#FactCheck -Viral video of Yogi Adityanath and Ravi Kishan’s march is not a UGC protest
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media shows Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Gorakhpur MP Ravi Kishan walking with a group of people. Users are claiming that the two leaders were participating in a protest against the University Grants Commission (UGC). Research by CyberPeace has found the viral claim to be misleading. Our research revealed that the video is from September 2025 and is being shared out of context with recent events. The video was recorded when Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath undertook a foot march in Gorakhpur on a Monday. Ravi Kishan, MP from Gorakhpur, was also present. During the march, the Chief Minister visited local markets, malls, and shops, interacting with traders and gathering information on the implementation of GST rate cuts.
Claim Details:
On Instagram, a user shared the viral video on 27 January 2026. The video shows the Chief Minister and the MP walking with a group of people. The text “UGC protest” appears on the video, suggesting that it is connected to a protest against the University Grants Commission.
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we searched Google using relevant keywords, but found no credible media reports confirming it.Next, we extracted key frames from the video and searched them using Google Lens. The video was traced to NBT Uttar Pradesh’s X (formerly Twitter) account, posted on 22 September 2025.
According to NBT Uttar Pradesh, CM Yogi Adityanath undertook a foot march in Gorakhpur, visiting malls and shops to interact with traders and check the implementation of GST rate cuts.
Conclusion:
The viral video is not related to any recent UGC guidelines. It dates back to September 2025, showing CM Yogi Adityanath and MP Ravi Kishan on a foot march in Gorakhpur, interacting with traders about GST rate cuts.The claim that the video depicts a protest against the University Grants Commission is therefore false and misleading.
Related Blogs
India’s Rapid Digital Expansion
Over the past decade, India has experienced a rapid digitalisation process. The rise of digital financial services, affordable internet costs, and the penetration of smartphones have transformed the way people communicate, transact and do business online.
Online payment systems, including Unified Payments Interface (UPI), have enabled real-time transactions between banks and financial systems. As much as these systems have enhanced access to finance and efficiency, they have also created new opportunities for cybercriminals.
Cybercrime has evolved alongside the shift of financial and social interactions to digital platforms. The fraud attacks on online payments, online banking, and personal information have become common and increasingly costly.
To analyse the scale and trend of cybercrime in India, this analysis will use the datasets released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and financial fraud data released by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Rise of Cybercrime in India
The Rise of Cybercrime in India
Source: National Crime Records Bureau – Crime in India Reports
The data released by the NCRB documents cybercrime incidents registered by the police at the national level under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and criminal provisions covering offences such as cheating, impersonation, and digital fraud. In the past, the offences were listed in the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following criminal law reforms in India, on 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the IPC, came into force. Section 419 (cheating by impersonation), IPC, would be related to BNS Section 319 and Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), which would be related to BNS Section 318(4). Similarly, crimes involving forgery and use of forged documents or electronic documents, which were previously contained in the IPC Sections 465-471, are dealt with in BNS Sections 335-340.
The data published by the NCRB represent the number of crimes that reached the point of the First Information Report (FIR) registration, meaning they reflect only cybercrime cases that were formally presented to the law enforcement system to investigate, rather than all complaints reported. The data shows that cybercrime cases increased from 27,248 in 2018 to 86,420 in 2023, a 3.17-fold increase in 5 years.
Two structural shifts are visible: the post-pandemic jump and subsequent acceleration.
However, these figures likely underestimate the true scale of cybercrime because many incidents are reported only through online complaint portals and may not result in FIR registration.
The Financial Scale of Digital Fraud
The Financial Scale of Digital Fraud
This dataset tracks financial fraud complaints reported through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) and the estimated financial losses associated with those complaints.
The financial losses reported between 2021 and 2024 increased by 41 times over four years, compared to 2021, from 551 crore to 22,848 crore. At the same time, the number of complaints rose from 262,846 to over 1.9 million, an increase of ~623%, indicating both rising victimisation and greater public awareness of reporting mechanisms.
The contrast between these two trends is striking:
While complaints increased by around 7 times, financial losses increased by over 40 times.
Distribution of Cyber-Fraud Complaints and Financial Losses by Fraud Type
This divergence implies an uneven relationship between the number of incidents and the financial damage that they inflict. Most cyber fraud incidents involve relatively small transaction values; however, a smaller group of fraud categories result in disproportionate numbers of financial losses.
Distribution of Financial Losses Across Major Cyber-Fraud Categories in India
As reported by The Indian Express, based on the data compiled by the I4C, investment-related scams alone account for roughly 77% of reported cyber-fraud losses, followed by smaller shares from “digital arrest” scams (8%), credit card fraud (7%), sextortion (4%), e-commerce fraud (3%), and malware or app-based fraud (1%). This distribution means that even though scams with lower values, like phishing, OTP fraud, and small payment fraud, produce a high proportion of complaints, few categories of fraud produce most of the financial losses.
