E2%80%9D.

‍

‍