#FactCheck: A viral claim suggests that India Post will remove all red letter boxes across the country beginning 1 September 2025.

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 shocking video claiming to show snakes raining down from the sky is going viral on social media. The clip shows what appear to be cobras and pythons falling in large numbers instead of rain, while people are seen running in panic through a marketplace. The video is being shared with the claim that it is the result of “tampering with nature” and that sudden snake rainfall occurred in an unidentified country. (Links and archived versions provided)
‍

• https://x.com/MrNews90/status/2020334706915700743 
• https://archive.is/GTQjs 

‍

CyberPeace  researched the viral claim and found it to be false. The video does not depict a real incident. Instead, it has been generated using artificial intelligence (AI).

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the authenticity of the video, we extracted keyframes and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. However, we did not find any credible media report linked to the viral footage. We also searched relevant keywords on Google but found no reliable national or international news coverage supporting the claim. If snakes had genuinely rained from the sky in any country, the incident would have received widespread media attention globally. A frame-by-frame analysis of the video revealed multiple inconsistencies and visual anomalies:

In the first two seconds, a massive snake appears to fall onto electric wires, yet its body passes unrealistically through the wires — something that is physically impossible. The snakes falling from the sky and crawling on the ground move in an unnatural manner. Instead of falling under gravity, they appear to float mid-air. Around the 9–10 second mark, a person lying on the ground has a visibly distorted hand structure, a common artifact seen in AI-generated videos.

Such irregularities are typical indicators of AI-generated content. The viral video was further analyzed using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation, which indicated a 96.5% probability that the video was AI-generated.

‍

‍

Additionally, image detection tool WasitAI also classified the visuals in the viral clip as highly likely to be AI-generated.

‍

Conclusion

‍

CyberPeace ’s research confirms that the viral video claiming to show snakes raining from the sky is not authentic. The footage has been created using artificial intelligence and does not depict a real event.

‍

Introduction

Deepfake technology, which combines the words "deep learning" and "fake," uses highly developed artificial intelligence—specifically, generative adversarial networks (GANs)—to produce computer-generated content that is remarkably lifelike, including audio and video recordings. Because it can provide credible false information, there are concerns about its misuse, including identity theft and the transmission of fake information. Cybercriminals leverage AI tools and technologies for malicious activities or for committing various cyber frauds. By such misuse of advanced technologies such as AI, deepfake, and voice clones. Such new cyber threats have emerged. 

India Topmost destination for deepfake attacks

According to Sumsub’s identity fraud report 2023, a well-known digital identity verification company with headquarters in the UK. India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan have become an important participants in the Asia-Pacific identity fraud scene with India’s fraud rate growing exponentially by 2.99% from 2022 to 2023. They are among the top ten nations most impacted by the use of deepfake technology. Deepfake technology is being used in a significant number of cybercrimes, according to the newly released Sumsub Identity Fraud Report for 2023, and this trend is expected to continue in the upcoming year. This highlights the need for increased cybersecurity awareness and safeguards as identity fraud poses an increasing concern in the area. 

How Deeepfake Works 

Deepfakes are a fascinating and worrisome phenomenon that have emerged in the modern digital landscape. These realistic-looking but wholly artificial videos have become quite popular in the last few months. Such realistic-looking, but wholly artificial, movies have been ingrained in the very fabric of our digital civilisation as we navigate its vast landscape. The consequences are enormous and the attraction is irresistible.  

Deep Learning Algorithms

Deepfakes examine large datasets, frequently pictures or videos of a target person, using deep learning techniques, especially Generative Adversarial Networks. By mimicking and learning from gestures, speech patterns, and facial expressions, these algorithms can extract valuable information from the data. By using sophisticated approaches, generative models create material that mixes seamlessly with the target context. Misuse of this technology, including the dissemination of false information, is a worry. Sophisticated detection techniques are becoming more and more necessary to separate real content from modified content as deepfake capabilities improve.

