#FactCheck - Deepfake Video Falsely Links Shah Rukh Khan to Rajpal Yadav Case

Executive Summary:

In recent times an image showing the President of AIMIM, Asaduddin Owaisi holding a portrait of Hindu deity Lord Rama, has gone viral on different social media platforms. After conducting a reverse image search, CyberPeace Research Team then found that the picture was fake. The screenshot of the Facebook post made by Asaduddin Owaisi in 2018 reveals him holding Ambedkar’s picture. But the photo which has been morphed shows Asaduddin Owaisi holding a picture of Lord Rama with a distorted message gives totally different connotations in the political realm because in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Asaduddin Owaisi is a candidate from Hyderabad. This means there is a need to ensure that before sharing any information one must check it is original in order to eliminate fake news.

Claims:

AIMIM Party leader Asaduddin Owaisi standing with the painting of Hindu god Rama and the caption that reads his interest towards Hindu religion.

Fact Check:

In order to investigate the posts, we ran a reverse search of the image. We identified a photo that was shared on the official Facebook wall of the AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi on 7th April 2018.

Comparing the two photos we found that the painting Asaduddin Owaisi is holding is of B.R Ambedkar whereas the viral image is of Lord Rama, and the original photo was posted in the year 2018.

Hence, it was concluded that the viral image was digitally modified to spread false propaganda.

Conclusion:

The photograph of AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi holding up one painting of Lord Rama is fake as it has been morphed. The photo that Asaduddin Owaisi uploaded on a Facebook page on 7 Apr 2018 depicted him holding a picture of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar. This photograph was digitally altered and the false captions were written to give an altogether different message of Asaduddin Owaisi. It has even highlighted the necessity of fighting fake news that has spread widely through social media platforms especially during the political realm.

• Claim:  AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi was holding a painting of the Hindu god Lord Rama in his hand.
• Claimed on: X (Formerly known as Twitter)
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

‍

‍

Introduction

As e-sports flourish in India, mobile gaming platforms and apps have contributed massively to this boom. The wave of online mobile gaming has led to a new recognition of esports. As we see the Sports Ministry being very proactive for e-sports and e-athletes, it is pertinent to ensure that we do not compromise our cyber security for the sake of these games. When we talk about online mobile gaming, the most common names that come to our minds are PUBG and BGMI. As news for all Indian gamers, BGMI is set to be relaunched in India after approval from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.

Why was BGMI banned?

The Govt banned Battle Ground Mobile India on the pretext of being a Chinese application and the fact that all the data was hosted in China itself. This caused a cascade of compliance and user safety issues as the Data was stored outside India. Since 2020 The Indian Govt has been proactive in banning Chinese applications, which might have an adverse effect on national security and Indian citizens. Nearly 200 plus applications have been banned by the Govt, and most of them were banned due to their data hubs being in China. The issue of cross-border data flow has been a key issue in Geo-Politics, and whoever hosts the data virtually owns it as well and under the potential threat of this fact, all apps hosting their data in China were banned.

Why is BGMI coming back?

BGMI was banned for not hosting data in India, and since the ban, the Krafton Inc.-owned game has been engaging in Idnai to set up data banks and servers to have a separate gaming server for Indian players. These moves will lead to a safe gaming ecosystem and result in better adherence to the laws and policies of the land. The developers have not declared a relaunch date yet, but the game is expected to be available for download for iOS and Android users in the coming few days. The game will be back on app stores as a letter from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has been issued stating that the games be allowed and made available for download on the respective app stores.

Grounds for BGMI

BGMI has to ensure that they comply with all the laws, policies and guidelines in India and have to show the same to the Ministry to get an extension on approval. The game has been permitted for only 90 days (3 Months). Hon’ble MoS Meity Rajeev Chandrashekhar stated in a tweet   “This is a 3-month trial approval of #BGMI after it has complied with issues of server locations and data security etc. We will keep a close watch on other issues of User harm, Addiction etc., in the next 3 months before a final decision is taken”. This clearly shows the magnitude of the bans on Chinese apps. The ministry and the Govt will not play the soft game now, it’s all about compliance and safeguarding the user’s data.

