#FactCheck -AI-Generated Audio Falsely Shows Shah Rukh Khan Supporting ‘Cockroach Janta Party’
Executive Summary
A video allegedly showing Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan supporting and expressing his intention to join the so-called ‘Cockroach Janta Party’ (CJP) is being widely shared on social media.In the viral clip, Shah Rukh Khan can allegedly be heard saying:“Friends, the common people of this country are now fully awakened, and the storm of Cockroach Janta Party on social media has become so huge that its name is echoing everywhere… In just a few days, it has gained more than 15 million followers on Instagram… and honestly, I too will soon join the Cockroach Janta Party…”
However, CyberPeace Research Wing investigation found the claim to be false. The voice heard in the viral clip is AI-generated.
Claim
The viral video is being shared with the claim that actor Shah Rukh Khan publicly endorsed the ‘Cockroach Janta Party’ (CJP) and announced that he would soon join the movement.
- https://archive.is/wWueV
Fact Check
To verify the authenticity of the viral video, we first searched the internet using relevant keywords. However, we found no credible media reports, interviews, or posts from Shah Rukh Khan’s official social media accounts mentioning any support for the ‘Cockroach Janta Party’. Notably, if a major actor like Shah Rukh Khan had publicly supported any political or social media movement, it would have received widespread media coverage.
We then analysed key frames from the viral clip using Google Lens. During the investigation, we found an original video uploaded on September 10, 2023, on the YouTube channel of Sri Gokulam Movies. The footage was from the audio launch event of the film Jawan, where Shah Rukh Khan appeared in the same outfit seen in the viral clip.
वीडियो के डिस्क्रिप्शन में लिखा गया है, “शाहरुख़ In the original video, Shah Rukh Khan is seen speaking about the film, its cast, music, and his experience during the event. At no point does he mention the ‘Cockroach Janta Party’. The video description states that Shah Rukh Khan and the film’s team attended the audio launch event of Jawan in Chennai, where he praised music composer Anirudh Ravichander and thanked artists from the Tamil film industry. Additionally, the online trend related to the ‘Cockroach Janta Party’ emerged only in May 2026, whereas the original video is nearly three years old.
During the investigation, we also found several media reports covering the Jawan audio launch event, showing Shah Rukh Khan in the same attire as seen in the viral clip. For instance, a report published by Hindustan Times extensively covered the Chennai event, confirming that the viral footage was taken from the promotional event of the film.
To further examine the audio in the viral clip, we analysed it using the AI detection tool Resemble AI. The tool flagged the voice in the video as likely fake and AI-generated.
Conclusion
The investigation clearly shows that the claim about Shah Rukh Khan supporting or joining the ‘Cockroach Janta Party’ (CJP) is false. The viral video is actually from the 2023 audio launch event of the film Jawan, while the audio added to the clip has been generated using AI.
Related Blogs
Procedural History:
The case started with a 2011 Madras High Court ruling that included the appellant’s personal information. In the case discussed, the court decided in 2024, the appellant went to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court to request that his name and other identifying information from that previous ruling be redacted. He argued that his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was violated by the ongoing release of such private information into the public arena. He claimed that the revelation had hurt him in real ways, such as having his application for an Australian visa denied. Therefore, without compromising the ideals of open justice, the current procedures aimed to have the court recognize a person’s “Right to be Forgotten” within a broader framework of privacy and data protection.
Background and Factual Matrix
The appellant was charged under Sections 417 and 376 of the IPC. The trial court convicted him in 201, but later, the High Court in 2014 fully, completely and unconditionally acquitted him, which was not based on the benefit of doubt. Following the acquittal, he remarried and has three children. The judgment of both the High Court and the Trial Court has personal and intimate details about him. Being available in the public domain has caused him significant repercussions, as he was denied a visa to travel to Australia by authorities, citing the criminal cases. The appellant has filed a plea seeking a mandamus directing the Registrar General, Additional Registrar General, and Registrar (IT-Statistics) as R1, R2, R3 to redact his name and other identities from the acquittal judgment. He has sought a direction from Ikanoon Software Development Private Limited (R4) to reflect the redaction in its publication.
Issue
- Whether a writ of mandamus can lie against a High Court for redaction of personal details from its own judgment, or does such a prayer tantamount to a High Court issuing a writ against itself?
- Whether the High Court, being a Court of Record under Article 215 of the Indian Constitution, is entitled to preserve its record for perpetuity in its original form without any modification or redaction?
