#FactCheck -Old Video of Former CEC Rajiv Kumar Misleadingly Linked to Recent West Bengal Election Results
Executive Summary
Following the results of the recent West Bengal elections, a video of former Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar has gone viral on social media. In the clip, Kumar is seen questioning television news channels over their election-result coverage and alleged early “trends” before the actual counting process begins. In the viral video, Rajiv Kumar can be heard saying, “When counting begins, channels start showing trends from 8:05 AM itself, which is nonsense. The first round of counting starts only at 8:30 AM. We have evidence that leads were being shown before that. Is it possible that these early trends are shown just to justify exit polls?”The video is being widely shared with the claim that Kumar made these remarks after the recently concluded West Bengal Assembly elections Research conducted by CyberPeace Research Wing found that a 2024 video of former Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar is being misleadingly shared as a recent statement made after the West Bengal election results.
Claim
An Instagram user shared the viral clip suggesting that the former Election Commissioner made these comments in the context of the latest West Bengal poll results.
Fact Check
Using relevant keyword searches, we traced the original source of the clip to an official post shared by the Election Commission of Indiaon Facebook on October 15, 2024. The video was part of a press conference announcing the Assembly election schedule for Maharashtra and Jharkhand.
We also found the complete live-streamed press conference on the official YouTube channel of the Election Commission.
During the press conference, around the 26:45-minute mark, an ANI journalist referred to discrepancies between exit polls and actual Lok Sabha election results and asked whether such situations fuel doubts over EVMs among the public. Responding to the question at around 30:27 minutes, Rajiv Kumar spoke about the need for self-regulation in electronic media and concerns over premature “trends” shown during counting day. He said that exit polls often create public expectations despite lacking a clear scientific basis and questioned why TV channels begin displaying leads even before the first official counting round starts.
Conclusion
The viral claim is misleading. The video of former Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar is not related to the recent West Bengal election results. The clip is from an October 15, 2024 press conference held to announce the Maharashtra and Jharkhand Assembly election schedule and is now being falsely shared in a misleading context after the West Bengal polls.
Related Blogs
Introduction
In a world perpetually in motion, the currents of the information superhighway surge ceaselessly, molding perceptions, shaping realities, and often blurring the lines that tether truth to its moorings. At the heart of this relentless churn lies a conundrum that has become all too familiar, in which veracity is obscured by the shadow-play of misinformation. Emblematic of this dilemma is the narrative of Virat Kohli, a name that has become synonymous not only with cricketing brilliance but with the complexities of a modern era where digital echo chambers amplify half-truths and outright fabrications with alarming efficacy.
It is within this intricate fabric of the digital realm that the saga of Virat Kohli—a titan of cricket whose arsenal of strokes and strategic acumen have captivated audiences worldwide—takes on a dimension that transcends the sport. The speculative murmurs have been converted into roaring waves of misinformation, crafting a narrative that, while devoid of truth, assumes a disconcerting life. This digital osmosis, the transmutation from a quiet inkling to a deafening chorus of credibility, exemplifies the troublesome dynamic that has come to define our interactions with news media in the 21st century.
Fact check: Viral Misinformation
A viral post about Virat Kohli's mother suffering from liver issues has gone viral on social media. The claim came after Kohli withdrew from the India-England test series citing 'personal reasons'. Vikas Kohli, brother of Virat Kohli, clarified on Instagram that the viral news about their mother is false. He clarified that their mother is doing well and the viral claim is false. Vikas Kohli's Instagram page dismissed the viral claim, stating that he noticed the fake news and requested the media not to spread such news without proper information.
Fake Health Crisis
As this virulent strain of rumour regarding the health of Saroj Kohli, Virat Kohli’s mother, began to swell into the digital domain, it brought to the forefront a critical examination of the checks and balances within our networks of communication. Saroj, whose resilience and nurturing presence had been an anchor in the athlete's storied journey, undeservedly became the nucleus of a fictitious tale of despair, giving us pause to reflect on the ethical boundaries of storytelling in the world of clicks and views.
Vikas Kohli—the elder brother of Virat Kohli—took to social media, the very platform from which the falsehood originated, to stand as the bulwark against the spread of this groundless narrative.
The Consequences
The consequences of such falsehoods and their rapid dissemination are manifold, affecting individuals and communities in profound ways. The motivations behind the proliferation of deceitful stories are as labyrinthine as the networks they traverse - from manipulation and economic incentives to the pursuit of sheer sensationalism or cynical entertainment, each strand intertwines to form an intricate web wherein truth struggles to assert itself.
Conclusion
In the ceaseless expanses of the digital cosmos, where one can easily drift into the void of falsities, let the narrative of Virat Kohli stand as a sentinel, a reminder of our duty to navigate these waters with vigilance and to preserve the sanctity of truth. Amidst the vast ocean of content that laps in our consciousness, it is precisely this unwavering dedication to facts that will act as our compass, enabling us to discern the credible beacons from the deceptive mirages and ultimately ensuring that our discourse remains moored in the bedrock of reality.
