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

Executive Summary:

‍

A viral video claims to show a massive cumulonimbus cloud over Gurugram, Haryana, and Delhi NCR on 3rd September 2025. However, our research reveals the claim is misleading. A reverse image search traced the visuals to Lviv, Ukraine, dating back to August 2021. The footage matches earlier reports and was even covered by the Ukrainian news outlet 24 Kanal, which published the story under the headline “Lviv Covered by Unique Thundercloud: Amazing Video”. Thus, the viral claim linking the phenomenon to a recent event in India is false.

Claim:

‍

A viral video circulating on social media claims to show a massive cloud formation over Gurugram, Haryana, and the Delhi NCR region on 3rd September 2025. The cloud appears to be a cumulonimbus formation, which is typically associated with heavy rainfall, thunderstorms, and severe weather conditions.

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

After conducting a reverse image search on key frames of the viral video, we found matching visuals from videos that attribute the phenomenon to Lviv, a city in Ukraine. These videos date back to August 2021, thereby debunking the claim that the footage depicts a recent weather event over Gurugram, Haryana, or the Delhi NCR region.

‍

‍

‍

Further research revealed that a Ukrainian news channel named  24 Kanal, had reported on the Lviv thundercloud phenomenon in August 2021. The report was published under the headline “Lviv Covered by Unique Thundercloud: Amazing Video” ( original in Russian, translated into English). 

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The viral video does not depict a recent weather event in Gurugram or Delhi NCR, but rather an old incident from Lviv, Ukraine, recorded in August 2021. Verified sources, including Ukrainian media coverage, confirm this. Hence, the circulating claim is misleading and false. 

‍

• Claim: Old Thundercloud Video from Lviv city in Ukraine Ukraine (2021) Falsely Linked to Delhi NCR, Gurugram and Haryana.
• Claimed On: Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading.

Introduction

The recent events in Mira Road, a bustling suburb on the outskirts of Mumbai, India, unfold like a modern-day parable, cautioning us against the perils of unverified digital content. The Mira Road incident, a communal clash that erupted into the physical realm, has been mirrored and magnified through the prism of social media. The Maharashtra Police, in a concerted effort to quell the spread of discord, issued stern warnings against the dissemination of rumours and fake messages. These digital phantoms, they stressed, have the potential to ignite law and order conflagrations, threatening the delicate tapestry of peace.

The police's clarion call came in the wake of a video, mischievously edited, that falsely claimed anti-social elements had set the Mira Road railway station ablaze. This digital doppelgänger of reality swiftly went viral, its tendrils reaching into the ubiquitous realm of WhatsApp, ensnaring the unsuspecting in its web of deceit.

In this age of information overload, where the line between fact and fabrication blurs, the police urged citizens to exercise discernment. The note they issued was not merely an advisory but a plea for vigilance, a reminder that the act of sharing unauthenticated messages is not a passive one; it is an act that can disturb the peace and unravel the fabric of society.

The Massacre 

The police's response to this crisis was multifaceted. Administrators and members of social media groups found to be the harbingers of such falsehoods would face legal repercussions. The Thane District, a mosaic of cultural and religious significance, has been marred by a series of violent incidents, casting a shadow over its storied history. The police, in their role as guardians of order, have detained individuals, scoured social media for inauthentic posts, and maintained a vigilant presence in the region.

The Maharashtra cyber cell, a digital sentinel, has unearthed approximately 15 posts laden with videos and messages designed to sow discord among the masses. These findings were shared with the Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar (MBVV) police, who stand ready to take appropriate action. Inspector General Yashasvi Yadav of the Maharashtra cyber cell issued an appeal to the public, urging them to refrain from circulating such unverified messages, reinforcing the notion that the propagation of inauthentic information is, in itself, a crime.

The MBVV police, in their zero-tolerance stance, have formed a team dedicated to scrutinizing social media posts. The message is clear: fake news will be met with strict action. The right to free speech on social media comes with the responsibility not to share information that could incite mischief. The Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act serve as the bulwarks against such transgressions.

The Aftermath 

In the aftermath of the clashes, the police have worked tirelessly to restore calm. A young man, whose video replete with harsh and obscene language went viral, was apprehended and has since apologised for his actions. The MBVV police have also taken to social media to reassure the public that the situation is under control, urging them to avoid circulating messages that could exacerbate tensions.

The Thane district has witnessed acts of vandalism targeting shops, further escalating tensions. In response, the police have apprehended individuals linked to these acts, hoping that such measures will expedite the return of peace. Advisories have been issued, warning against the dissemination of provocative messages and rumours.

