#FactCheck- Viral Zipline Accident Video from Karnaprayag is AI-Generated, Claim is False

Introduction

‍

“an intermediary, on whose computer resource the information is stored, hosted or published, upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction or on being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act, shall not ‍, which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality; in relation to contempt of court; defamation; incitement to an offence relating to the above, or any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force”

‍

Law grows by confronting its absences, it heals itself through its own gaps. The most recent notification from MeitY, G.S.R. 775(E) dated October 22, 2025, is an illustration of that self-correction. On November 15, 2025, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025, will come into effect. They accomplish two crucial things: they restrict who can use "actual knowledge” to initiate takedown and require senior-level scrutiny of those directives. By doing this, they maintain genuine security requirements while guiding India’s content governance system towards more transparent due process. 

‍

When Regulation Learns Restraint

‍

To better understand the jurisprudence of revision, one must need to understand that Regulation, in its truest form, must know when to pause. The 2025 amendment marks that rare moment when the government chooses precision over power, when regulation learns restraint. The amendment revises Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules. Social media sites, hosting companies, and other digital intermediaries are still required to take action within 36 hours of receiving “actual knowledge” that a piece of content is illegal (e.g. poses a threat to public order, sovereignty, decency, or morality). However, “actual knowledge” now only occurs in the following situations: 

(i) a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction, or

(ii) a reasoned written intimation from a duly authorised government officer not below Joint Secretary rank (or equivalent)

‍

The authorised authority in matters involving the police “must not be below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG)”. This creates a well defined, senior-accountable channel in place of a diffuse trigger. 

There are two more new structural guardrails. The Rules first establish a monthly assessment of all takedown notifications by a Secretary-level officer of the relevant government to test necessity, proportionality, and compliance with India’s safe harbour provision under Section 79(3) of the IT Act. Second, in order for platforms to act precisely rather than in an expansive manner, takedown requests must be accompanied by legal justification, a description of the illegal act, and precise URLs or identifiers. The cumulative result of these guardrails is that each removal has a proportionality check and a paper trail. 

‍

Due Process as the Law’s Conscience 

‍

Indian jurisprudence has been debating what constitutes “actual knowledge” for over a decade. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal (2015) connected an intermediary’s removal obligation to notifications from official channels or court orders rather than vague notice. But over time, that line became hazy due to enforcement practices and some court rulings, raising concerns about over-removal and safe-harbour loss under Section 79(3). Even while more recent decisions questioned the “reasonable efforts” of intermediaries, the 2025 amendment institutionally pays homage to Shreya Singhal’s ethos by refocusing “actual knowledge” on formal reviewable communications from senior state actors or judges. 

The amendment also introduces an internal constitutionalism to executive orders by mandating monthly audits at the Secretary level. The state is required to re-justify its own orders on a rolling basis, evaluating them against proportionality and necessity, which are criteria that Indian courts are increasingly requesting for speech restrictions. Clearer triggers, better logs, and less vague “please remove” communications that previously left compliance teams in legal limbo are the results for intermediaries.

‍

The Court’s Echo in the Amendment

‍

The essence of this amendment is echoed in Karnataka High Court’s Ruling on Sahyog Portal, a government portal used to coordinate takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b), was constitutional. The HC rejected X’s (formerly Twitter’s) appeal contesting the legitimacy of the portal in September. The business had claimed that by giving nodal officers the authority to issue takedown orders without court review, the portal permitted arbitrary content removals. The court disagreed, holding that the officers’ acts were in accordance with Section 79 (3)(b) and that they were “not dropping from the air but emanating from statutes.” The amendment turns compliance into conscience by conforming to the Sahyog Portal verdict, reiterating that due process is the moral grammar of governance rather than just a formality. 

‍

Conclusion: The Necessary Restlessness of Law 

‍

Law cannot afford stillness; it survives through self doubt and reinvention. The 2025 amendment, too, is not a destination, it’s a pause before the next question, a reminder that justice breathes through revision. As befits a constitutional democracy, India’s path to content governance has been combative and iterative. The next rule making cycle has been sharpened by the stays split judgments, and strikes down that have resulted from strategic litigation centred on the IT Rules, safe harbour, government fact-checking, and blocking orders. Lessons learnt are reflected in the 2025 amendment: review triumphs over opacity; specificity triumphs over vagueness; and due process triumphs over discretion. A digital republic balances freedom and force in this way. 

