#FactCheck- Old Ladakh Protest Video Falsely Shared as Violence Following Sonam Wangchuk’s Arrest
Executive Summary
Last September, protests were held in Ladakh over several demands, including full statehood, extension of Sixth Schedule protections, separate Lok Sabha seats for Leh and Kargil, and reservation in jobs. During that period, some demonstrations turned violent. Since then, talks between stakeholders and the government have continued regarding these demands. Amid this backdrop, Pakistani propaganda handles on social media are sharing a video of a protest and claiming that violent demonstrations have erupted in Ladakh following the arrest of education reformer Sonam Wangchuk. CyberPeace Research Wing research found the claim to be misleading. The claim regarding Sonam Wangchuk’s arrest is false, while the viral video is actually from protests that took place in September last year.
Claim:
Sharing the video, a user wrote: “Massive protests in Ladakh. Violent demonstrations have erupted after reports of the arrest of Ladakh’s revolutionary leader Sonam Wangchuk. The people of Ladakh seek justice and freedom from the Indian Army, which is attacking civilians.”
https://x.com/ZardSi/status/2064204063248695393?s=20
Fact Check:
Our research found the claim to be misleading. The viral video is from protests held in September last year, and the claim that Sonam Wangchuk has been arrested is also false. We first converted the video into keyframes and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. This led us to several videos and news reports covering the same incident. The viral footage was found in a news report uploaded on September 24, 2025, by Asianet News English on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/@asianetnewsenglish
According to the information provided with the video, large-scale protests took place in Leh in support of demands for Sixth Schedule status and full statehood for Ladakh. The movement turned violent following clashes with police, and protesters allegedly set fire to a BJP office in Leh. CRPF personnel and local police later detained several protesters, bringing the situation under control. We also found a report published by Arunachal24, which stated that at least four people were killed and more than 70 injured in violent clashes between protesters demanding statehood and constitutional safeguards for Ladakh and security forces. The report further mentioned that protesters set fire to a local BJP office and a CRPF vehicle, following which authorities imposed a strict curfew across Leh.
Our team also found that the claim about Sonam Wangchuk’s arrest is entirely false. Wangchuk remains active on social media and had posted an update on June 10, indicating that he had not been detained.
Conclusion:
The fact-check clearly shows that the viral claim is misleading. There is no evidence that Sonam Wangchuk has been arrested. The viral video is not recent and actually shows protests that took place in Ladakh in September 2025.
Related Blogs
2025 is knocking firmly at our door and we have promises to make and resolutions to keep. Time you make your list for the New Year and check it twice.
- Lifestyle targets 🡪 Check
- Family targets 🡪 Check
- Social targets 🡪 Check
Umm, so far so good, but what about your cybersecurity targets for the year? Hey, you look confused and concerned. Wait a minute, you do not have one, do you?
I get it. Though the digital world still puzzles, and sometimes outright scares us, we still are not in the ‘Take-Charge-Of-Your-Digital-Safety Mode. We prefer to depend on whatever software security we are using and keep our fingers crossed that the bad guys (read threat actors) do not find us.
Let me illustrate why cybersecurity should be one of your top priorities. You know that stress is a major threat to our continued good health, right? However, if your devices, social media accounts, office e-mail or network, or God forbid, bank accounts become compromised, would that not cause stress? Think about it and the probable repercussions and you will comprehend why I am harping on prioritising security.
Fret not. We will keep it brief as we well know you have 101 things to do in the next few days leading up to 01/01/2025. Just add cyber health to the list and put in motion the following:
- Install and activate comprehensive security software on ALL internet-enabled devices you have at home. Yes, including your smartphones.
- Set yourself a date to change and create separate unique passwords for all accounts. Or use the password manager that comes with all reputed security software to make life simpler.
- Keep home Wi-Fi turned off at night
- Do not set social media accounts to auto-download photos/documents
- Activate parental controls on all the devices used by your children to monitor and mentor them. But keep them apprised.
- Do not blindly trust anyone or anything online – this includes videos, speeches, emails, voice calls, and video calls. Be aware of fakes.
- Be aware of the latest threats and talk about unsafe cyber practices and behaviour often at home.
Short and sweet, as promised.
