#FactCheck - Old Ajman Fire Video Falsely Linked to Iran Drone Attack on Dubai Airport

Introduction

Imagine spending two years , 730 days of early mornings, missed social events, and relentless mock tests  preparing for a single examination. Now imagine that on the morning of that exam, your phone buzzes with a forwarded video claiming the question paper has already leaked. Your heart sinks. You do not know whether to trust it or ignore it. You have about forty minutes before you must enter the hall. This was the reality for a section of the 22 lakh students who sat for the NEET UG 2026 re-examination on June 21, 2026, when a fabricated video alleging a paper leak on Telegram began circulating across WhatsApp groups and X within hours of the exam commencing. The National Testing Agency (NTA) swiftly and categorically denied the claims, activated the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), and appealed to the public not to amplify unverified content. The examination concluded without incident. But the episode laid bare a challenge that no security perimeter or surveillance camera can fully address: the weaponisation of misinformation against India's high-stakes examination ecosystem.

‍

The Anatomy of Examination Misinformation

‍

Why Examinations Are a Prime Target

India's national examinations are uniquely fertile ground for misinformation. With over 22 lakh candidates registered for NEET UG 2026 alone, the audience is vast, anxious, and hungry for any update  verified or otherwise. Research by MIT has found that false stories spread six times faster than accurate ones on social media, and are seventy percent more likely to be reshared. In India, where over 535 million people use WhatsApp and studies show that most users tend to trust messages forwarded by family and friends, the conditions for viral misinformation are near-ideal. According to a 2020 Microsoft survey, 52 percent of Indian respondents encountered misinformation at least once a day, the highest rate globally.

What makes examination-related misinformation especially dangerous is its timing. Fabricated content is almost always released on examination day itself, the precise moment when candidates are most emotionally vulnerable, official channels are stretched thin, and the window for effective rebuttal is narrowest. The NEET UG 2026 fake video, circulated on Telegram and amplified across closed WhatsApp groups, fits this pattern precisely. It was engineered not to inform, but to destabilise.

‍

A History That Sharpens the Anxiety

This misinformation did not emerge in a vacuum. The shadow of the 2024 NEET UG controversy  in which the Supreme Court of India confirmed that at least 155 students had directly benefited from a genuine paper leak, and which triggered nationwide protests, CBI investigations, and a parliamentary uproar — still looms large. Students and parents conditioned by that experience are primed to believe the worst, even when claims are entirely false. In 2026, that residual anxiety became the very vulnerability that bad actors sought to exploit. The government's response which included temporarily restricting access to Telegram in the lead-up to the re-examination  underscored just how seriously the threat of examination misinformation is now being taken at the highest levels.

‍

The NTA's Response: Why It Matters

‍

1. Speed and Transparency as Governance Tools: In crisis communication, the first credible voice usually wins. The NTA's near-immediate public denial posted on official social media handles and amplified by the Press Information Bureau's PIB Fact Check unit was a meaningful departure from the delayed, defensive responses that characterised earlier examination controversies. By directly labelling the video "FAKE" in capital letters, describing its creation as "a serious offence," and simultaneously appealing to students to rely only on official sources at neet.nta.nic.in, the NTA left little room for the false narrative to consolidate. NTA Director General Abhishek Singh went further, publicly stating that the agency was "100 per cent confident" in the integrity of the process and that no complaints of a genuine paper leak had been received. This matters beyond crisis management. Public trust in examination systems is not rebuilt through official statements alone , it is rebuilt through the consistent, transparent exercise of institutional authority. A swift, fact-based rebuttal, deployed before rumour hardens into public belief, is as much a governance act as it is a communications strategy.

‍

2. Cybercrime Coordination as a Structural Shift: Perhaps the most significant development in the NTA's response was its coordination with I4C and law enforcement agencies to trace the origin of the fabricated video. This signals a structural evolution: examination misinformation is no longer being treated as an administrative inconvenience but as cybercrime with legal consequences under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The announcement that legal action would follow also carries a deterrent message to potential future actors — that the machinery of cybercrime enforcement will be activated, and that fabricating content to mislead examination candidates is a prosecutable offence.