References
- https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/virat-kohli-mother-sick-liver-disease-fact-check
- https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/ind-vs-eng-virat-kohlis-brother-dismisses-fake-news-circulating-about-their-mother-9136144/
- https://www.outlookindia.com/amp/story/sports/ind-vs-eng-virat-kohlis-brother-slams-fake-news-on-their-mothers-health
Introduction
In June 2026, the Government of India temporarily restricted access to Telegram amid concerns that the platform had been used to facilitate examination related malpractice, including the alleged circulation of leaked question papers during the NEET UG re examination. The move reignited a familiar debate about the responsibility of digital platforms for unlawful activities carried out through them.
Critics of such restrictions raise a fundamental question: if a traffic accident occurs on a road, do we shut down the road? If theft takes place inside a shopping mall, do we close the entire mall? By the same logic, is it reasonable to block a communication platform because some individuals misuse it? These questions lie at the heart of a broader conflict between state interests in maintaining public order and the protection of digital rights, privacy, and freedom of communication in an increasingly interconnected world.
The controversy surrounding Telegram therefore extends beyond a single examination or messaging application. It raises a deeper and more pressing question: who should bear responsibility for illegal acts committed through encrypted digital platforms, and where should the law draw the line between effective enforcement and the preservation of fundamental digital freedoms?
Beyond mere communication for millions of students in India, Telegram is a classroom in the digital sense, an archive for their notes, practice papers, lecture recordings, and community groups that hundreds of millions of candidates refer to every single day. Therefore, why on a routine day in June 2026 did the messaging app top every other channel? Temporary internet restriction on the platform had become necessary to stop examination-related malpractice like leakage of question papers and was temporarily suspended, with reports suggesting that this move by the government was on the occasion of the NEET-UG re-examination.
This ban once again brings up a bigger question that cannot be contained within one particular examination. When has it become okay to hold a communication platform responsible and accountable for illegal acts committed over it? Or are the perpetrators solely to blame, and the service can be prohibited? Ultimately, where is the line drawn between public interest, law enforcement, and digital rights and privacy?
End-to-End Encryption: Architecture and Benefits
At the heart of these discussions of Telegram and other apps lies a technology referred to as "end-to-end encryption" or "E2EE." Quite literally, it means a message is locked with cryptography on the sender's device and can only be unlocked by the intended recipient. Not even the tech platform running the communication app can decipher it for everyone else; it just looks like random gibberish.
The Process
This kind of modern communication relies on public key cryptography. Each person has a public key they can share with anyone and a private key that stays only on their devices. When they send you a message, it is scrambled with crypto that can be unlocked by only your private key. WhatsApp and Signal, for example, use the Signal Protocol, which features "perfect forward secrecy" and is designed to protect communications from ever being unlocked even if one key is compromised. Telegram's approach is a bit unique. By default, Telegram messages aren't encrypted with end-to-end crypto; this only comes via an optional feature called "Secret Chats," a key difference in the regulatory debate.
The Dark Side: Crime, Misuse, and the Moderation Dilemma
The very features that make end-to-end messaging popular among everyday people are privacy, speed, anonymity, and mass reach which also make end-to-end messaging popular among criminals. That, unfortunately, is the catch for policymakers globally: The technology designed to protect innocent users is also the technology that facilitates criminal activity.
3.1 Criminal Abuse
Telegram, in particular, has frequently come under fire for its role in hosting a spectrum of criminal activities, most notably in the recent controversy in India regarding NEET-UG 2026 examination papers where channels allegedly advertised leaked question papers for enormous sums, convincing desperate candidates. In these instances, messages could be altered or deleted using Telegram’s message editing feature, fabricating evidence of prior leaks. However, this extends to illicit marketplaces, drug trafficking, financial fraud, money laundering, and distributing other prohibited content. Telegram's usage in disseminating extremist propaganda and aiding criminal organizations is also frequently cited, leading to bans or restrictions in countries ranging from Brazil to Nepal to Somalia to Vietnam.
3.2 The Moderation Dilemma
But the difficulty is not just with misuse; it’s also about effective moderation. Moderation, however, requires content transparency. Strong encryption is built to obscure just that. Many end-to-end messaging services like Signal and WhatsApp emphasize that even if they wanted to, they would have been able to decipher the content of a user’s message due to their architecture. Telegram has been in scrutiny for years due to its limited cooperation with law enforcement agencies because its default chats are not completely end-to-end encrypted, though there has been an attempt by Pavel Durov, the platform’s founder, to increase cooperation following his 2024 arrest in France.