Way Forward

This move will play a significant role in the future, not only for gaming companies but also for other online industries, to ensure compliance. This move will act as a precedent for the issue of cross-border data flow and the advantages of data localisation. It will go a long way in advocacy for the betterment of the Indian cyber ecosystem. Meity alone cannot safeguard the space completely, it is a shared responsibility of the Govt, industry and netizens.

Conclusion

The advent of online mobile gaming has taken the nation by storm, and thus, being safe and secure in this ecosystem is paramount. The provisional permission form BGMI shows the stance of the Govt and how it is following the no-tolerance policy for noncompliance with laws. The latest policies and bills, like the Digital India Act, Digital Personal Data Protection Act, etc., will go a long way in securing the interests and rights of the Indian netizen and will create a blanket of safety and prevention of issues and threats in the future.

Introduction

In June 2026, Eros Innovation launched Eros Music Worlds, describing itself as the world's first "large cultural music platform". Its first two acts, Jordan and Tanu, are not singers in any conventional sense; they are AI-native personas built from Eros's own film characters, powered by models trained on a licensed corpus of roughly 1.5 trillion cultural tokens drawn from 11,000 films. Alongside them sits a strategic partnership with the family of Mohammed Rafi, the late playback legend, to produce new recordings, a live concert franchise, and a music academy in his name. It's a tidy preview of where AI in music is actually headed: not a novelty generator bolted onto the old industry, but a new kind of media company built around owned IP, licensed data, and characters designed to outlive any single song.

Beyond the demo

The last eighteen months have produced a stream of "firsts". Xania Monet, an AI-voiced R&B act built by Mississippi poet Telisha Jones using Suno, became the first AI artist to chart on a Billboard airplay ranking and was signed by Hallwood Media after a bidding war that reportedly reached $3 million. Breaking Rust, Enlly Blue and Juno Skye followed onto country, rock and Christian charts within weeks. None of this happened in a vacuum: Suno and Udio, the two dominant AI music generators, went from being sued by every major label in mid-2024 to signing licensing settlements with Universal and Warner by late 2025. Voice cloning has run a parallel track from the viral 2023 track "Heart on My Sleeve", which mimicked Drake and The Weeknd without consent, to a wave of Indian cases where AI tools recreated a specific singer's timbre for commercial use. Composition and production tools are now routine studio infrastructure rather than curiosities; the interesting frontier has shifted to multilingual adaptation and catalogue reanimation. Eros has promised 34-language localisation for its AI artists, a scale no dubbing studio could match manually. A related, if less music-specific, signal came from Collective Artists Network's AI-powered Mahabharat: Ek Dharmayudh, produced with Prasar Bharati. AI tools handled pre-visualisation, multi-language dubbing sync and sound design, while composers and voice directors retained control of tone and emotion, a template other Indian studios are likely to copy for scoring and localising large-scale cultural content cheaply.

Where the money actually is?

The commercial case for labels isn't "AI makes music at scale", because scale alone isn't value. Deezer, the only major platform publishing detection data, reported in July 2026 that AI-generated tracks had crossed 50% of daily uploads, around 90,000 tracks a day, up from 10,000 in January 2025. Yet those tracks account for only 1–3% of actual streams, and Deezer flags 85% of that listening as fraudulent bot activity. Generating music has become nearly free; getting anyone to listen hasn't. The real opportunity for rights holders lies elsewhere: licensing catalogues into controlled ecosystems (Universal's 2026 platform with Udio, Warner's deals with both Udio and Suno), reviving legacy artists for new audiences (Eros-Rafi), and using AI for the unglamorous, high-volume work of localisation, sync placement and short-form content that never justified full production budgets before. AI-native performers also travel well into gaming, virtual concerts and brand collaboration formats built for characters rather than people, where a synthetic act never ages, never cancels a tour and can be licensed into a dozen campaigns simultaneously. That is a genuinely new revenue line, but it's a narrow one; it monetises IP ownership, not music generation itself. IFPI's Global Music Report 2026 shows the underlying business is healthy: revenues reached $31.7 billion, up 6.4% — but that growth is still driven overwhelmingly by human catalogues and paid subscriptions, not AI-generated volumes.

