#FactCheck -Bangladesh protest video falsely shared as police firing incident in Bihar’s Siwan

Introduction

On September 27, 2024, the Indian government took a significant step toward enhancing national security by amending business allocation rules through an extraordinary gazette notification. This amendment, which assigns specific roles to different Union Ministries and Departments regarding telecom network security, cybersecurity, and cybercrime, aims to clarify and streamline efforts in these critical areas. With India's evolving cybersecurity landscape, the need for a structured regulatory framework is pressing, as threats grow in complexity. Recent developments, such as the July 2024 global cyber outage and increasing cyber crimes like SMS scams, highlight the urgency of such reforms. Under Article 77 clause (3), the President amended the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, to designate clearer responsibilities, reinforcing India's readiness to tackle emerging digital threats.

Key Highlights of the Gazette Notification

• Telecom Networks Security: A new entry ‘1A’ matters relating to the security of telecom networks" has been added under the Department of Telecommunications, highlighting an increased focus on securing the nation's telecom infrastructure.
• Cyber Security Responsibilities: Cyber security responsibilities have been added as a new entry under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), "5B. This assigns responsibility to MeitY for cybersecurity issues, concerning the Information Technology Act of 2000, giving the ministry the mandate to support other ministries or departments regarding cybersecurity matters.
• Oversight for Cyber Crime: Under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Internal Security, a new entry "36A Matters relating to Cyber Crime" is introduced. This emphasises that the MHA will handle cybercrime issues, highlighting the government's attention toward enhancing internal security against cyber threats.
• Cyber Security Strategic Coordination: Any matter related to the "overall coordination and strategic direction for Cyber Security," has been given to the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). This consolidates the role of the NSCS in guiding cybersecurity strategies at the national level.

Impact on Policy and Governance 

The amendments introduced through the notification are poised to significantly enhance the Indian government's cybersecurity framework by clarifying the roles of various ministries. The clear separation of responsibilities, telecom network security to the Department of Telecommunications, cybercrime to the Ministry of Home Affairs, and overall cyber strategy to the National Security Council Secretariat could seen as better coordination between ministries. This clarity is expected to reduce bureaucratic delays, allowing for quicker response times in addressing cyber threats, cybercrimes, and telecom vulnerabilities. Such efficient handling is crucial, especially in the evolving landscape of digital threats. These changes have been largely welcomed as it recognises the potential for improved regulatory oversight and faster policy implementation and a step forward in bolstering India’s cyber resilience. 

Conclusion 

The Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 amendments mark a critical step in strengthening India's cybersecurity framework. By setting out specific responsibilities for telecom network security, cybercrime, and overall cybersecurity strategy among key ministries, the government seeks to improve coordination and reduce bureaucratic delays. This policy shift is poised to enhance India’s digital resilience, providing a foundation for rapid responses to emerging cyber threats. However, success hinges on effective implementation, resource allocation, and collaboration across ministries. Addressing concerns like potential jurisdictional overlap and ensuring the inclusion of bodies like NCIIPC will be pivotal to ensuring comprehensive cyber protection. The complexity of cyber crimes and threats is evolving every day and the government's ability and preparedness to handle them with regulatory insight is a high priority.

References

• https://egazette.gov.in/(S(4r5oclueuwrjypfvr5b4vtzg))/ViewPDF.aspx 
• https://www.ptinews.com/story/national/govt-specifies-roles-on-matters-related-to-security-of-telecom-network-cyber-security-and-cyber-crime/1856627
• https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/centre-to-further-streamline-mechanism-to-deal-with-cyber-security-cyber-crime/article68694330.ece
• https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/policy/govt-specifies-roles-on-matters-related-to-security-of-telecom-network-cyber-security-and-cyber-crime/113754501 

‍

Introduction

‍

A digital forensic investigation can start with a question: what really happened? The tricky part is that the answer might be hidden in thousands of files, system logs, browser records, messages, application artefacts and timestamps. Traditional forensic practice gives a method to find, collect, check and report such evidence yet the amount of digital data keeps growing. NIST’s forensic guidance says that evidence must be kept safe its integrity checked and investigative steps written down so that results can be examined and repeated.[4] This is where Large Language Models (LLMs) draw interest. LLMs can. Summarise large amounts of text, spot connections between pieces of information and help an examiner move through evidence faster. However, an important question remains: can an LLM truly become an investigator or should it stay an assistant to one?

Understanding the basic idea: What is an LLM?

