#FactCheck - Digitally Altered Video of Olympic Medalist, Arshad Nadeem’s Independence Day Message
Executive Summary:
A video of Pakistani Olympic gold medalist and Javelin player Arshad Nadeem wishing Independence Day to the People of Pakistan, with claims of snoring audio in the background is getting viral. CyberPeace Research Team found that the viral video is digitally edited by adding the snoring sound in the background. The original video published on Arshad's Instagram account has no snoring sound where we are certain that the viral claim is false and misleading.

Claims:
A video of Pakistani Olympic gold medalist Arshad Nadeem wishing Independence Day with snoring audio in the background.

Fact Check:
Upon receiving the posts, we thoroughly checked the video, we then analyzed the video in TrueMedia, an AI Video detection tool, and found little evidence of manipulation in the voice and also in face.


We then checked the social media accounts of Arshad Nadeem, we found the video uploaded on his Instagram Account on 14th August 2024. In that video, we couldn’t hear any snoring sound.

Hence, we are certain that the claims in the viral video are fake and misleading.
Conclusion:
The viral video of Arshad Nadeem with a snoring sound in the background is false. CyberPeace Research Team confirms the sound was digitally added, as the original video on his Instagram account has no snoring sound, making the viral claim misleading.
- Claim: A snoring sound can be heard in the background of Arshad Nadeem's video wishing Independence Day to the people of Pakistan.
- Claimed on: X,
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
Related Blogs

Introduction
In a world perpetually in motion, the currents of the information superhighway surge ceaselessly, molding perceptions, shaping realities, and often blurring the lines that tether truth to its moorings. At the heart of this relentless churn lies a conundrum that has become all too familiar, in which veracity is obscured by the shadow-play of misinformation. Emblematic of this dilemma is the narrative of Virat Kohli, a name that has become synonymous not only with cricketing brilliance but with the complexities of a modern era where digital echo chambers amplify half-truths and outright fabrications with alarming efficacy.
It is within this intricate fabric of the digital realm that the saga of Virat Kohli—a titan of cricket whose arsenal of strokes and strategic acumen have captivated audiences worldwide—takes on a dimension that transcends the sport. The speculative murmurs have been converted into roaring waves of misinformation, crafting a narrative that, while devoid of truth, assumes a disconcerting life. This digital osmosis, the transmutation from a quiet inkling to a deafening chorus of credibility, exemplifies the troublesome dynamic that has come to define our interactions with news media in the 21st century.
Fact check: Viral Misinformation
A viral post about Virat Kohli's mother suffering from liver issues has gone viral on social media. The claim came after Kohli withdrew from the India-England test series citing 'personal reasons'. Vikas Kohli, brother of Virat Kohli, clarified on Instagram that the viral news about their mother is false. He clarified that their mother is doing well and the viral claim is false. Vikas Kohli's Instagram page dismissed the viral claim, stating that he noticed the fake news and requested the media not to spread such news without proper information.
Fake Health Crisis
As this virulent strain of rumour regarding the health of Saroj Kohli, Virat Kohli’s mother, began to swell into the digital domain, it brought to the forefront a critical examination of the checks and balances within our networks of communication. Saroj, whose resilience and nurturing presence had been an anchor in the athlete's storied journey, undeservedly became the nucleus of a fictitious tale of despair, giving us pause to reflect on the ethical boundaries of storytelling in the world of clicks and views.
Vikas Kohli—the elder brother of Virat Kohli—took to social media, the very platform from which the falsehood originated, to stand as the bulwark against the spread of this groundless narrative.
The Consequences
The consequences of such falsehoods and their rapid dissemination are manifold, affecting individuals and communities in profound ways. The motivations behind the proliferation of deceitful stories are as labyrinthine as the networks they traverse - from manipulation and economic incentives to the pursuit of sheer sensationalism or cynical entertainment, each strand intertwines to form an intricate web wherein truth struggles to assert itself.
Conclusion
In the ceaseless expanses of the digital cosmos, where one can easily drift into the void of falsities, let the narrative of Virat Kohli stand as a sentinel, a reminder of our duty to navigate these waters with vigilance and to preserve the sanctity of truth. Amidst the vast ocean of content that laps in our consciousness, it is precisely this unwavering dedication to facts that will act as our compass, enabling us to discern the credible beacons from the deceptive mirages and ultimately ensuring that our discourse remains moored in the bedrock of reality.
References
- https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/virat-kohli-mother-sick-liver-disease-fact-check
- https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/ind-vs-eng-virat-kohlis-brother-dismisses-fake-news-circulating-about-their-mother-9136144/
- https://www.outlookindia.com/amp/story/sports/ind-vs-eng-virat-kohlis-brother-slams-fake-news-on-their-mothers-health

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.