‍

The Human and Institutional Cost

The costs of examination misinformation are neither abstract nor trivial. Mental health experts have warned that controversies surrounding national-level examinations can have serious long-term psychological consequences for aspirants. Dr. Mustafa Nadeem Kirmani of Amity University has noted that such crises increase the risk of students taking "extreme steps like suicide attempts, anger toward the system, and hopelessness," and can, in the long run, lead to clinical depression. In the wake of the 2026 paper leak controversy, multiple reports of student deaths by suicide were linked to the compounded pressures of exam cancellation and uncertainty a grim reminder of the real human stakes behind governance failures in this domain. For institutions, every viral misinformation episode generates an avoidable administrative crisis. Helplines are overwhelmed, examination centre staff face panicked queries, and senior officials are pulled into damage control rather than exam administration. The credibility of clarifications issued under pressure is itself questioned by a public already primed for suspicion. This administrative burden, multiplied across 5,440 examination centres in India and 14 abroad, represents a significant and entirely unnecessary cost.

‍

Building a Resilient Ecosystem: What Needs to Change

‍

1. Proactive Communication and Platform Coordination: Institutional credibility is built before a crisis, not during one. Examination bodies must invest in sustained pre-examination communication that educates candidates and parents about the existence of misinformation campaigns and tells them exactly where to look for verified updates. This means highly visible, verified social media presences with large followings, real-time update protocols, and formal escalation channels with platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram, X, and YouTube to enable rapid takedown of false examination-related content. The IT Amendment Rules of 2023, which require significant social media intermediaries to act on government-flagged content, provide a legal basis for such coordination  but the operational infrastructure to activate it at speed must be built in advance, not improvised on the day.

‍

2. Fact-Checking Partnerships and Digital Literacy: Independent organisations such as BOOM Live, Alt News, and Vishvas News have proven their capacity to rapidly debunk examination misinformation. Formalising their role through a structured public-private partnership  where examination authorities share real-time verified information with empanelled fact-checkers  could close the window during which false content circulates unchallenged. Equally critical is investment in digital media literacy among students and parents. A 2018 survey found that nearly 45 percent of Indian respondents were unaware of any fact-checking organisations. Addressing this gap through school curricula, coaching networks, and the Ministry of Education's DIKSHA platform  is a preventive investment far less costly than repeated crisis management.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The NTA's handling of the NEET UG 2026 fake video was, by recent standards, exemplary. It was fast, transparent, authoritative, and backed by the activation of cybercrime enforcement. But a single well-managed episode does not constitute a resilient system. India runs some of the world's largest entrance examinations, and the stakes medical seats, livelihoods, and the aspirations of crores of young people are too high for crisis response alone to suffice. Combating examination misinformation requires permanent structural investment: dedicated rapid-response cells within examination bodies, formalised fact-checking pipelines, proactive platform coordination, and a sustained public education effort around digital verification. Protecting the integrity of India's examination ecosystem is not merely an administrative responsibility. It is a commitment to the millions of students who give everything they have to compete fairly and who deserve a system that protects them not only from cheating, but from the fear of it.

