#FactCheck -Viral video of Yogi Adityanath and Ravi Kishan’s march is not a UGC protest

Executive Summary:

A video of Pakistani Olympic gold medalist and Javelin player Arshad Nadeem wishing Independence Day to the People of Pakistan, with claims of snoring audio in the background is getting viral. CyberPeace Research Team found that the viral video is digitally edited by adding the snoring sound in the background. The original video published on Arshad's Instagram account has no snoring sound where we are certain that the viral claim is false and misleading.

Claims:

A video of Pakistani Olympic gold medalist Arshad Nadeem wishing Independence Day with snoring audio in the background.

Fact Check:

Upon receiving the posts, we thoroughly checked the video, we then analyzed the video in TrueMedia, an AI Video detection tool, and found little evidence of manipulation in the voice and also in face.

‍

We then checked the social media accounts of Arshad Nadeem, we found the video uploaded on his Instagram Account on 14th August 2024. In that video, we couldn’t hear any snoring sound. 

‍

Hence, we are certain that the claims in the viral video are fake and misleading.

Conclusion:

The viral video of Arshad Nadeem with a snoring sound in the background is false. CyberPeace Research Team confirms the sound was digitally added, as the original video on his Instagram account has no snoring sound, making the viral claim misleading.

• Claim: A snoring sound can be heard in the background of Arshad Nadeem's video wishing Independence Day to the people of Pakistan.
• Claimed on: X, 
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

‍

‍

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 

‍

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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:

1. R4 directed to take down the judgment in Crl.A. (MD) No.321 of 2011 dated 30.04.2014 forthwith.
2. 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 

‍

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 

‍

1. 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. 
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

‍

A video claiming to show a Hatha yogi performing extreme penance on a snow-covered mountain amid strong icy winds is going viral on social media. In the clip, the ascetic is seen balancing on one hand in a yoga posture, while users portray the visuals as a rare example of extraordinary spiritual endurance in harsh climatic conditions.

However, an investigation by the CyberPeace Foundation has found the claim to be false. Our analysis confirms that the viral video is AI-generated and does not depict a real person or an actual event.

‍

Claim:

‍

A Instagram user shared the video with the caption:

“Hatha yogi, what kind of soil are these people made of?” The post suggests that the visuals show a real yogi performing intense meditation on a frozen mountain.

• https://www.instagram.com/reels/DTK32TvDGIJ/
• (Archive link as provided) https://perma.cc/H84M-MGXZ

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

To verify the claim, the CyberPeace Foundation conducted a detailed examination of the viral video.No credible or verifiable news reports were found to support the claim that such an incident ever occurred.

The viral video was analysed using the AI detection tool Deepfake-O-Meter.Its AVSRDD (2025) module flagged the video as AI-generated, confirming that the visuals were digitally created and not recorded in real life.

Multiple indicators within the footage,such as unnatural body balance, environmental inconsistencies, and visual artifacts are consistent with AI-generated content.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The viral video purportedly showing a yogi meditating on a frozen mountain is not real. It has been created using artificial intelligence and is being circulated on social media with a misleading narrative. Users are advised to exercise caution and verify content before sharing such sensational claims.

‍