A Large Language Model is an AI system trained on collections of text so that it can learn language patterns and produce answers. In terms an LLM does not think like a human investigator. An LLM creates language from patterns it learned during training and from the details it receives. This makes an LLM handy for summarisation, classification, question answering and pulling information from text.

‍

Where LLMs can actually help a forensic examiner

‍

‍

‍

Finding relevant evidence faster

‍

Consider a case involving a suspected phishing incident. A forensic examiner may have email headers, message bodies, attachments, browser history, DNS records and system logs. An LLM can help organize text-based evidence, spot repeated terms pull out indicators such as domains or IP addresses and cluster related events for review. Research on LLM-assisted forensics says that pattern recognition and early evidence analysis are promising use cases.[1][3]

Connecting the timeline

Investigations often rely on order: what happened first what followed and which artefacts back that order. An LLM can turn amounts of timestamped data into a clear timeline or point out records that seem related. The key point is that the LLM helps an examiner see relationships; it does not independently prove that one event caused another.

‍

Making forensic reporting easier to understand

‍

A good forensic report should be understandable to technical and non-technical readers. LLMs can help turn examiner notes or structured findings into clearer draft language, summaries or executive explanations. This is particularly useful when an investigation contains technical terms that need to be explained without losing their meaning. Research also identifies evidence presentation and reporting as a potential area for LLM assistance.[1]

‍

A realistic example

‍

Imagine an organisation reports that an employee account may have been compromised. The examiner collects the relevant disk image, authentication logs, browser history and email data using established procedures. After preservation and examination with validated tools, a controlled set of extracted text or structured artefacts could be given to an LLM. It might identify unusual login patterns, highlight a suspicious domain appearing in multiple sources, and draft questions for further examination.

The examiner then checks those observations against the original evidence and forensic tool outputs. If the model says a login occurred at 10:14, that timestamp must be verified in the source log. If it suggests that two events are linked, the relationship must be supported by evidence. The model can accelerate the search, but the evidence remains the foundation of the conclusion.

‍

Why an LLM cannot simply replace the investigator

‍

The biggest challenge is reliability. LLMs can produce fluent answers that sound convincing even when the answer is wrong. The 2026 systematic review of 33 peer-reviewed works on LLMs in digital forensics highlights hallucination, explainability, reproducibility and legal admissibility as major concerns.[1] In forensic work, an incorrect sentence is not just a minor inconvenience; it can change how a case is understood.

There is also a reproducibility problem. Traditional forensic practice depends on validated processes, integrity checks and documentation. NIST recommends verifying acquired data and recording actions and tools so work can be repeated.[4] LLM output can vary with the model, settings, context and system version. That makes raw model output unsuitable as forensic proof on its own.

Another concern is confidentiality. Evidence may contain personal information, credentials, private communications or sensitive organisational data. Sending it to an external AI service without proper controls can create a privacy and governance risk. NIST’s Generative AI Profile stresses managing risks across the AI lifecycle.[5]

‍

What responsible LLM-assisted forensics could look like

‍

A practical approach is to keep the examiner in control. The LLM should receive only the information needed for the task, preferably through a controlled environment with access restrictions and logging. Critical findings should always link back to the source artefact rather than being accepted because the model sounds confident.

‍

A simple operational principle is: -

‍

‍

In practice, this means preserving and hashing evidence, using validated forensic tools for acquisition and examination, recording what data was supplied to the AI system, retaining relevant prompts and outputs in working notes, and independently verifying material claims. SWGDE guidance likewise emphasises protecting the integrity of evidence and documenting handling throughout the evidence lifecycle.[6]

A further possibility is a local or specialised forensic model. Research on “ForensicLLM” demonstrates this direction, including source attribution and retrieval-augmented approaches.[2] Such designs may provide a more controlled environment, but they still require testing and validation before operational use.

‍

Conclusion

‍

LLMs are unlikely to make the forensic examiner irrelevant. Their more realistic value is in helping the examiner deal with the scale and complexity of modern evidence. They can search, summarise, classify, correlate and help communicate findings, but these capabilities come with limitations that matter deeply in forensic work. A forensic conclusion must remain traceable to evidence, repeatable through a documented process and open to independent verification.[1][4]

The future of AI-assisted digital forensics is therefore less about replacing investigators and more about designing a disciplined partnership between human expertise and machine assistance. The strongest model is one in which AI speeds up the routine parts of an investigation while the examiner remains responsible for validation, interpretation and final conclusions. As research develops, the real question will not simply be whether an LLM is intelligent enough to analyse evidence, but whether the complete system around it is controlled, explainable and trustworthy enough for forensic use.

