#FactCheck -Old Karnataka Video Falsely Linked to Holi Celebrations on Eid in Delhi
Executive Summary
A video is being shared on social media showing a group of people dancing on a road while carrying saffron flags. A mosque can also be seen nearby in the video Sharing this clip, some users are claiming that it is from Uttam Nagar in Delhi, where members of the Hindu community celebrated Holi on the occasion of Eid on March 21. Research by the CyberPeace found the viral claim to be misleading. Our probe revealed that the video is not related to Holi celebrations on Eid in Uttam Nagar, Delhi. In fact, the video has been available on the internet since 2024 and is said to be from Raichur district in Karnataka. Several users have shared it claiming that it was recorded during Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations.
Claim:
A social media user shared the viral video on March 21, 2026, with a misleading claim. The link and archive link of the post are given below.
Fact Check:
To verify the viral claim, we first conducted a keyword search on Google. However, we did not find any credible media report supporting the claim. In the next step, we extracted keyframes from the video and performed a reverse search using Google Lens. During this process, we found the same video on an Instagram account, which was posted on September 23, 2024.
The user had captioned the video as “Ganesh Chaturthi 2024,” suggesting that the clip is related to the festival. Further, upon closely analyzing the video, we noticed that the mosque visible in the background had “Usmania Masjid” written on it. We then searched for this location on Google Maps and found that the mosque is located on Teen Khandil Road in Raichur, Karnataka, which matches the visuals seen in the viral clip.
Conclusion:
Our research found that the video is not from Uttam Nagar, Delhi, nor is it related to Holi celebrations on Eid. The clip has been available online since 2024 and is from Raichur, Karnataka. It has been shared with a misleading claim and is actually linked to Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
A video widely circulated on social media claims to show a confrontation between a Zee News journalist and Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Upendra Dwivedi during the Indian Army’s Annual Press Briefing 2026. The video alleges that General Dwivedi made sensitive remarks regarding ‘Operation Sindoor’, including claims that the operation was still ongoing and that diplomatic intervention by former US President Donald Trump had restricted India’s military response. Several social media users shared the clip while questioning the Indian Army’s operational decisions and demanding accountability over the alleged remarks. The CyberPeace concludes that the viral video claiming to show a discussion between a Zee News journalist and Chief of Army Staff General Upendra Dwivedi on ‘Operation Sindoor’ is misleading and digitally manipulated. Although the visuals were sourced from the Indian Army’s Annual Press Briefing 2026, the audio was artificially created and added later to misinform viewers. The Army Chief did not make any remarks regarding diplomatic interference or limitations on military action during the briefing.
Claim:
An X (formerly Twitter) user, Abbas Chandio (@AbbasChandio__), shared the video on January 14, asserting that it showed a Zee News journalist questioning the Army Chief about the status and outcomes of ‘Operation Sindoor’ during a recent press conference. In the clip, the journalist is purportedly heard challenging the Army Chief over his earlier statement that the operation was “still ongoing,” while the COAS is allegedly heard responding that diplomatic intervention during the conflict limited the Army’s ability to pursue further military action. Here is the link and archive link to the post, along with a screenshot.
The reverse image search also directed to an extended version of the footage uploaded on the official YouTube channel of India Today. The original video was identified as coverage from the Indian Army’s Annual Press Conference 2026, held on January 13 in New Delhi and addressed by COAS General Upendra Dwivedi. Upon reviewing the original press briefing footage, CyberPeace found no instance where a Zee News journalist questioned the Army Chief about ‘Operation Sindoor’. There was also no mention of the statements attributed to General Dwivedi in the viral clip.
In the authentic footage, journalist Anuvesh Rath was seen raising questions related to defence procurement and modernization, not military operations or diplomatic interventions. Here is the link to the original video, along with a screenshot.
To further verify the claim, CyberPeace extracted the audio track from the viral video and analysed it using the AI-based voice detection tool Aurigin. The analysis revealed that the voice heard in the clip was artificially generated, indicating the use of synthetic or manipulated audio. This confirmed that while genuine visuals from the Army’s official press briefing were used, a fabricated audio track had been overlaid to falsely attribute controversial statements to the Army Chief and a Zee News journalist.
Conclusion
The CyberPeace concludes that the viral video claiming to show a discussion between a Zee News journalist and Chief of Army Staff General Upendra Dwivedi on ‘Operation Sindoor’ is misleading and digitally manipulated. Although the visuals were sourced from the Indian Army’s Annual Press Briefing 2026, the audio was artificially created and added later to misinform viewers. The Army Chief did not make any remarks regarding diplomatic interference or limitations on military action during the briefing. The video is a clear case of digital manipulation and misinformation, aimed at creating confusion and casting doubts over the Indian Army’s official position.
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media with the claim that a terrorist attack took place at the ISKCON Temple in Patna. The posts claim that terrorists opened indiscriminate fire at security personnel deployed at the main gate, carried out bomb blasts, and took two priests hostage. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found that the claim of a terrorist attack on the ISKCON Temple in Patna is false. The viral video is not from an actual attack but from a security mock drill conducted at the temple.
Claim
A Facebook post shared a video claiming: "Three suspected terrorists entered the ISKCON Temple! Security guards were shot at the gate. Three suspected terrorists carrying modern weapons and hand grenades suddenly entered the Patna ISKCON Temple in the morning and killed the security personnel deployed at the gate. They then carried out a bomb blast, creating panic inside the temple campus."