- Whether the ‘Right to be Forgotten' can be recognised and enforced in the absence of a specific statutory provision or Supreme Court direction, given that it constitutes an exception to the fundamental principle of open courts and open justice?
Adjudication and Reasoning
The division bench has allowed the Writ appeal and granted the following relief:
- R4 directed to take down the judgment in Crl.A. (MD) No.321 of 2011 dated 30.04.2014 forthwith.
- R1 to R3 directed to redact the name and other details of the Writ Petitioner relating to his identity from the judgment dated 30.04.2014 in Crl.A.(MD) No. 321 of 2011 and ensure that only the redacted judgment is available for publication or for uploading.
Rule
- Courts have a wide discretion in deciding whether to allow redaction or not. Such discretion can either be granted at the request of the party seeking redaction or, in appropriate cases, even suo moto by the court.
- The accused who have earned full, complete and unconditional acquittal without any benefit of doubt have a legitimate claim to move forward for redaction of personal information.
- The open Court doesn’t require absolute disclosure of all personal information, and the courts, while deciding the concern of privacy and the right to ensure that in litigations to leave behind parts of their past which are no longer relevant, have to balance the concept of open Court on the one hand and privacy concerns of a citizen on the other.
- As the High Court is the repository of a wide range of information and is entitled to preserve the original record in perpetuity. However, without diluting the sanctity of the original record, the public reflection of that record can be moderated to preserve the privacy of the person to whom that record pertains.
Reasoning
- Drawing on the judgment K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the court found Article 21 to protect not only informational privacy but also the "right to be forgotten," which gives individuals the right to request the deletion of any personal data when there is no longer any legitimate public interest in retaining such information. Such irreparable reputational damage is thus an infringement on constitutional privacy that demands judicial redaction.
- The court rejected the argument that a writ against its own order is impermissible, drawing a distinction between challenging the legal correctness of a judgment and seeking redaction of personal information. Allowing redaction will not question the validity of the judgment; rather, it will simply change its public appearance to ensure privacy.
- Since a High Court is a Court of Record with an obligation to preserve its judgments in their unaltered form forever, the court held here that such internal maintenance of complete records was not incompatible with the issuance of a redacted public version. Institutional integrity is maintained when the original kept in the archives is supplemented with a public version that masks the privacy areas.
- Open justice principles work to establish transparency, accountability, and public confidence, but these are not absolute. The court took a proportionality stance: personal identifiers, where they neither educate nor have precedential value and continue to inflict harm, may be expunged without affecting the established legal principles of judgment.
- Although the DPDP Act exempts courts from several statutory obligations, the court held that it can, by virtue of its inherent discretion, protect personal data, and in so doing, exercise that power without the need for any legislative command. Traditionally the Madras High Court rules provide for the possibility of restriction of certified copies, thus establishing redaction as feasible both legally and administratively.
Introduction
In this age, when our data stands as the key to all resources, espionage has moved from dark alleys and trench coats to keyboards and code. In this era of active digital espionage, where intelligence is stolen through invisible cyberattacks that target computer networks. Cyber espionage and spying have become the most critical threat in the hyper-connected world of today. As governments, corporations, and individuals store an immense amount of confidential information online, the grounds of espionage have shifted from land and sea to the silent realm of cyberspace.
What is Cyber Espionage?
Cyber espionage refers to the unauthorised access of confidential data for strategic, political, military, and financial gain, unlike cybercrime, which is mostly about money. Cyber espionage is about gaining information power. The very first documented case dates back to 1986-87, when a group of German hackers breached the US military establishment and the defence systems and sold that stolen data to the Soviets and the KGB. This was the beginning of a new era where classified intelligence could be gathered even without entering a building.
Cyber espionage is mostly carried out by trained espionage professionals, elite hackers, and corporate spies whose sole purpose is to target the government, research organisations, military establishments, and other critical infrastructures.
The Objective
The act of Cyber Espionage is being driven by three major objectives, such as;
- Stealing of Intellectual Property- Starting from information and data related to military establishments to pharmaceutical patents, stealing innovation is cheaper than funding R&D.
- Political and Diplomatic Advantage- As government networks are hacked to access state secrets, negotiation strategies, and classified communications.
- Military Intelligence- Cyber spies also work to steal data on weapons troop movements, defence systems, and war systems, often years before conflict breaks out.
In a world being shaped by digital power, information is not just about knowledge. Rather, it is all about ensuring dominance.