The legal fault lines

This is where India's position is genuinely instructive and unresolved. The Copyright Act, 1957, defines the author of a "computer-generated" work as the person who causes it to be created (language added in 1994 for a world of human-directed software, not autonomous generative models), and Indian courts haven't yet settled how far it stretches. What's clearer is the industry's stance on training data: The Indian music industry body, alongside T-Series, Saregama and Sony Music, has sought to join the ANI Media suit against OpenAI in the Delhi High Court, arguing that scraping sound recordings to train models without a licence breaches copyright, a case they say is "crucial for the entire music industry in India, and even worldwide".

Personality rights have moved faster than legislation. In the absence of a dedicated statute, Indian courts have built protection case by case: the Delhi High Court's 2023 order shielding Anil Kapoor's voice and likeness from AI misuse and the Bombay High Court's 2024 ruling in Arijit Singh v Codible Ventures, India's first AI voice-cloning judgement, which granted an injunction spanning every medium, explicitly including the metaverse and generative-AI tools, and rejected fair-use and parody defences outright. Similar orders have since followed for Amitabh Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and others. The pattern mirrors, but predates, statutory responses abroad: Tennessee's 2024 ELVIS Act was the first US law to protect voice explicitly as property, and the federal NO FAKES Act remains pending. The US Copyright Office's January 2025 report reaffirmed that human authorship is the bedrock of copyrightability, denying protection to fully AI-generated output while leaving substantially human-directed hybrid works to case-by-case review. Two regimes are converging on the same instinct that consent and human contribution must anchor ownership through different legal tools: India via judge-made personality rights and the US via statute and Copyright Office guidance.

Who bears the risk?

The disruption isn't evenly spread. Session singers, jingle artists, dubbing performers and early-career composers, the layer of the industry that supplies craft rather than fame, are most exposed since their work is precisely what generative tools now approximate cheaply. A PRS for Music survey of over 2,600 creators found 79% worried about AI competing directly with their output and 76% expecting it to hurt their livelihoods. CISAC has projected AI could erode musicians' incomes by nearly a quarter by 2028. Separately, roughly a fifth of professional voice actors surveyed say they've already lost work to a synthetic voice. For streaming platforms, the risk is structural: as AI supply floods catalogues, royalty pools shared across all streams get diluted, discoverability worsens, and fraud bot streams on AI tracks are designed purely to harvest royalties, which becomes a live threat to the economics everyone else depends on.

Recommendations

None of this points to AI simply replacing musicians, nor to it staying a background production tool. A third category is emerging AI-native "characters" with continuity, backstory and owned IP, closer to franchise properties than bands, which is exactly the model Eros and Hallwood Media are betting on. The deeper shift underneath it is economic: once the marginal cost of producing a new track approaches zero, the constraint on the industry stops being supplied and becomes attention. Whether AI-native artists become a durable category depends on questions still unresolved, training data legality chief among them, and on whether audiences keep listening once the novelty fades. Deezer's own research found 97% of listeners can't reliably distinguish AI from human music, yet 52% still believe fully AI-generated songs shouldn't sit on the same charts as human ones. Provenance matters even when perception can't detect it.

Conclusion

Scarcity in the age of AI will not be creative output but genuine human connection. As AI makes music production abundant and inexpensive, the qualities it cannot replicate authenticity, lived experience, artistic identity, and trust – become increasingly valuable. Audiences will continue to seek creators with compelling stories and meaningful live experiences. In an era of infinite synthetic content, originality is no longer the premium; credibility, human presence, and emotional connection are.

Sources

1. https://www.livemint.com/industry/media/ai-music-ai-native-artists-eros-music-worlds-eros-innovation-copyright-intellectual-property-music-industry-11785053693997.html
2. https://www.facebook.com/KJSIMofficial/posts/the-mint-featured-insights-from-dr-alka-agarwal-assistant-professor-general-mana/1375301184595168/
3. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/livemint_how-ai-brought-the-mahabharat-to-life-collective-activity-7389643662193999873-6BKG
4. https://musically.com/2026/07/02/ai-powered-platform-eros-music-worlds-is-turning-film-characters-into-virtual-singers/
5. https://www.business-standard.com/companies/news/bollywood-t-series-saregama-sony-music-copyright-lawsuit-openai-delhi-hc-125021400876_1.html 

‍