We will be back, with more tips, and answers to your queries. Drop us a line anytime, and we will be happy to resolve your doubts.
Ciao!
What are Deepfakes?
A deepfake is essentially a video of a person in which their face or body has been digitally altered so that they appear to be someone else, typically used maliciously or to spread false information. Deepfake technology is a method for manipulating videos, images, and audio utilising powerful computers and deep learning. It is used to generate fake news and commit financial fraud, among other wrongdoings. It overlays a digital composite over an already-existing video, picture, or audio; cybercriminals use Artificial Intelligence technology. The term deepfake was coined first time in 2017 by an anonymous Reddit user, who called himself deepfake.
Deepfakes works on a combination of AI and ML, which makes the technology hard to detect by Web 2.0 applications, and it is almost impossible for a layman to see if an image or video is fake or has been created using deepfakes. In recent times, we have seen a wave of AI-driven tools which have impacted all industries and professions across the globe. Deepfakes are often created to spread misinformation. There lies a key difference between image morphing and deepfakes. Image morphing is primarily used for evading facial recognition, but deepfakes are created to spread misinformation and propaganda.
Issues Pertaining to Deepfakes in India
Deepfakes are a threat to any nation as the impact can be divesting in terms of monetary losses, social and cultural unrest, and actions against the sovereignty of India by anti-national elements. Deepfake detection is difficult but not impossible. The following threats/issues are seen to be originating out of deep fakes:
- Misinformation: One of the biggest issues of Deepfake is misinformation, the same was seen during the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where in a deepfake of Ukraine’s president, Mr Zelensky, surfaced on the internet and caused mass confusion and propaganda-based misappropriation among the Ukrainians.
- Instigation against the Union of India: Deepfake poses a massive threat to the integrity of the Union of India, as this is one of the easiest ways for anti-national elements to propagate violence or instigate people against the nation and its interests. As India grows, so do the possibilities of anti-national attacks against the nation.
- Cyberbullying/ Harassment: Deepfakes can be used by bad actors to harass and bully people online in order to extort money from them.
- Exposure to Illicit Content: Deepfakes can be easily used to create illicit content, and oftentimes, it is seen that it is being circulated on online gaming platforms where children engage the most.
- Threat to Digital Privacy: Deepfakes are created by using existing videos. Hence, bad actors often use photos and videos from Social media accounts to create deepfakes, this directly poses a threat to the digital privacy of a netizen.
- Lack of Grievance Redressal Mechanism: In the contemporary world, the majority of nations lack a concrete policy to address the aspects of deepfake. Hence, it is of paramount importance to establish legal and industry-based grievance redressal mechanisms for the victims.
- Lack of Digital Literacy: Despite of high internet and technology penetration rates in India, digital literacy lags behind, this is a massive concern for the Indian netizens as it takes them far from understanding the tech, which results in the under-reporting of crimes. Large-scale awareness and sensitisation campaigns need to be undertaken in India to address misinformation and the influence of deepfakes.
How to spot deepfakes?
Deepfakes look like the original video at first look, but as we progress into the digital world, it is pertinent to establish identifying deepfakes in our digital routine and netiquettes in order to stay protected in the future and to address this issue before it is too late. The following aspects can be kept in mind while differentiating between a real video and a deepfake
- Look for facial expressions and irregularities: Whenever differentiating between an original video and deepfake, always look for changes in facial expressions and irregularities, it can be seen that the facial expressions, such as eye movement and a temporary twitch on the face, are all signs of a video being a deepfake.
- Listen to the audio: The audio in deepfake also has variations as it is imposed on an existing video, so keep a check on the sound effects coming from a video in congruence with the actions or gestures in the video.
- Pay attention to the background: The most easiest way to spot a deepfake is to pay attention to the background, in all deepfakes, you can spot irregularities in the background as, in most cases, its created using virtual effects so that all deepfakes will have an element of artificialness in the background.
- Context and Content: Most of the instances of deepfake have been focused towards creating or spreading misinformation hence, the context and content of any video is an integral part of differentiating between an original video and deepfake.
- Fact-Checking: As a basic cyber safety and digital hygiene protocol, one should always make sure to fact-check each and every piece of information they come across on social media. As a preventive measure, always make sure to fact-check any information or post sharing it with your known ones.