The arsenal of modern digital spies is more sophisticated, and most importantly, they are used covertly rather than the spy gadgets that are shown in spy movies. Some of the tactics resorted to by the cyber spies can be recognised as;
- Phishing Attacks through fake emails that lure victims to click on malicious links or sharing of passwords.
- Persisting Advanced Threats through long-term stealth attacks in a network for more than a month or a year.
- Malware and Spyware are invisible software that logs keystrokes, records screens, or steals files silently.
- Deepfake Manipulations by creating AI-generated fake videos that can influence political developments in the country.
Anything that makes cyber espionage terrifying is not just the theft, but the fact that it goes undetected.
What Differentiates Cyber Espionage and Cyber Warfare
Cyber espionage is a silent and stealthy tactic that is carried out with utmost secrecy, being a long-term effort for intelligence gathering. It mostly focuses on the stealing of data, whereas Cyber warfare is an open and destructive tactic that is used to create an immediate and visible impact to create disruption. However, espionage is an act that prepares the battlefield for the warfare of the future.
Taking instances of real instances of cyber espionage, we can refer to examples such as;
- Operation Aurora was conducted in 2010, where Chinese Hackers based in Beijing tried to steal IP data from Google and American tech giants.
- The Stuxnet attack in 2010 was another cyber weapon that was developed to sabotage Iran’s nuclear centrifuges.
- SolarWinds Attack of 2020 was an instance of cyber espionage where a supply chain hack was carried out to target multiple US federal government agencies.
As most of these instances reflect that they were battles without guns, but with the use of codes. Several sources raise the question of whether cyber-attacks can be stopped. The answer lies in the fact that they cannot be stopped completely, but can be minimised to some extent, by developing capabilities to counter and deter cyber-attacks with the help of equal cyber defence capabilities.
Conclusion
From the Cold War era to the present Code War, espionage has evolved with technology. An effort that was once taken solely by spies and human assets, with the passing of time enhancement of technologies it is now expanded to malware, phishing, social engineering, and remote digital inflation. In this age of information warfare, espionage is faster, cheaper, and harder to trace than ever before. The enemies of a nation may never cross its borders, but they may already be inside its systems. However, the world has now officially entered a new battlefield, without boundaries, uniforms, and bombs. It is now being fought through bytes, breaches, and invisible enemies.
References
- https://www.sentinelone.com/cybersecurity-101/threat-intelligence/cyber-espionage/
- https://www.espiamos.com/en/content/espionage-in-the-digital-world-threats-and-opportunities.html
- https://www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/information-technology/resources/what-is-cyber-warfare/
- https://pride-security.co.uk/the-rise-of-digital-warfare-understanding-the-evolution-of-cyber-espionage/
Executive Summary
Following the reported box office success of ‘Dhurandhar 2: The Revenge’, released on March 19, 2026, a video of Ranveer Singh visiting a temple is being widely shared on social media. Users claim that the actor visited the Kashi Vishwanath Temple to offer prayers after the film’s success. Research by CyberPeace found that the viral claim is misleading. The video of Ranveer Singh visiting the Kashi Vishwanath Temple is not recent. It dates back to 2024, when he visited the temple with Kriti Sanon, and is unrelated to the release or success of ‘Dhurandhar 2: The Revenge’.
Claim
An Instagram user “newsbharatplus” shared the video on March 26, 2026, with a caption stating that after the massive success of Dhurandhar 2, Ranveer Singh visited the temple and performed rituals.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search. This led us to a report published by Dainik Jagran on April 14, 2024. According to the report, Ranveer Singh had visited the Kashi Vishwanath Temple along with Kriti Sanon and noted fashion designer Manish Malhotra. During the visit, the trio was seen offering prayers, wearing traditional attire, and applying sandalwood tilak.
https://www.jagran.com/entertainment/bollywood-ranveer-singh-and-kriti-sanon-visits-kashi-vishwanath-temple-with-manish-malhotra-see-photos-here-23696781.html
We also found a video report on the official YouTube channel of Times Now Navbharat, uploaded on April 15, 2024, showing Ranveer Singh and Kriti Sanon at the temple. The report also featured visuals from a fashion event held in Varanasi.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMuW_SVbfb4
Conclusion
The viral claim is misleading. The video of Ranveer Singh visiting the Kashi Vishwanath Temple is not recent. It dates back to 2024, when he visited the temple with Kriti Sanon, and is unrelated to the release or success of ‘Dhurandhar 2: The Revenge’.
