#FactCheck -Misleading Social Media Claim Targets University Over Viral Video
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media shows a woman using abusive language in front of a camera. Users sharing the clip claim that the woman is a professor at Galgotias University and that the video exposes her alleged reality. However, an research by CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. The probe revealed that the woman seen in the viral video has no connection with Galgotias University and is not a professor there.Fact-checking further showed that the video is not recent but around seven years old. The woman featured in the clip was identified as Shubhrastha, who is a political strategist by profession.
Claim:
A user on X (formerly Twitter) shared the viral video on February 18, 2026, claiming: “A ‘class in abuse studies’ at Galgotias University? An obscene video of a professor teaching ethics has gone viral. Another shameful chapter has been added to the list of controversies surrounding Galgotias University.” The post further alleged that after falsely claiming a Chinese robot as its own, the university’s “Culture and Ethics” faculty member was seen publicly using abusive language in the viral clip. The post link and its archived version are provided below:
Fact Check:
To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, we extracted key frames from the video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research , we found the same video uploaded on the Indian Spectator’s YouTube channel on June 9, 2018
The video was also found on another YouTube channel, where it had been uploaded on June 12, 2018.
Conclusion
The research clearly establishes that the woman seen in the viral video has no association with Galgotias University and is not a professor there. The clip is also not recent but approximately seven years old. The woman in the video was identified as Shubhrastha, a political strategist.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary:
A video claiming to show the plane crash that allegedly killed Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar has been widely circulated on social media. The circulation began soon after reports emerged of a tragic aircraft accident in Baramati, Maharashtra, on January 28, 2026, in which Ajit Pawar and five others were reported to have died. The viral video shows a plane crashing to the ground moments after take-off. Social media users have claimed that the footage captures the exact incident in which Ajit Pawar was on board. However, an research by the CyberPeacehas found that this claim is false.
Claim:
An Instagram user shared the video on January 28, 2026, claiming that it showed the plane crash in Maharashtra in which Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar and others allegedly lost their lives. The caption accompanying the video read:“This morning, Deputy CM Ajit Pawar and six others tragically died in a plane crash in Maharashtra.”
Links to the post and its archived version are provided below.
Fact Check:
To verify the authenticity of the viral video, the CyberPeaceconducted a reverse image search of its keyframes. During this process, the same visuals were found in a video report uploaded on News9 Live’s official YouTube channel on October 23, 2025.
According to the report, the footage shows a plane crash in Venezuela, not India. The incident occurred shortly after a Piper Cheyenne aircraft took off from Paramillo Airport in Táchira, Venezuela. The aircraft crashed within seconds of take-off, killing both occupants on board. The deceased were identified as pilot José Bortone and co-pilot Juan Maldonado. Further confirmation came from a report published on October 22, 2025, by Latin American news outlet El Tiempo. The Spanish-language report also featured the same video visuals and stated that a small aircraft lost control and crashed on the runway at Paramillo Airport in Venezuela, resulting in the deaths of the pilot and co-pilot.
Conclusion
The CyberPeace’s research clearly establishes that the viral video being shared as footage of Ajit Pawar’s alleged plane crash in Baramati is misleading. The video actually shows a plane crash that occurred in Venezuela in October 2025 and has been falsely linked to a tragic claim in India.
Introduction
Parliament is about to begin its Monsoon Session from July 20, 2026 to August 13, 2026, and the mood in Delhi already feels charged. Ahead of the opening bell, the government has flagged five new bills for introduction, alongside a couple of pending pieces of legislation it may take up for passage. Predictably, the political oxygen in the run-up has gone almost entirely to what isn't on that list — reports this week noted the conspicuous absence of the long-anticipated Delimitation Bill and a Constitutional amendment for women's reservation in the Lok Sabha, a gap that has already drawn sharp reactions from Congress leaders. What is on the list has generated its own share of noise: a Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill that NGOs are watching warily, a Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill tied to safeguards for the National Flag and Anthem, and a Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill proposing to raise the Court's sanctioned strength from 33 to 37. Every one of these will command its share of prime-time debate. But tucked quietly among the five is a bill that, headline for headline, may end up mattering more to the everyday Indian economy than all the others combined: the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (Amendment) Bill, 2026.
MSMEs play a foundational role in India’s economic engine, powering employment, entrepreneurship and growth across the country. That makes this Bill one worth watching closely, because even seemingly technical changes to the MSME framework could have very real consequences for millions of businesses and the people whose livelihoods depend on them.
What the Bill Actually Does
The MSME sector hasn't seen a structural legal update since the original MSMED Act of 2006 nearly two decades in an economy that looks nothing like it did back then. The new amendment is designed to close that gap. According to the government's own description of the bill, it aims to align the 2006 law with the sector's changed realities, improve ease of doing business, and shift toward what officials are calling "trust-based" regulation rather than a purely compliance-driven approach.