The Facebook post archive can be accessed here. Similar posts can be found here and here.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2501959103601059
Factcheck
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search. During the search, we found reports from several credible media organisations clarifying that the video was not related to any real terrorist attack but was from a mock drill conducted to assess the preparedness of security forces. According to a Dainik Bhaskar report published on July 29, a security mock drill was conducted at the ISKCON Temple in Patna. During the exercise, a simulated emergency situation was created in which police personnel were assigned the role of suspected terrorists and were made to enter the temple premises. The drill involved personnel from Kotwali, Jakkanpur and Buddha Colony police stations, along with magistrates and around 50 police personnel who reached the spot and took charge of the situation. An ATS team was also immediately called during the exercise.
The report also quoted Patna ASP (Law and Order) Krishna Murari Prasad, who clarified that the exercise was organised to strengthen the temple’s security arrangements.
A Navbharat Times report published on July 29 also stated that, as part of the planned mock drill, three Bihar Police personnel carrying advanced weapons and hand grenades were sent inside the ISKCON Temple premises. Security agencies responded quickly, cordoned off the area, and the ATS team took control of the personnel and mock explosives, successfully completing the exercise.
During our research , we also found a post dated July 29, 2026, on the official Facebook page of the Home Department, Government of Bihar, regarding the mock drill.
The post stated that the Bihar ATS successfully conducted a security mock drill at the ISKCON Temple premises in Patna. The objective of the exercise was to test coordination between security agencies and stakeholders, quick response capabilities, and the effective implementation of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) during a possible terrorist attack or emergency situation. The post further mentioned that the drill included a rapid response to suspicious activity, area sanitisation, safe evacuation of devotees, search for suspects, and other necessary security measures.
https://www.facebook.com/HomeDeptBihar/posts/1492697179568423?ref=embed_post
Conclusion
The evidence gathered during the research confirms that the viral claim is false. The video being shared with the claim of a terrorist attack on Patna’s ISKCON Temple actually shows a security mock drill conducted by the authorities to assess emergency preparedness.
Introduction:
Welcome to the second edition of our blog on Digital forensics series. In our previous blog we discussed what digital forensics is, the process followed by the tools, and the subsequent challenges faced in the field. Further, we looked at how the future of Digital Forensics will hold in the current scenario. Today, we will explore differences between 3 particular similar sounding terms that vary significantly in functionality when implemented: Copying, Cloning and Imaging.
In Digital Forensics, the preservation and analysis of electronic evidence are important for investigations and legal proceedings. Replication of the data and devices is one of the fundamental tasks in this domain, without compromising the integrity of the original evidence.
Three primary techniques -- copying, cloning, and imaging -- are used for this purpose. Each technique has its own strengths and is applied according to the needs of the investigation.
In this blog, we will examine the differences between copying, cloning and imaging. We will talk about the importance of each technique, their applications and why imaging is considered the best for forensic investigations.
Copying
Copying means duplicating data or files from one location to another. When one does copying, it implies that one is using standard copy commands. However, when dealing with evidence, it might be hard to use copy only. It is because the standard copy can alter the metadata and change the hidden or deleted data .
The characteristics of copying include:
- Speed: copying is simpler and faster,compared to cloning or imaging.
- Risk: The risk involved in copying is that the metadata might be altered and all the data might be captured.
Cloning
It is the process where the transfer of the entire contents of a hard drive or a storage device is done on another storage device. This process is known as cloning . This way, the cloning process captures both the active data and the unallocated space and hidden partitions, thus containing the whole structure of the original device. Cloning is generally used at the sector level of the device. Clones can be used as the working copy of a device .
Characteristics of cloning:
- bit-for-bit replication: cloning keeps the exact content and the whole structure of the original device.
- Use cases: cloning is used when it is needed to keep the original device intact for further examination or a legal affair.
- Time consuming: Cloning is usually longer in comparison to simple copying since it involves the whole detailed replication. Though it depends on various factors like the size of the storage device, the speed of the devices involved, and the method of cloning.
Imaging:
It is the process of creating a forensic image of a storage device. A forensic image is a replica copy of every bit of data that was on the source device, this including the allocated, unallocated, and the available slack space .
The image is then used for analysis and investigation, and the original evidence is left untouched. Images can’t be used as the working copies of a device. Unlike cloning, which produces working copies, forensic images are typically used for analysis and investigation purposes and are not intended for regular use as working copies.
Characteristics of Imaging:
- Integrity: Imaging ensures the integrity and authenticity of the evidence produced
- Flexibility: Forensic image replicas can be mounted as a virtual drive to create image-specific mode for analysis of data without affecting the original evidence .
- Metadata: Imaging captures metadata associated with the data, thus promoting forensic analysis.
Key Differences
- Purpose: Copying is for everyday use but not good for forensic investigations requiring data integrity. Cloning and imaging are made for forensic preservation.
- Depth of Replication: Cloning and imaging captures the entire storage device including hidden, unallocated, and deleted data whereas copying may miss crucial forensic data.
- Data Integrity: Imaging and cloning keep the integrity of the original evidence thus making them suitable for legal and forensic use. Which is a critical aspect of forensic investigations.
- Forensic Soundness: Imaging is considered the best in digital forensics due to its comprehensive and non-invasive nature.
- Cloning is generally from one hard disk to another, where as imaging creates a compressed file that contains a snapshot of the entire hard drive or a specific partitions
Conclusion
Therefore, copying, cloning, and imaging all deal with duplication of data or storage devices with significant variations, especially in digital forensic. However, for forensic investigations, imaging is the most selected approach due to the correct preservation of the evidence state for any analysis or legal use . Therefore, it is essential for forensic investigators to understand these rigorous differences to avail of real and uncontaminated digital evidence for their investigation and legal argument.