‍

References

‍

1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/131900261.cms
2. https://www.india.com/education/neet-ug-2026-re-exam-paper-leak-claim-goes-viral-nta-says-video-is-fake-and-false-fabricated-examination-conducted-successfully-8453620/
3. https://www.republicworld.com/education/neet-ug-re-exam-nta-says-paper-leak-video-fake-test-conducted-successfully-2026-06-22-129346
4. https://thefederal.com/category/education/neet-re-exam-paper-leak-admission-system-crisis-247410
5. https://www.outlookindia.com/healthcare-spotlight/beyond-the-paper-leak-emotional-trauma-among-neet-aspirants-raises-concern
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_NEET_controversy
7. https://kaval.chat/blog/misinformation-scam-statistics-india-2026/
8. https://www.ijert.org/the-virality-gap-political-misinformation-and-the-information-crisis-in-india-s-digital-democracy-ijertv15is050041
9. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/digital-skills/digital-civility
10. https://www.meity.gov.in/content/information-technology-intermediary-guidelines-and-digital-media-ethics-code-amendment
11. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1999 
12. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx 
13. https://www.careerindia.com/news/addressing-the-mental-health-crisis-sparked-by-net-and-neet-paper-leaked-in-india-041963.html
14. https://thediplomat.com/2025/03/indias-growing-misinformation-crisis-a-threat-to-democracy/

‍

Introduction 

In recent years, the online gaming sector has seen tremendous growth and is one of the fastest-growing components of the creative economy, contributing significantly to innovation, employment generation and export earnings. India possesses a large pool of skilled young professionals, strong technological capabilities and a rapidly growing domestic market, which together provide an opportunity for the country to assume a leadership role in the global value chain of online gaming. With this, the online gaming industry has also faced an environment of exploitation, abuse, with notable cases of fraud, money laundering, and other emerging cybercrimes. In order to protect the interests of players, ensure fair play and competition, safe and secure online gaming environment, the need for introducing and establishing dedicated gaming regulation was a need of the hour. 

On 20 August 2025, the Union government introduced a new bill, ‘Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025’ in Lok Sabha that seeks to prohibit online money gaming, including advertisements and financial transactions related to such platforms. From the introduction, the said bill was passed at 5 PM on the same date. Further, the upper house of parliament (Rajya Sabha) passed the bill on 21st August 2025. The bill can be seen as a progressive step towards building safer online gaming spaces for everyone, especially for our youth and combating the emerging cybercrime threats present in the online gaming landscape.

Key Highlights of the Bill

The Bill extends to the whole of India. It also applies to any online money gaming service offered within India or operated from outside the country but accessible in India.

‍

1. Definition of E-sports:

Section 2(1)(c) of the Bill defines e-sports as:-

(i)  is played as part of multi-sports events; 

(ii) involves organised competitive events between individuals or teams, conducted in multiplayer formats governed by predefined rules; 

(iii) is duly recognised under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, and registered with the Authority or agency under section 3; 

(iv) has outcome determined solely by factors such as physical dexterity, mental agility, strategic thinking or other similar skills of users as players; 

(v) may include payment of registration or participation fees solely for the purpose of entering the competition or covering administrative costs and may include performance-based prize money by the player; and 

(vi)shall not involve the placing of bets, wagers or any other stakes by any person, whether or not such person is a participant, including any winning out of such bets, wagers or any other stakes; 

2. Prohibition of Online Money Gaming and Advertisement thereof
   The Bill prohibits the offering of online money games and online money gaming services. It also bans all forms of advertisements or promotions connected to online money games. This includes endorsements by individuals or entities.
3. Financial Transactions
   Banks, financial institutions, and other intermediaries are barred from facilitating transactions related to online money gaming services.
4. Criminal Liability
   Violation of the provisions on online money gaming can result in imprisonment for up to three years, or a fine of up to ₹1 crore, or both. Repeat offenders face stricter punishment with higher fines and longer jail terms.
5. Cognizable and Non-Bailable Offences
   Offences relating to offering online money gaming services and facilitating financial transactions for such games are categorised as cognizable and non-bailable. This gives law enforcement agencies greater power to act without requiring prior approval.

‍

In conversation with CyberPeace ~

Shailendra Vikram Singh, Former Deputy Secretary (Cyber & Information Security), Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI . He highlighted that

"The passage of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025 in the Lok Sabha highlights the government’s growing priority on national security, public safety, and health in digital regulation. Unfortunately, the real money gaming industry, despite its growth and promise, did not take proactive steps to address these concerns. The absence of safeguards and engagement left the government with no choice but to adopt a blanket ban."Having worked on this issue from both the government and industry side, the clear lesson is that in sensitive digital sectors, early regulatory alignment and constructive dialogue are not optional but essential. Going forward, collaboration is the only way to achieve a balance between innovation and responsibility.”