What are Decentralised Autonomous Organizations (DAOs)?
A Decentralised Autonomous Organisation or a DAO, is a unique take on democracy on the blockchain. It is a set of rules encoded into a self-executing contract (also known as a smart contract) that operates autonomously on a blockchain system. A DAO imitates a traditional company, although, in its more literal sense, it is a contractually created entity. In theory, DAOs have no centralised authority in making decisions for the system; it is a communally run system whereby all decisions (be it for internal governance or for the development of the blockchain system) are voted upon by the community members. DAOs are primarily characterised by a decentralised form of operation, where there is no one entity, group or individual running the system. They are self-sustaining entities, having their own currency, economy and even governance, that do not depend on a group of individuals to operate. Blockchain systems, especially DAOs are characterised by pure autonomy created to evade external coercion or manipulation from sovereign powers. DAOs follow a mutually created, agreed set of rules created by the community, that dictates all actions, activities, and participation in the system’s governance. There may also be provisions that regulate the decision-making power of the community.
Ethereum’s DAO’s White Paper described DAO as “The first implementation of a [DAO Entity] code to automate organisational governance and decision making.” Can be used by individuals working together collaboratively outside of a traditional corporate form. It can also be used by a registered corporate entity to automate formal governance rules contained in corporate bylaws or imposed by law.” The referred white paper proposes an entity that would use smart contracts to solve governance issues inherent in traditional corporations. DAOs attempt to redesign corporate governance with blockchain such that contractual terms are “formalised, automated and enforced using software.”
Cybersecurity threats under DAOs
While DAOs offer increased transparency and efficiency, they are not immune to cybersecurity threats. Cybersecurity risks in DAO, primarily in governance, stem from vulnerabilities in the underlying blockchain technology and the DAO's smart contracts. Smart contract exploits, code vulnerabilities, and weaknesses in the underlying blockchain protocol can be exploited by malicious actors, leading to unauthorised access, fund manipulations, or disruptions in the governance process. Additionally, DAOs may face challenges related to phishing attacks, where individuals are tricked into revealing sensitive information, such as private keys, compromising the integrity of the governance structure. As DAOs continue to evolve, addressing and mitigating cybersecurity threats is crucial to ensuring the trust and reliability of decentralised governance mechanisms.
Centralisation/Concentration of Power
DAOs today actively try to leverage on-chain governance, where any governance votes or transactions are directly taken on the blockchain. But such governance is often plutocratic in nature, where the wealthy hold influences, rather than democracies, since those who possess the requisite number of tokens are only allowed to vote and each token staked implies that many numbers of votes emerge from the same individual. This concentration of power in the hands of “whales” often creates disadvantages for the newer entrants into the system who may have an in-depth background but lack the funds to cast a vote. Voting, presently in the blockchain sphere, lacks the requisite concept of “one man, one vote” which is critical in democratic societies.
Smart contract vulnerabilities and external threats
Smart contracts, self-executing pieces of code on a blockchain, are integral to decentralised applications and platforms. Despite their potential, smart contracts are susceptible to various vulnerabilities such as coding errors, where mistakes in the code can lead to funds being locked or released erroneously. Some of them have been mentioned as follows;
Smart Contracts are most prone to re-entrance attacks whereby an untrusted external code is allowed to be executed in a smart contract. This scenario occurs when a smart contract invokes an external contract, and the external contract subsequently re-invokes the initial contract. This sequence of events can lead to an infinite loop, and a reentrancy attack is a tactic exploiting this vulnerability in a smart contract. It enables an attacker to repeatedly invoke a function within the contract, potentially creating an endless loop and gaining unauthorised access to funds.
Additionally, smart contracts are also prone to oracle problems. Oracles refer to third-party services or mechanisms that provide smart contracts with real-world data. Since smart contracts on blockchain networks operate in a decentralised, isolated environment, they do not have direct access to external information, such as market prices, weather conditions, or sports scores. Oracles bridge this gap by acting as intermediaries, fetching and delivering off-chain data to smart contracts, enabling them to execute based on real-world conditions. The oracle problem within blockchain pertains to the difficulty of securely incorporating external data into smart contracts. The reliability of external data poses a potential vulnerability, as oracles may be manipulated or provide inaccurate information. This challenge jeopardises the credibility of blockchain applications that rely on precise and timely external data.
Sybil Attack: A Sybil attack involves a single node managing multiple active fake identities, known as Sybil identities, concurrently within a peer-to-peer network. The objective of such an attack is to weaken the authority or influence within a trustworthy system by acquiring the majority of control in the network. The fake identities are utilised to establish and exert this influence. A successful Sybil attack allows threat actors to perform unauthorised actions in the system.
Distributed Denial of Service Attacks: A Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack is a malicious attempt to disrupt the regular functioning of a network, service, or website by overwhelming it with a flood of traffic. In a typical DDoS attack, multiple compromised computers or devices, often part of a botnet (a network of infected machines controlled by a single entity), are used to generate a massive volume of requests or data traffic. The targeted system becomes unable to respond to legitimate user requests due to the excessive traffic, leading to a denial of service.
Conclusion
Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAOs) represent a pioneering approach to governance on the blockchain, relying on smart contracts and community-driven decision-making. Despite their potential for increased transparency and efficiency, DAOs are not immune to cybersecurity threats. Vulnerabilities in smart contracts, such as reentrancy attacks and oracle problems, pose significant risks, and the concentration of voting power among wealthy token holders raises concerns about democratic principles. As DAOs continue to evolve, addressing these challenges is essential to ensuring the resilience and trustworthiness of decentralised governance mechanisms. Efforts to enhance security measures, promote inclusivity, and refine governance models will be crucial in establishing DAOs as robust and reliable entities in the broader landscape of blockchain technology.
References:
https://www.imperva.com/learn/application-security/sybil-attack/
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/satish-kulkarni-bb96193_what-are-cybersecurity-risk-to-dao-and-how-activity-7048286955645677568-B3pV/ https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/what-is-ddosdistributed-denial-of-service/ Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO, Securities and Exchange Board, Release No. 81207/ July 25, 2017
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-10921-blockchain-based-decentralized-autonomous-organizations-daos-.html