‍

References / Endnotes

‍

[1] Chernyshev, M., Baig, Z., Syed, N., Doss, R., & Shore, M. (2026). “Large language models in digital forensics: capabilities, challenges and future directions.” Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 56, 302043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2025.302043

[2] “ForensicLLM: A local large language model for digital forensics.” Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 52, Supplement, 301872 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2025.301872

[3] Wickramasekara, A., Breitinger, F., & Scanlon, M. (2025). “Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models for Improving Digital Forensic Investigation Efficiency.” Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 52, 301859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2024.301859

[4] Kent, K., Chevalier, S., Grance, T., & Dang, H. (2006). Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response, NIST Special Publication 800-86. National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-86

[5] Autio, C., Schwartz, R., Dunietz, J., Jain, S., Stanley, M., Tabassi, E., Hall, P., & Roberts, K. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile, NIST AI 600-1. National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1

[6] Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE). Best Practices for Digital Evidence Collection, 18-F-002-2.0. https://www.swgde.org/documents/published-complete-listing/18-f-002-2-0/

‍

Introduction

Recent advances in space exploration and technology have increased the need for space laws to control the actions of governments and corporate organisations. India has been attempting to create a robust legal framework to oversee its space activities because it is a prominent player in the international space business. In this article, we’ll examine India’s current space regulations and compare them to the situation elsewhere in the world.

Space Laws in India

India started space exploration with Aryabhtta, the first satellite, and Rakesh Sharma, the first Indian astronaut, and now has a prominent presence in space as many international satellites are now launched by India. NASA and ISRO work closely on various projects

India currently lacks any space-related legislation. Only a few laws and regulations, such as the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Act of 1969 and the National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC) Guidelines of 2011, regulate space-related operations. However, more than these rules and regulations are essential to control India’s expanding space sector. India is starting to gain traction as a prospective player in the global commercial space sector. Authorisation, contracts, dispute resolution, licencing, data processing and distribution related to earth observation services, certification of space technology, insurance, legal difficulties related to launch services, and stamp duty are just a few of the topics that need to be discussed. The necessary statute and laws need to be updated to incorporate space law-related matters into domestic laws.

India’s Space Presence

Space research activities were initiated in India during the early 1960s when satellite applications were in experimental stages, even in the United States. With the live transmission of the Tokyo Olympic Games across the Pacific by the American Satellite ‘Syncom-3’ demonstrating the power of communication satellites, Dr Vikram Sarabhai, the founding father of the Indian space programme, quickly recognised the benefits of space technologies for India.

As a first step, the Department of Atomic Energy formed the INCOSPAR (Indian National Committee for Space Research) under the leadership of Dr Sarabhai and Dr Ramanathan in 1962. The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) was formed on August 15, 1969. The prime objective of ISRO is to develop space technology and its application to various national needs. It is one of the six largest space agencies in the world. The Department of Space (DOS) and the Space Commission were set up in 1972, and ISRO was brought under DOS on June 1, 1972.

Since its inception, the Indian space programme has been orchestrated well. It has three distinct elements: satellites for communication and remote sensing, the space transportation system and application programmes. Two major operational systems have been established – the Indian National Satellite (INSAT) for telecommunication, television broadcasting, and meteorological services and the Indian Remote Sensing Satellite (IRS) for monitoring and managing natural resources and Disaster Management Support.

Global Scenario

The global space race has been on and ever since the moon landing in 1969, and it has now transformed into the new cold war among developed and developing nations. The interests and assets of a nation in space need to be safeguarded by the help of effective and efficient policies and internationally ratified laws. All nations with a presence in space do not believe in good for all policy, thus, preventive measures need to be incorporated into the legal system. A thorough legal framework for space activities is being developed by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). The “Outer Space Treaty,” a collection of five international agreements on space law, establishes the foundation of international space law. The agreements address topics such as the peaceful use of space, preventing space from becoming militarised, and who is responsible for damage caused by space objects. Well-established space laws govern both the United States and the United Kingdom. The National Aeronautics and Space Act, which was passed in the US in 1958 and established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to oversee national space programmes, is in place there. The Outer Space Act of 1986 governs how UK citizens and businesses can engage in space activity.

Conclusion

India must create a thorough legal system to govern its space endeavours. In the space sector, there needs to be a legal framework to avoid ambiguity and confusion, which may have detrimental effects. The Pacific use of space for the benefit of humanity should be covered by domestic space legislation in India. The overall scenario demonstrates the requirement for a clearly defined legal framework for the international acknowledgement of a nation’s space activities. India is fifth in the world for space technology, which is an impressive accomplishment, and a strong legal system will help India maintain its place in the space business.