‍

Sources

• https://pressnews.in/law-and-justice/government-notifies-amendments-to-it-rules-2025-strengthening-intermediary-obligations/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2025/10/90dedea70a3fdfe6d58efb55b95b4109.pdf 
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2181719 
• https://www.scobserver.in/journal/x-relies-on-shreya-singhal-in-arbitrary-content-blocking-case-in-karnataka-hc/ 
• https://www.medianama.com/2025/10/223-content-takedown-rules-online-platforms-36-hr-deadline-officer-rank/#:~:text=It%20specifies%20that%20government%20officers,Deputy%20Inspector%20General%20of%20Police%E2%80%9D.

‍

‍

Smart Wearable devices are designed to track several activities in defined parameters and are increasingly becoming a part of everyday life. According to Markets and Markets Report, the global wearable tech market is projected to reach a staggering USD 256.4 billion by 2026. One of the main areas of use of wearable devices is health, including biomedical research, health care, personal health practices and tracking, technology development, and engineering. These wearable devices often include digital health technologies such as consumer smartwatches that monitor an individual's heart rate and step count, and other body-worn sensors like those that continuously monitor blood glucose concentration. 

Wearable devices used by the general population are getting increasingly popular. Health devices like fitness trackers and smartwatches enable continuous monitoring of personal health. Privacy is an emerging concern due to the real-time collection of sensitive data. Vulnerabilities due to unauthorised access or discrimination in case of information being revealed without consent are the primary concerns with these devices. While these concerns are present a lot of related misinformation is emerging due to the same. 

While wearable devices typically come with terms of use that outline how data is collected and used, and there are regulations in place such as EU Law GDPR, such regulations largely govern the regulatory compliances on the handling of personal data, however, the implementation and compliances by the manufacturer is a one another aspect which might present the question on privacy protection. In addition, beyond the challenge of regulatory compliance, the rise of myths and misinformation surrounding wearable tech presents a separate issue. 

Common Misconceptions About Privacy with Wearable Tech

• With the rapid development and growth of wearable technology their use has been subject to countless rumours which fuel misinformation narratives in the minds of general public. Addressing these misconceptions and privacy concerns requires targeted strategies.
• A prevalent misconception is that they are constantly spying on users. While wearable devices collect users’ data in real time, their vulnerability to unauthorised access is similar to that of a non-wearable device.  The issue is of consent when it comes to wearable technology because it gives the ability to record.  If permissions are not asked when a person is being recorded then the data is accessible to external entities.
• There is a common myth that wearable tech is surveillance tool. This is entirely a conjecture. These devices collect the user data with their prior consent and have been created to provide them with real-time information, most commonly physical health information. Since users choose the information shared, the idea of wearable tech serving as a surveillance tool is unfounded.
• Another misconception about wearable tech is that it can diagnose medical conditions. These devices collect real-time health data, such as heart rate or activity levels, they are not designed for medical diagnosis. The data collected may not always be accurate or reliable for clinical use to be interpreted by a healthcare professional. This is mainly because the makers of these devices are not held to the safety and liability standards that medical providers are.
• A prevalent misconception is that wearable tech can cure health issues, which is simply untrue. Wearable tech devices are essentially tracking the health parameters that a user sets. It in no way is a cure for any health issue that one suffers from. A user can manage their health based on the parameters they set on the device such as the number of steps that they walk, check on the heart rate and other metrics for their mental satisfaction but they are not a cure to treat diseases. Wearable tech acts as alerts, notifying users of important health metrics and encouraging proactive health management.

Addressing Privacy and Health Concerns in Wearable Tech

Wearable technology raises concerns for privacy and health due to the colossal amount of personal data collected. To address these, strong data protection measures are essential, ensuring that sensitive health information is securely stored and shared only with consent. Providing users with control over their data is one of the ways to build user trust. It includes enabling them to opt in, access, or delete the data in question. Regulators should establish clear guidelines, ensuring wearables ensure the compliances with data protection regulations like HIPPA, GDPR or DPDP Act, whichever is applicable as per the jurisdiction. Furthermore, global standards for data encryption, device security, and user privacy should be implemented to mitigate risks. Transparency in data usage and consistent updates to software security are also crucial for protecting users' privacy and health while promoting the responsible use of wearable tech.