This gives policymakers the following challenge: How can governments require increased access to fight crime without forcing tech companies to weaken security for everyone? As cryptographers point out, a specific "backdoor" intended to allow access to law enforcement officials can be easily exploited by hackers, foreign governments, and any other actor with nefarious intent.
Comparison of Regulatory Approaches Worldwide
4.1 Authoritarian Countries' Responses
China, for instance, has had the app blocked as part of its strategy to control access to the internet since 2015, and Iran did so in 2018 when the app was used to help organize protests against the government. An infamous Russian bid to block Telegram in 2018 turned into a cautionary story. Trying to censor the service disrupted the IPs of millions of computers, including significant services like those run by Amazon and Google. The move was met by a surge of users turning to VPNs to get access. It’s an expensive, disruptive, and incomplete form of censorship.
4.2 Democratic Countries' Approaches
Democratic jurisdictions generally prefer targeted interventions. Telegram was suspended in Brazil in 2022 and 2023, though again, only in response to a judge’s order in relation to particular investigations, and was lifted when it came into compliance. The EU’s approach has been to build on an established approach of regulation by use of a broader legislative framework, including the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, aimed at platform liability rather than outlawing encryption outright.
Meanwhile, the proposed scanning of encrypted communications has run into strong judicial headwinds, with the European courts stressing the danger of backdoors to privacy.
4.3 The United Kingdom Approach
The UK offers a middle way. With its Investigatory Powers Act, the government can oblige tech companies to collaborate in legitimate investigations. But this came to a head earlier this year with the case of Apple and the government's attempts to force it to unlock encrypted iCloud backups. Apple not only refused to reduce its encryption but also decided instead to disable some of its features for British users. This has created a problem for democracies across the world: how to balance access for investigators against the need to maintain the security that makes our systems safer.
Judicial and Legislative Perspectives: India and Beyond
In the Indian context, to have a perspective about the legal frameworks concerning content moderation, let’s explore some of the foundational decisions from the Supreme Court. Three decisions have laid the building block for digital rights laws: the first being Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), where Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, was upheld, but only by laying rigorous conditions on the review process and chance of challenging the said decision. Another important decision in this sphere is Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) which stated that the right to privacy is fundamental in nature under Article 21 of the Constitution and stipulated the constitutional requirements of legality, legitimacy, and proportionality against the state’s interventions in fundamental rights. The most recent important case law to consider, in this context, would be Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) which set certain limitations, such as any internet shut-downs or orders have to be temporary, proportional, and have scope for appeal. Further, the Supreme Court demanded transparency around any and all orders of blocking.
These principles of proportionality and legal limitations are highly pertinent to the Telegram issue, especially since Section 69A confers powers to block information in case of concerns about public order, national security, etc., but activists often cite this power to target specific content rather than entire platforms like Telegram. The ban on Telegram in June 2026 and disabling of message editing will force authorities to justify not only their statutory authority but also the need for proportionate means.
These aspects are amplified by IT Rules, 2021, which mandate that some instant messaging platforms may require identification of the ‘first originator’ of messages, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to protect digital personal data by ensuring it does not undermine national security exceptions to this end.
Moreover, the use of encryption to ensure secure and private communications is becoming an important point of legal discourse globally. Recently, the European Court of Human Rights in Podchasov v. Russia (2024) held that mandating decryption on devices as a tool of investigative power constituted a disproportionate interference with an individual's right to privacy implying that while states may indeed have authority to regulate communication and digital services, any such measures limiting the scope of encryption will have to meet strict requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality to be legally justifiable.
Constitutional Validity of the Ban
The government's case for a constitutional ban on Telegram rests upon its ability to satisfy the proportionality framework established by Puttaswamy and Anuradha Bhasin.
- Legitimate aim: The state's strong suit. This is the government's best argument. Protection of the integrity of NEET-UG, a high-stakes test with close to 2.4 million students, can indeed be a legitimate state objective. Given that there is evidence of channels that allegedly were involved in selling leaked question papers, the action is presumably justifiable under section 69A for preventing the incitement or occurrence of public disorder or preventing cognizable offenses.
- Necessity: The National Testing Agency (NTA) itself admitted that localized removal of suspicious accounts on Telegram had already mitigated the risks, while Telegram insisted that it had independently taken down numerous channels. The fact that the block affected more than 150 million users in India, where the medium is widely used for personal communication and is also utilized on other platforms like WhatsApp, Discord, and Instagram to a similar or higher extent, raises the responsibility to justify a strict platform-wide ban. Moreover, there is a significant legal question regarding the state’s authority under section 69A to direct Telegram to disable its message-editing capability.
- Proportionality and process: The block, even though it was temporary and intended to ensure fairness in the examination system, severely undermined legitimate uses of the platform by students who used it to share educational materials and organize study groups. Moreover, the opaqueness around the section 69A order is itself hard to reconcile with the transparency requirements set out in Anuradha Bhasin.