Analysis
1. Cybercrime is expanding faster than most traditional crimes: The fact that cybercrime cases have tripled in five years shows that cyber offences are presently becoming a significant element of Indian crime. Unlike conventional crimes that require physical proximity, cybercrime can be conducted remotely and at scale, enabling perpetrators to target large numbers of victims simultaneously.
2. Financial losses are concentrated in a small set of fraud categories: As cases of cybercrimes have been on the increase, the monetary losses of digital fraud cases have been increasing at a higher rate. The fact that the number of reported financial losses has increased 40 times in 4 years indicates that cybercrime has a very high economic impact.
3. Complaint volumes and financial damage follow different patterns: When comparing complaints and financial losses, it is evident that cyber fraud losses are unevenly distributed across types of incidents. Most of the prevalent scams reported, including phishing or OTP fraud, involve relatively small transaction values but yield a high portion of complaints. Conversely, fewer categories of fraud, especially investment-based schemes, contribute a significantly higher percentage of total financial losses.
4. Digital financial infrastructure has expanded the attack surface: India’s rapid adoption of digital payment systems, mobile banking and digital financial systems has dramatically increased the number of potential victims of cybercriminals. The scale of online transactions creates new vulnerabilities that organised cybercrime networks take advantage of.
5. Reporting improvements reveal previously hidden crime: The expansion of national reporting systems has enhanced the transparency in the trends of cybercrime. The increase in the number of complaints recorded is partially due to improved reporting systems and not necessarily to the increased criminal activity, meaning that previous data might have understated the magnitude of cyber fraud.
Recommendations
1. Move from reactive policing to proactive cyber-risk monitoring: The conventional models of policing focus on investigation of crimes that have already taken place. With such a magnitude and pace of cyber fraud, India should have systems that are designed to detect and prevent the fraud at its early stages, such as real-time observation of suspicious patterns in transactions by financial institutions.
2. Strengthen financial intelligence sharing across institutions: There are a lot of instances of cyber fraud that use more than one bank, payment system, and telecommunication provider. To detect new networks of fraud sooner, it can be suggested to establish more information-sharing measures between the financial institution and law enforcement agencies.
3. Target organised cyber fraud networks rather than individual incidents: Many digital scams operate through organised networks that coordinate phishing, mule accounts, and fake payment channels. The solution in regard to this involves dismantling these networks through investigative procedures instead of treating incidents on a case-by-case basis.
4. Improve recovery mechanisms for stolen funds: The recovery of the funds lost is one of the most difficult issues in cases of cyber fraud. Expanding systems such as the Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System (CFCFRMS) can improve the speed at which fraudulent transactions are frozen or reversed.
5. Strengthen digital financial literacy: A significant percentage of cyber frauds are based on social engineering methods that take advantage of user behaviour as opposed to technical weaknesses. Victimisation can be greatly reduced through specific public awareness efforts on typical scam schemes.
Conclusion
India’s experience illustrates a broader global trend: as economies digitise, crime increasingly follows the flow of digital money. While cybercrime incidents are rising steadily, the much faster growth in financial losses suggests that cybercriminals are becoming more organised, technologically sophisticated, and economically motivated.
References:
- https://indianexpress.com/article/india/indians-lost-rs-53000-crore-fraud-cheating-cases-six-years-maharashtra-2025-10452185/
- https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2226441®=3&lang=2 -
- https://www.ncrb.gov.in/crime-in-india.html
- https://i4c.mha.gov.in/index.aspx
- https://i4c.mha.gov.in/index.aspx
.webp)
Introduction
Google is set to change its storage and access of users' "Location History" in Google Maps, reducing the data retention period and making it impossible for the company to access it. This change will significantly impact "geofence warrants," a controversial legal tool used by authorities to force Google to hand over information about all users within a given location during a specific timeframe. This decision is a significant win for privacy advocates and criminal defense attorneys who have long decried these warrants.
The company aims to protect people's privacy by removing the repository of location data dating back months or years. Geofence warrants, which provide police with sensitive data on individuals, are considered dangerous and could turn innocent people into suspects.
Understanding Geofence Warrants
Geofence warrants, also known as reverse-location warrants, are used by law enforcement agencies to obtain locational data stored by tech companies within a specified geographical area and timeframe to identify devices near a crime scene. In contrast to general warrants, which allow law enforcement agencies to obtain data of one individual (usually the suspect), geofence warrants enable law enforcement authorities to obtain data for all individuals in a specific location and subsequently track and trace any device that may be linked to a crime scene. Geofence warrants have become a major issue, with law enforcement agencies utilising them to obtain location data from tech companies.