Three provisions stand out.
- First, it strengthens the mechanism for resolving delayed payments to micro and small enterprises, arguably the single biggest complaint MSME owners have voiced for years.
- Second, it creates a pathway to enforce arbitral awards specifically for micro and small units, giving smaller suppliers real teeth when a dispute is decided in their favor.
- Third, it gives states more flexibility in deciding the composition of Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Councils (MSEFCs) , the bodies that adjudicate payment disputes which should allow more councils to be formed and cut down on case backlogs.
The Delayed Payment Crisis, in Numbers
To understand why this matters, look at the scale of the problem the bill is trying to fix. The MSME Ministry's Samadhaan portal, which lets small enterprises file delayed-payment complaints online, had received close to 2.57 lakh applications as of June 2026, involving claimed dues of roughly ₹55,244 crore. Of these, only about 58,000 cases had actually been resolved by facilitation councils. That's a resolution rate that leaves the vast majority of small businesses waiting often for money already owed to them for goods or services delivered.
The government did tighten the screws somewhat in 2024 through Section 43B(h) of the Income Tax Act, which denies large buyers a tax deduction if they don't pay MSME suppliers within the 15-to-45-day window mandated by law. Enforcement, however, has remained patchy, and industry bodies like Assocham have continued to flag delayed payments including from PSUs and government departments as a core source of financial stress for small firms, with high interest charges on overdue statutory dues compounding the problem.
Why This Is Bigger Than One Bill
A regulation targeting the payments practices of India's micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises is more than just paperwork and procedural wrangling; the stakes for the Indian economy and society are enormous. According to the 2025-26 Economic Survey, MSMEs now contribute about 31.1% of India’s GDP, 35.4% of its manufacturing output, and 48.58% of its exports, while employing 33 to 39 crore people and providing India’s second largest source of employment after agriculture. The official Udyam database of MSMEs crossed the 8.7 crore mark by June 2026, underscoring a clear trend towards the sector’s formalisation in the last few years. Access to finance is the second pillar of MSME empowerment. The Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises has authorised several lakh crores in guarantees, and most recently, the government increased its loan guarantee cover ceiling from Rs 5 crore to Rs 10 crore to facilitate more collateral-free loans to businesses. However, the actual credit gap remains estimated in the tens of lakh crores, with the biggest gaps faced by women-led and medium enterprises. While the MSME Bill doesn’t directly address access to finance, improved and quicker payment settlement mechanisms are expected to relieve some working-capital stress and dissuade small firms from falling into expensive informal credit markets. The MSME Bill also adds to a wave of recent measures to de-regulate smaller enterprises, such as the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill that was passed earlier in 2026. That Bill modified or deleted criminal offences with a more lenient civil equivalent across numerous central acts, a change industry lobby FISME called a significant move towards ease of doing business.
The Data Protection Clock Is Already Ticking - The Gap Payment Reform Won't Close
It's also worth noting that India's Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 is now in force, with rules notified in November 2025 and full compliance — including breach notification, security safeguards. With nearly half of Indian small businesses already reporting cyber incidents each year, MSMEs have a narrowing runway to build the security practices this regime will expect of them. Given that scale of exposure, there's a real case for the MSME Amendment Bill, or a companion policy, to go further — mandating baseline cyber-hygiene standards for Udyam-registered firms or tying credit-guarantee schemes to demonstrated security practices. Payment reform alone protects an MSME's right to be paid; it does little to protect what happens to that money, or that data, once it arrives.Payment reform alone protects an MSME's right to be paid; it does little to protect what happens to that money, or that data, once it arrives. CyberPeace calls on relevant agencies to issue clearer advisories and introduce additional, cost-friendly cybersecurity safeguards tailored to MSMEs' limited budgets and IT capacity.
What to Watch For
Whether the MSME Bill gets the attention it deserves during this session is an open question. With the Opposition expected to spend political capital on delimitation, the Vande Mataram bill, unemployment, inflation, and the NEET paper-leak controversy, a technical amendment to an enterprise development law is unlikely to dominate floor debate even though it may end up affecting more households than any single headline bill this session.
Conclusion
For India's roughly 7-8 crore MSMEs, most of them family-run and thinly capitalised, the details that get finalised in the coming weeks how MSEFCs are reconstituted, how arbitral awards get enforced, how "trust-based" regulation is actually defined will matter far more than who wins the argument over delimitation. It's worth watching this one closely, even if the cameras are pointed elsewhere.
Sources
- https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/vande-mataram-bill-among-five-new-legislations-listed-for-monsoon-session-126071601319_1.html
- https://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a1780267.html
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.