Thus, while the objectives of preventing exam fraud may be legitimate, the necessity and proportionality of single platform-wide bans remain highly suspect under Indian constitutional law.
Policy Recommendations and the Path Forward
The Telegram controversy points to the need for a better balancing act in platform governance in India. Firstly, instead of blanket platform shutdowns, action should target specific channels, bots, or URLs, as may be the case. Secondly, any attempt to dictate changes to features, such as disabling message editing, should be based on specific statutory provisions, not an expansive reading of Section 69A. Furthermore, there is a dire need for increased transparency; blocking orders must state the justification for the order, what is being blocked, and for how long, as far as possible. In the long run, stricter cross-border cooperation via streamlined MLATs, or through the appointment of local legal representatives by foreign platforms, would facilitate easier enforcement. Ultimately, all major blocking decisions must be accompanied by proportionality assessments. Lastly, India must resist pressure to provide access to encryption backdoors; while this might ease investigative burdens, doing so would severely jeopardise the cybersecurity of India, its businesses, and citizens.
Conclusion
The Telegram ban is an example of the tricky equilibrium between protection of public interest and protection of digital liberties in our hyper-connected world. While the intent to counter exam fraud is justifiable, a blanket ban on any platform has much broader implications on questions of necessity, proportionality and transparency. India has a well-developed constitutional and legal framework to deal with this issue already, and the challenge will be to see if those powers are used appropriately.
References
Cases:
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India (Nine-Judge Bench)
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 — Supreme Court of India
- Podchasov v. Russia, European Court of Human Rights (Application No. 33696/19, February 2024)
- Apple Inc. v. United States (In re Search of an Apple iPhone, C.D. Cal. 2016)
- Telegram Messenger Inc. v. Union of India & Anr., Delhi High Court (June 2026) — Sub judice
Legislation & Rules:
- Information Technology Act, 2000 (India) — Sections 69A, 79
- IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access to Information by Public) Rules, 2009
- IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (India) & DPDP Rules, 2025
- EU Digital Services Act, 2022 (Regulation 2022/2065)
- EU Digital Markets Act, 2022 (Regulation 2022/1925)
- EU Child Sexual Abuse Regulation (CSAR) Proposal — In Trilogue, June 2026
- UK Investigatory Powers Act, 2016
Policy Sources:
- Internet Freedom Foundation, Statement on Telegram Block, 16 June 2026
- European Commission, ProtectEU Security Strategy, June 2025
- MeitY Section 69A Blocking Order re: Telegram (June 2026)
- NTA Press Release on NEET-UG 2026 Re-Examination, 16 June 2026
Executive Summary
A video featuring Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath is being widely shared on social media. In the video, Adityanath can be heard saying, “Let me become the Prime Minister, and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir will also become a part of India.” The video also carries an on-screen text that reads “Next PM 2029.” By sharing this clip, social media users are claiming that Yogi Adityanath is set to become India’s Prime Minister in 2029.
However, CyberPeace research found the viral claim to be misleading. Our research revealed that the video circulating online has been edited and is being shared out of context. The original video dates back to May 2024. In the original footage, Yogi Adityanath is not speaking about himself. Instead, he is referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
In the original statement, Adityanath says:
“Let Modi ji become Prime Minister for the third time, and within the next six months, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir will also become a part of India.”
It is evident that the video has been trimmed and misleading text has been added to falsely portray the statement as a declaration about Yogi Adityanath becoming Prime Minister in 2029.
Claim
A YouTube user shared the viral video on January 29, 2026, claiming that Yogi Adityanath said, “Let me become Prime Minister, and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir will be part of India.” The video carries the caption “Next PM 2029,” suggesting that Adityanath is set to become the Prime Minister in 2029.
Link to the post n archive
Fact Check:
To verify the viral claim, we first conducted a keyword search on Google. During this process, we found a report published by Aaj Tak on May 18, 2024. According to the report, Yogi Adityanath stated that if Narendra Modi becomes Prime Minister for the third time, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir would become part of India within six months.
Report link:
Next, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and ran them through Google Lens. This led us to the official YouTube channel of Yogi Adityanath, where the same video was uploaded on May 18, 2024.
Original video link:
In the original video, Yogi Adityanath clearly makes the statement in reference to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, not himself.Finally, we compared the viral clip with the original footage. The visuals in both videos are identical; however, the viral version has been edited and overlaid with misleading text to change the meaning of the statement.
Conclusion
Our research confirms that the viral video is edited and misleading. The original video is from May 2024, in which Yogi Adityanath was speaking about Prime Minister Narendra Modi, not about himself becoming Prime Minister in 2029. The video has been falsely altered and shared with a deceptive claim on social media.