CyberPeace Insights

• Making informed decisions about wearable tech starts with thorough research. Start by reading reviews and comparing products to assess their features, compatibility, and security standards. 
• Investigate the manufacturer’s reputation for data protection and device longevity. Understanding device capabilities is crucial. One should evaluate whether the wearable meets their needs, such as fitness tracking, health monitoring, or communication features. Consider software security and updates, and data accuracy when comparing options.  Opt for devices that offer two-factor authentication for an additional layer of security.
• Check the permissions requested by the accompanying app; only grant access to data that is necessary for the device's functionality. Always read the terms of use to understand your rights and responsibilities regarding the use of the device. Review and customize data-sharing settings for better control to prevent unauthorised access.
• Staying updated on the tech is equally important. A user should follow the advancements in wearable technology be it regular security updates, or regulatory changes that may affect privacy and usability. This ensures getting tech that aligns with user lifestyle while meeting privacy and security expectations.

Conclusion

Privacy and Misinformation are key concerns that emerge due to the use of wearable tech designed to offer benefits such as health monitoring, fitness tracking, and personal convenience. It requires a combination of informed decision-making by users and stringent regulatory oversight to overcome the issues that emerge due to misinformation about these devices. Users must ensure they understand the capabilities and limitations of their devices, from data accuracy to privacy risks. Additionally, manufacturers and regulators need to prioritise transparency, data protection, and compliance with global standards like GDPR or DPDP to build trust. As wearable tech continues to evolve, a balanced approach to innovation and privacy will be essential in fostering its responsible and beneficial use for all.

References

1. https://thehealthcaretechnologyreport.com/privacy-data-security-concerns-rise-as-healthcare-wearables-gain-popularity/ 
2. https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000104
3. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/wearable-electronics-market-983.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwgMqSBhDCARIsAIIVN1V0sqrk6SpYSga3rcDtWcwh8npZ08L0_s4X91gh7yPAa6QmsctB-lMaAlpqEALw_wcB 
4. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-information-management/article/health-data-on-the-go-navigating-privacy-concerns-with-wearable-technologies/05DAF11EFA807051362BB39260C4814C

‍

A photo circulating on social media claims to show Indian cricketer Mohammed Siraj offering namaz during net practice, while teammates Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli and Shubman Gill are seen taking a selfie with him. Several users are sharing the image as a “beautiful moment,” portraying it as a symbol of faith, unity and sportsmanship. However, research by the Cyber Peace Foundation has found that the viral image is not genuine and has been AI-generated.

‍

Claim

‍

On January 14, 2026, multiple Facebook users shared the viral image with captions describing it as a touching scene from Rajkot’s Saurashtra Stadium. The posts claim that Mohammed Siraj took time out during net practice to offer prayers, reflecting his strong faith, while fellow cricketers Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli and Shubman Gill respectfully captured the moment on camera.

Users praised the image as a rare blend of spirituality, discipline, teamwork and mutual respect, calling it a “beautiful confluence of sport and faith.”(Links to the post, archived version and screenshots are provided below.)

• https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=4437845333095160&set=a.1510003369212719 

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

On closely examining the viral image, several visual inconsistencies and unnatural elements were observed, raising suspicion that the picture may not be authentic.To verify this, the Cyber Peace Foundation analysed the image using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation. According to the tool’s assessment, the image showed a 99% likelihood of being AI-generated.

‍

To further strengthen the verification, the image was also scanned using another AI detection platform, Sightengine. The results indicated a 96% probability that the image was generated using artificial intelligence.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The research confirms that the viral image claiming to show Mohammed Siraj offering namaz during net practice, with Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli and Shubman Gill taking a selfie, is not real.The photograph has been created using AI tools and falsely shared on social media, misleading users by presenting a fabricated scene as an authentic moment.

‍