- AI Tools: When in doubt, check it out, and never refrain from using Deepfake detection tools like- Sentinel, Intel’s real-time deepfake detector - Fake catcher, We Verify, and Microsoft’s Video Authenticator tool to analyze the videos and combating technology with technology.
Recent Instance
A deepfake video of actress Rashmika Mandanna recently went viral on social media, creating quite a stir. The video showed a woman entering an elevator who looked remarkably like Mandanna. However, it was later revealed that the woman in the video was not Mandanna, but rather, her face was superimposed using AI tools. Some social media users were deceived into believing that the woman was indeed Mandanna, while others identified it as an AI-generated deepfake. The original video was actually of a British-Indian girl named Zara Patel, who has a substantial following on Instagram. This incident sparked criticism from social media users towards those who created and shared the video merely for views, and there were calls for strict action against the uploaders. The rapid changes in the digital world pose a threat to personal privacy; hence, caution is advised when sharing personal items on social media.
Legal Remedies
Although Deepfake is not recognised by law in India, it is indirectly addressed by Sec. 66 E of the IT Act, which makes it illegal to capture, publish, or transmit someone's image in the media without that person's consent, thus violating their privacy. The maximum penalty for this violation is ₹2 lakh in fines or three years in prison. The DPDP Act's applicability in 2023 means that the creation of deepfakes will directly affect an individual's right to digital privacy and will also violate the IT guidelines under the Intermediary Guidelines, as platforms will be required to exercise caution while disseminating and publishing misinformation through deepfakes. The indirect provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which cover the sale and dissemination of derogatory publications, songs and actions, deception in the delivery of property, cheating and dishonestly influencing the delivery of property, and forgery with the intent to defame, are the only legal remedies available for deepfakes. Deep fakes must be recognized legally due to the growing power of misinformation. The Data Protection Board and the soon-to-be-established fact-checking body must recognize crimes related to deepfakes and provide an efficient system for filing complaints.
Conclusion
Deepfake is an aftermath of the advancements of Web 3.0 and, hence is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the issues/threats from emerging technologies. It is pertinent to upskill and educate the netizens about the keen aspects of deepfakes to stay safe in the future. At the same time, developing and developed nations need to create policies and laws to efficiently regulate deepfake and to set up redressal mechanisms for victims and industry. As we move ahead, it is pertinent to address the threats originating out of the emerging techs and, at the same time, create a robust resilience for the same.
References
Introduction
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy) released the Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026 on March 30, 2026, inviting public comments with a response window closing on April 14. This is a limited 15-day period for public input on proposed rules that will have major constitutional impacts. The brevity and timing of this opportunity demonstrate debatable commitment to stakeholder engagement and meaningful consultation by the drafting agency.
While MEITY describes the proposed amendments as "clarificatory and procedural nature," an analysis shows they will have substantive effects. Collectively, the amended language changes significantly how online speech will be regulated in India by providing the executive with more concentrated regulatory authority, limiting the required transparency of content enforcement, mandating greater retention of data without proportionality-based safeguards, and placing excessive compliance burden on intermediaries. Each of these changes has consequences beyond just changes in process and together, these changes collectively raise substantial concerns regarding compliance with Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Constitutional Baseline: Shreya Singhal and the Limits of Intermediary Liability
India’s Supreme Court decision in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 provides the foundation for intermediary liability, wherein the Court read down Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, holding that intermediaries are required to act upon receiving actual knowledge only through a court order or a valid notification by the appropriate government authority. The Supreme Court’s decision intended to provide a constitutional protection to intermediaries from being subjected to informal, unverified executive pressure to take down content by requiring that any such order be subject to some level of legal objective credibility or threshold.
Rule 3(4) of the proposed amendments places that balance under significant strain. By requiring intermediaries to comply with advisories, directions, standard operating procedures, codes of practice, and guidelines issued by the Ministry — and tying non-compliance to the loss of safe harbour — the draft effectively lowers the constitutional threshold that Shreya Singhal was designed to maintain. Compliance obligations now potentially arise from instruments that carry no judicial sanction and no mandatory public disclosure.