Privacy Concerns of Geofence Warrants
While Geofence warrants allow law enforcement agencies to determine and identify potential suspects, these warrants have sparked controversy for their invasive characteristics. Civil rights activities and various technology companies have raised concerns over the impact of these warrants on the rights of data principals. It is noted that geofence warrants mark a rise in cases of state surveillance and police harassment. Not only is any data principal in the vicinity of the crime scene classified as a potential suspect, but companies are also compelled to submit identifying personal data on every device/phone in a marked geographic space.
From Surveillance to Safeguards
Geofence warrants have become a contentious tool for law enforcement worldwide, with concerns over privacy and civil liberties, especially in sensitive situations like protests and healthcare. Google is considering allowing users to store their location data on their devices, potentially ending the use of geofence warrants, which law enforcement agencies use to obtain location data from tech companies.
Google is changing its handling of Location History data, moving it on-device instead of on its servers. The default data retention period will be reduced. Google Maps' product director, Marlo McGriff, stated that the company will automatically encrypt backed-up data for cloud backups, preventing anyone from reading it. When these changes are implemented, Google will have no geodata fishing options for users. Google confirmed that it will no longer be able to respond to new geofence warrants once these changes are implemented, as it will not have access to the relevant data. The changes were designed to put an end to dragnet searches of location data.
Conclusion
Google's decision to change storage and access policies for users' location history in Google Maps marks a pivotal step in the ongoing narrative of law enforcement's misuse of geofence warrants. This move aims to safeguard individual privacy by significantly restricting the data retention period and limiting Google's ability to comply with geofence warrants. This change is welcomed by privacy advocates and legal professionals who express concerns over the intrusive nature of these warrants, which may potentially turn innocent individuals into suspects based on their proximity to a crime scene. As technology companies take steps to enhance user privacy, the evolving landscape calls for a balance between law enforcement needs and protecting individual rights in an era of increasing digital surveillance.
References:
- https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/google-to-end-geofence-warrant-requests-for-users-location-data/106081499
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/cyrusfarivar/2023/12/14/google-just-killed-geofence-warrants-police-location-data/?sh=313da3c32c86
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/explained-how-google-maps-is-preventing-authorities-from-accessing-users-location-history-data/articleshow/106086639.cms
Executive Summary
An image is being widely shared on social media with the claim that Iranian missile forces targeted an LPG tanker heading towards India, causing a massive fire onboard. CyberPeace Research Wing ’s research found the claim to be misleading. The research revealed that the viral image is not related to any recent Iran-India development or any missile attack. The image actually shows a fire incident involving the Cameroon-flagged LPG tanker MV Falcon near the coast of Aden, Yemen, in October 2025, and is being circulated with a false context.
Claim
A Facebook user shared the viral image on July 8, 2026, claiming: “Iranian missile force has struck an LPG tanker going to India.” The post link, archive link, and screenshot are provided below.
Fact Check
To verify the viral claim, we conducted a keyword-based search on Google. However, we did not find any credible media report confirming that an India-bound LPG tanker was targeted by Iranian missile forces. During the research, we extracted keyframes from the viral image and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. The search led us to a report published by NDTV on October 20, 2025, which contained the same visuals as the viral image. The report link and screenshot are provided below.
According to the NDTV report, a fire broke out onboard the Cameroon-flagged LPG tanker MV Falcon following an explosion near the coast of Aden, Yemen. The incident involved 23 Indian crew members, who were rescued safely. The incident occurred on October 18, 2025, at around 07:00 UTC, when the vessel was sailing approximately 113 nautical miles southeast of Aden while heading towards Djibouti. Following the explosion, the vessel went adrift and around 15% of the ship was engulfed in flames. Further verification through keyword searches led us to an India Today report published on October 20, 2025, which also confirmed that the MV Falcon caught fire after an explosion off the coast of Aden, Yemen. The report stated that all 23 Indian crew members onboard were rescued. The report also mentioned that authorities had initiated an research into the incident and ruled out speculation that the explosion was caused by a Houthi attack. The report link and screenshot are provided below.
Conclusion
Our research found that the viral claim is misleading. The image being shared as proof of an Iranian missile strike on an India-bound LPG tanker is actually from an unrelated incident that occurred in October 2025. The image shows the fire that broke out onboard the Cameroon-flagged LPG tanker MV Falcon near Aden, Yemen, following an explosion. The old image is being circulated with a false narrative linking it to Iran and India.