In total, 19 individuals have been taken into custody in relation to numerous incidents of violence. The Mira-Bhayandar and Vasai-Virar police have underscored their commitment to legal action against those who spread rumours through fake messages. The authorities have also highlighted the importance of brotherhood and unity, reminding citizens that above all, they are Indians first.

Conclusion 

In a world where old videos, stripped of context, can fuel tensions, the police have issued a note referring to the aforementioned fake video message. They urge citizens to exercise caution, to neither believe nor circulate such messages. Police Authorities have assured that no one involved in the violence will be spared, and peace committees are being convened to restore harmony. The Mira Road incident serves as a sign of the prowess of information and responsibility that comes with it. In the digital age, where the ephemeral and the eternal collide, we must navigate the waters of truth with care. Ultimately, it is not just the image of a locality that is at stake, but the essence of our collective humanity.

References 

• https://youtu.be/gK2Ac1qP-nE?feature=shared
• https://www.mid-day.com/mumbai/mumbai-crime-news/article/mira-road-communal-clash-those-spreading-fake-messages-to-face-strict-action-say-mira-bhayandar-vasai-virar-cops-23331572
• https://www.mid-day.com/mumbai/mumbai-news/article/mira-road-communal-clash-cybercops-on-alert-for-fake-clips-23331653
• https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/national/2024/01/24/bom43-mh-shops-3rdld-vandalism.html

‍

Introduction: Reasons Why These Amendments Have Been Suggested.

The suggested changes in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, are the much-needed regulatory reaction to the blistering emergence of synthetic information and deepfakes. These reforms are due to the pressing necessity to govern risks within the digital ecosystem as opposed to regular reformation.

‍

The Emergence of the Digital Menace

‍

Generative AI tools have also facilitated the generation of very realistic images, videos, audio, and text in recent years. Such artificial media have been abused to portray people in situations they are not in or in statements they have never said. The market size is expected to have a compound annual growth rate(CAGR) from 2025 to 2031 of 37.57%, resulting in a market volume of US$400.00 bn by 2031. Therefore, tight regulatory controls are necessary to curb a high prevalence of harm in the Indian digital world.

‍

The Gap in Law and Institution

‍

None of the IT Rules, 2021, clearly addressed synthetic content. Although the Information Technology Act, 2000 dealt with identity theft, impersonation and violation of privacy, the intermediaries were not explicitly obligated on artificial media. This left a loophole in enforcement, particularly since AI-generated content might get around the old system of moderation. These amendments bring India closer to the international standards, including the EU AI Act, which requires transparency and labelling of AI-driven content. India addresses such requirements and adapts to local constitutional and digital ecosystem needs.

‍

II. Explanation of the Amendments

The amendments of 2025 present five alternative changes in the current IT Rules framework, which address various areas of synthetic media regulation. 

‍

A. Definitional Clarification: Synthetic Generation of Information Introduction.

‍

Rule 2(1)(wa) Amendment:

The amendments provide an all-inclusive definition of what is meant by “synthetically generated information” as information, which is created, or produced, changed or distorted with the use of a computer resource, in a way that such information can reasonably be perceived to be genuine. This definition is intentionally broad and is not limited to deepfakes in the strict sense but to any artificial media that has gone through algorithmic manipulation in order to have a semblance of authenticity.

Expansion of Legal Scope:

Rule 2(1A) also makes it clear that any mention of information in the context of unlawful acts, namely, including categories listed in Rule 3(1)(b), Rule 3(1)(d), Rule 4(2), and Rule 4(4), should be understood to mean synthetically generated information. This is a pivotal interpretative protection that does not allow intermediaries to purport that synthetic versions of illegal material are not under the control of the regulation since they are algorithmic creations and not descriptions of what actually occurred.

‍

B. Safe Harbour Protection and Content Removal Requirements

‍

Amendment, rule 3(1)(b)- Safe Harbour Clarification:

The amendments add a certain proviso to the Rule (3) (1)(b) that explains a deletion or facilitation of access of synthetically produced information (or any information falling within specified categories) which the intermediaries have made in good faith as part of reasonable endeavours or at the receipt of a complaint shall not be considered a breach of the Section 79(2) (a) or (b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This coverage is relevant especially since it insures the intermediaries against liability in situations where they censor the synthetic contents in advance of a court ruling or governmental warnings.

‍

C. Labelling and Metadata Requirements that are mandatory on Intermediaries that enable the creation of synthetic content

‍

The amendments establish a new framework of due diligence in Rule 3(3) on the case of intermediaries that offer tools to generate, modify, or alter the synthetically generated information. Two fundamental requirements are laid down. 

1. The generated information must be prominently labelled or embedded with a permanent, unique metadata or identifier. The label or metadata must be:

1. Visibly displayed or made audible in a prominent manner on or within that synthetically generated information.
2. It should cover at least 10% of the surface of the visual display or, in the case of audio content, during the initial 10% of its duration.
3. It can be used to immediately identify that such information is synthetically generated information which has been created, generated, modified, or altered using the computer resource of the intermediary. 