‍

CyberPeace Outlook

The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, marks a decisive policy shift by simultaneously fostering the growth of e-sports, educational and social gaming, and imposing an absolute prohibition on online money games. By recognising e-sports as legitimate, skill-based competitive sports under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, and establishing a central Authority for oversight, registration, and regulation, the Bill creates an institutional framework for safe and responsible development of the sector.  The Bill completely bans real money games (RMGs), regardless of whether they are skill-based or chance-based or both, hence it poses significant questions on RMG companies' legal standing, upon which the gaming industry has raised its conundrum. Further, it addresses urgent threats such as cybercrime, gaming addiction, online betting, money laundering, and the misuse of gaming platforms for illicit activities. The move reflects a balanced approach, encouraging innovation and digital skill-building, while safeguarding public order, consumer interests, and financial integrity.

References

1. https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/2025/Bill_Text-Online_Gaming_Bill_2025.pdf
2. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-promotion-and-regulation-of-online-gaming-bill-2025
3. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/rajya-sabha-clears-online-gaming-bill-a-day-after-lok-sabha-approval-101755766847840.html

‍

‍

Introduction

The G7 nations, a group of the most powerful economies, have recently turned their attention to the critical issue of cybercrimes and (AI) Artificial Intelligence. G7 summit has provided an essential platform for discussing the threats and crimes occurring from AI and lack of cybersecurity. These nations have united to share their expertise, resources, diplomatic efforts and strategies to fight against cybercrimes. In this blog, we shall investigate the recent development and initiatives undertaken by G7 nations, exploring their joint efforts to combat cybercrime and navigate the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence. We shall also explore the new and emerging trends in cybersecurity, providing insights into ongoing challenges and innovative approaches adopted by the G7 nations and the wider international community.

G7 Nations and AI

Each of these nations have launched cooperative efforts and measures to combat cybercrime successfully. They intend to increase their collective capacities in detecting, preventing, and responding to cyber assaults by exchanging intelligence, best practices, and experience. G7 nations are attempting to develop a strong cybersecurity architecture capable of countering increasingly complex cyber-attacks through information-sharing platforms, collaborative training programs, and joint exercises.

The G7 Summit provided an important forum for in-depth debates on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in cybersecurity. Recognising AI’s transformational potential, the G7 nations have participated in extensive discussions to investigate its advantages and address the related concerns, guaranteeing responsible research and use. The nation also recognises the ethical, legal, and security considerations of deploying AI cybersecurity.

Worldwide Rise of Ransomware

High-profile ransomware attacks have drawn global attention, emphasising the need to combat this expanding threat. These attacks have harmed organisations of all sizes and industries, leading to data breaches, operational outages, and, in some circumstances, the loss of sensitive information. The implications of such assaults go beyond financial loss, frequently resulting in reputational harm, legal penalties, and service delays that affect consumers, clients, and the public. The increase in high-profile ransomware incidents has garnered attention worldwide, Cybercriminals have adopted a multi-faceted approach to ransomware attacks, combining techniques such as phishing, exploit kits, and supply chain Using spear-phishing, exploit kits, and supply chain hacks to obtain unauthorised access to networks and spread the ransomware. This degree of expertise and flexibility presents a substantial challenge to organisations attempting to protect against such attacks.