Rule 3(4): Delegated Legislation or Executive Overreach
The rule-making power conferred on the Central Government under Section 87 of the IT Act is limited to carrying out the provisions of the Act. It does not authorise the creation of new substantive obligations. This principle has been consistently affirmed in Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 and Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 399, where the Court held that delegated legislation must remain within the four corners of the parent statute.
Rule 3(4) tests those limits. It converts executive advisories into binding compliance instruments without a clear statutory foundation in either Section 79 or Section 87. Although the proposed rule requires that such instruments specify their legal basis, there is no requirement that they be published or made publicly accessible. This creates a framework in which legality risks becoming circular — instruments claimed to be lawful solely by reference to a provision that does not clearly authorise them, shielded from scrutiny by their own opacity. Justice Chandurkar’s judgment in Kunal Kamra v. Union of India identified precisely this defect in the Fact Check Unit amendment. Rule 3(4) replicates the structural problem in a broader form.
Compliance Pressure and the Logic of Over-Censorship
The practical consequence of Rule 3(4) lies not only in its legality but in how it reshapes incentive structures for platforms. An intermediary facing the permanent threat of safe harbour loss will not wait to assess the legal merit of each advisory. The rational calculation is to comply early, broadly, and without friction. Lawful content — particularly satire, political commentary, and journalism — becomes vulnerable not because it is unlawful, but because it presents regulatory risk.
This dynamic was visible on 18 March 2026, when stand-up comedian Pulkit Mani (@hunnywhoisfunny) found his satirical Instagram reel being restricted across India. The video had accumulated over 16.5 million views. Users encountered a notice citing Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. No reasons were publicly provided. No prior hearing was offered. The same night, several political parody and satire accounts were withheld on X.
Data Retention, Privacy, and the Proportionality Test
The amendments to Rules 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h) extend data retention obligations by making them additional to requirements under any other law. The existing 180-day floor for retained user data — covering removed content, registration information, and associated records — becomes a minimum rather than a ceiling. No maximum is specified, and no proportionality requirement accompanies the extension.
This raises direct concerns under Article 21 as interpreted in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, which held that any state intrusion into privacy must satisfy the triple test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Undefined retention periods, with no statutory ceiling and no requirement of purpose limitation, risk failing all three. The longer user data is held, including metadata, device information, and records of removed content, the greater the exposure to surveillance, unauthorised access, and use beyond the original justification.
Circumventing Judicial Scrutiny Through Procedural Redesign
The Bombay High Court, in its August 2021 order, stayed provisions of the IT Rules’ oversight mechanism as prima facie violative of Article 19(1)(a). The Madras High Court in T.M. Krishna v. Union of India affirmed that stay, cautioning that government-controlled media oversight risked undermining press independence. Both matters remain pending before the Delhi High Court.
The amendments to Rules 8(1) and 14 restructure the same oversight machinery through a modified procedural design. By extending the Inter-Departmental Committee’s jurisdiction to cover “matters” referred by the Ministry with no requirement of a complainant, no defined subject matter, and no guaranteed prior hearing, the proposed rules effectively reconstitute what courts found constitutionally suspect. Individual users posting news and current affairs content are now brought within reach of blocking mechanisms originally designed for institutional publishers.
Conclusion
As seen above, the Draft IT Rules 2026 are unable to meet the constitutional and judicial requirements to regulate free speech. What the proposed amendments construct is a durable system in which platforms self-censor under liability pressure, data is retained without proportionate justification, and content oversight expands through procedural adjustment rather than parliamentary legislation. Regulation of the digital public sphere is both legitimate and necessary. But it must be anchored in law, not in the quiet authority of executive advisories. The law must ultimately remain anchored in constitutional values, guided by the enduring principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
The comment period closes on 14 April 2026.
Submissions may be sent to itrules.consultation@meity.gov.in.
References
- https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/03/30591fc6e322dcbcc9dae84a0f02e9e7.pdf
- https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/03/a71a21d35c107f2e528363d3eb17646a.pdf
- https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/02/550681ab908f8afb135b0ad42816a1c9.pdf
- https://neopolitico.com/india/government-blocks-viral-satirical-reel-impersonating-pm-modi-raising-fresh-questions-on-free-speech-and-digital-regulation/
- https://internetfreedom.in/sound-the-alarm-iffs-first-read-on-meitys-draft-it-rules-second-amendment-2026/