2. The intermediary in clause (a) shall not enable modification, suppression or removal of such label, permanent unique metadata or identifier, by whatever name called.

‍

D. Important Social Media Intermediaries- Pre-Publication Checking Responsibilities

‍

The amendments present a three-step verification mechanism, under Rule 4(1A), to Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs), which enables displaying, uploading or publishing on its computer resource before such display, uploading, or publication has to follow three steps. 

Step 1- User Declaration: It should compel the users to indicate whether the materials they are posting are synthetically created. This puts the first burden on users. 

Step 2-Technical Verification: To ensure that the user is truly valid, the SSMIs need to provide reasonable technical means, such as automated tools or other applications. This duty is contextual and would be based on the nature, format and source of content. It does not allow intermediaries to escape when it is known that not every type of content can be verified using the same standards.

Step 3- Prominent Labelling: In case the synthetic origin is verified by user declaration or technical verification, SSMIs should have a notice or label that is prominently displayed to be seen by users before publication.

The amendments provide a better system of accountability and set that intermediaries will be found to have failed due diligence in a case where it is established that they either knowingly permitted, encouraged or otherwise failed to act on synthetically produced information in contravention of these requirements. This brings in an aspect of knowledge, and intermediaries cannot use accidental errors as an excuse for non-compliance. 

An explanation clause makes it clear that SSMIs should also make reasonable and proportionate technical measures to check user declarations and keep no synthetic content published without adequate declaration or labelling. This eliminates confusion on the role of the intermediaries with respect to making declarations.

‍

III. Attributes of The Amendment Framework

‍

1. Precision in Balancing Innovation and Accountability.

The amendments have commendably balanced two extreme regulatory postures by neither prohibiting nor allowing the synthetic media to run out of control. It has recognised the legitimate use of synthetic media creation in entertainment, education, research and artistic expression by adopting a transparent and traceable mandate that preserves innovation while ensuring accountability. 

2. Overt Acceptance of the Intermediary Liability and Reverse Onus of Knowledge

Rule 4(1A) gives a highly significant deeming rule; in cases where the intermediary permits or refrains from acting with respect to the synthetic content knowing that the rules are violated, it will be considered as having failed to comply with the due diligence provisions. This description closes any loopholes in unscrupulous supervision where intermediaries can be able to argue that they did so. Standard of scienter promotes material investment in the detection devices and censor mechanisms that have been in place to offer security to the platforms that have sound systems, albeit the fact that the tools fail to capture violations at times.

3. Clarity Through Definition and Interpretive Guidance

The cautious definition of the term “synthetically generated information” and the guidance that is provided in Rule 2(1A) is an admirable attempt to solve confusion in the previous regulatory framework. Instead of having to go through conflicting case law or regulatory direction, the amendments give specific definitional limits. The purposefully broad formulation (artificially or algorithmically created, generated, modified or altered) makes sure that the framework is not avoided by semantic games over what is considered to be a real synthetic content versus a slight algorithmic alteration.

4. Insurance of non-accountability but encourages preventative moderation

The safe harbour clarification of the Rule 3(1)(b) amendment clearly safeguards the intermediaries who voluntarily dismiss the synthetic content without a court order or government notification. It is an important incentive scheme that prompts platforms to implement sound self-regulation measures. In the absence of such protection, platforms may also make rational decisions to stay in a passive stance of compliance, only deleting content under the pressure of an external authority, thus making them more effective in keeping users safe against dangerous synthetic media.

‍

IV. Conclusion

‍

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2025 suggest a structured, transparent, and accountable execution of curbing the rising predicaments of synthetic media and deepfakes. The amendments deal with the regulatory and interpretative gaps that have always existed in determining what should be considered as synthetically generated information, the intermediary liabilities and the mandatory labelling and metadata requirement. Safe-harbour protection will encourage the moderation proactively, and a scienter-based liability rule will not permit the intermediaries to escape liability when they are aware of the non-compliance but tolerate such non-compliance. The idea to introduce pre-publication verification of Significant Social Media Intermediaries adds the responsibility to users and due diligence to the platform. Overall, the amendments provide a reasonable balance between innovation and regulation, make the process more open with its proper definitions, promote responsible conduct on the platform and transform India and the new standards in the sphere of synthetic media regulation. They collaborate to enhance the verisimilitude, defence of the users, and visibility of the systems of the digital ecosystem of India.

‍

V. References 

‍

1. Amendments To The Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules 2021 It Rules 2021 | Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology

2. https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/generative-ai/worldwide 

‍