Focusing On AI and Upcoming Threats

During the G7 summit, one of the key topics for discussion on the role of AI (Artificial Intelligence) in shaping the future, Leaders and policymakers discuss the benefits and dangers of AI adoption in cybersecurity. Recognising AI’s revolutionary capacity, they investigate its potential to improve defence capabilities, predict future threats, and secure vital infrastructure. Furthermore, the G7 countries emphasise the necessity of international collaboration in reaping the advantages of AI while reducing the hazards. They recognise that cyber dangers transcend national borders and must be combated together. Collaboration in areas such as exchanging threat intelligence, developing shared standards, and promoting best practices is emphasised to boost global cybersecurity defences. The G7 conference hopes to set a global agenda that encourages responsible AI research and deployment by emphasising the role of AI in cybersecurity. The summit’s sessions present a path for maximising AI’s promise while tackling the problems and dangers connected with its implementation.

As the G7 countries traverse the complicated convergence of AI and cybersecurity, their emphasis on collaboration, responsible practices, and innovation lays the groundwork for international collaboration in confronting growing cyber threats. The G7 countries aspire to establish robust and secure digital environments that defend essential infrastructure, protect individuals’ privacy, and encourage trust in the digital sphere by collaboratively leveraging the potential of AI.

Promoting Responsible Al development and usage

The G7 conference will focus on developing frameworks that encourage ethical AI development. This includes fostering openness, accountability, and justice in AI systems. The emphasis is on eliminating biases in data and algorithms and ensuring that AI technologies are inclusive and do not perpetuate or magnify existing societal imbalances.

Furthermore, the G7 nations recognise the necessity of privacy protection in the context of AI. Because AI systems frequently rely on massive volumes of personal data, summit speakers emphasise the importance of stringent data privacy legislation and protections. Discussions centre around finding the correct balance between using data for AI innovation, respecting individuals’ privacy rights, and protecting data security. In addition to responsible development, the G7 meeting emphasises the importance of responsible AI use. Leaders emphasise the importance of transparent and responsible AI governance frameworks, which may include regulatory measures and standards to ensure AI technology’s ethical and legal application. The goal is to defend individuals’ rights, limit the potential exploitation of AI, and retain public trust in AI-driven solutions.

The G7 nations support collaboration among governments, businesses, academia, and civil society to foster responsible AI development and use. They stress the significance of sharing best practices, exchanging information, and developing international standards to promote ethical AI concepts and responsible practices across boundaries. The G7 nations hope to build the global AI environment in a way that prioritises human values, protects individual rights, and develops trust in AI technology by fostering responsible AI development and usage. They work together to guarantee that AI is a force for a good while reducing risks and resolving social issues related to its implementation.

Challenges on the way

During the summit, the nations, while the G7 countries are committed to combating cybercrime and developing responsible AI development, they confront several hurdles in their efforts. Some of them are:

A Rapidly Changing Cyber Threat Environment: Cybercriminals’ strategies and methods are always developing, as is the nature of cyber threats. The G7 countries must keep up with new threats and ensure their cybersecurity safeguards remain effective and adaptable.

Cross-Border Coordination: Cybercrime knows no borders, and successful cybersecurity necessitates international collaboration. On the other hand, coordinating activities among nations with various legal structures, regulatory environments, and agendas can be difficult. Harmonising rules, exchanging information, and developing confidence across states are crucial for effective collaboration.

Talent Shortage and Skills Gap: The field of cybersecurity and AI knowledge necessitates highly qualified personnel. However, skilled individuals in these fields need more supply. The G7 nations must attract and nurture people, provide training programs, and support research and innovation to narrow the skills gap.

Keeping Up with Technological Advancements: Technology changes at a rapid rate, and cyber-attacks become more complex. The G7 nations must ensure that their laws, legislation, and cybersecurity plans stay relevant and adaptive to keep up with future technologies such as AI, quantum computing, and IoT, which may both empower and challenge cybersecurity efforts.

Conclusion

To combat cyber threats effectively, support responsible AI development, and establish a robust cybersecurity ecosystem, the G7 nations must constantly analyse and adjust their strategy. By aggressively tackling these concerns, the G7 nations can improve their collective cybersecurity capabilities and defend their citizens’ and global stakeholders’ digital infrastructure and interests.