Generative Adversarial Networks

Deepfake technology is based on GANs, which use a dual-network design. Made up of a discriminator and a generator, they participate in an ongoing cycle of competition. The discriminator assesses how authentic the generated information is, whereas the generator aims to create fake material, such as realistic voice patterns or facial expressions. The process of creating and evaluating continuously leads to a persistent improvement in Deepfake's effectiveness over time. The whole deepfake production process gets better over time as the discriminator adjusts to become more perceptive and the generator adapts to produce more and more convincing content. 

 Effect on Community

The extensive use of Deepfake technology has serious ramifications for several industries. As technology develops, immediate action is required to appropriately manage its effects. And promoting ethical use of technologies. This includes strict laws and technological safeguards. Deepfakes are computer trickery that mimics prominent politicians' statements or videos. Thus, it's a serious issue since it has the potential to spread instability and make it difficult for the public to understand the true nature of politics. Deepfake technology has the potential to generate totally new characters or bring stars back to life for posthumous roles in the entertainment industry. It gets harder and harder to tell fake content from authentic content, which makes it simpler for hackers to trick people and businesses.

Ongoing Deepfake Assaults In India

Deepfake videos continue to target popular celebrities, Priyanka Chopra is the most recent victim of this unsettling trend. Priyanka's deepfake adopts a different strategy than other examples including actresses like Rashmika Mandanna, Katrina Kaif, Kajol, and Alia Bhatt. Rather than editing her face in contentious situations, the misleading film keeps her look the same but modifies her voice and replaces real interview quotes with made-up commercial phrases. The deceptive video shows Priyanka promoting a product and talking about her yearly salary, highlighting the worrying development of deepfake technology and its possible effects on prominent personalities.

Actions Considered by Authorities

A PIL was filed requesting the Delhi High Court that access to websites that produce deepfakes be blocked. The petitioner's attorney argued in court that the government should at the very least establish some guidelines to hold individuals accountable for their misuse of deepfake and AI technology. He also proposed that websites should be asked to identify information produced through AI as such and that they should be prevented from producing illegally. A division bench highlighted how complicated the problem is and suggested the government (Centre) to arrive at a balanced solution without infringing the right to freedom of speech and expression (internet).  

Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw stated that new laws and guidelines would be implemented by the government to curb the dissemination of deepfake content. He presided over a meeting involving social media companies to talk about the problem of deepfakes. "We will begin drafting regulation immediately, and soon, we are going to have a fresh set of regulations for deepfakes. this might come in the way of amending the current framework or ushering in new rules, or a new law," he stated.

Prevention and Detection Techniques

To effectively combat the growing threat posed by the misuse of deepfake technology, people and institutions should place a high priority on developing critical thinking abilities, carefully examining visual and auditory cues for discrepancies, making use of tools like reverse image searches, keeping up with the latest developments in deepfake trends, and rigorously fact-check reputable media sources. Important actions to improve resistance against deepfake threats include putting in place strong security policies, integrating cutting-edge deepfake detection technologies, supporting the development of ethical AI, and encouraging candid communication and cooperation. We can all work together to effectively and mindfully manage the problems presented by deepfake technology by combining these tactics and adjusting the constantly changing terrain.

Conclusion

Advanced artificial intelligence-powered deepfake technology produces extraordinarily lifelike computer-generated information, raising both creative and moral questions. Misuse of tech or deepfake presents major difficulties such as identity theft and the propagation of misleading information, as demonstrated by examples in India, such as the latest deepfake video involving Priyanka Chopra. It is important to develop critical thinking abilities, use detection strategies including analyzing audio quality and facial expressions, and keep up with current trends in order to counter this danger. A thorough strategy that incorporates fact-checking, preventative tactics, and awareness-raising is necessary to protect against the negative effects of deepfake technology. Important actions to improve resistance against deepfake threats include putting in place strong security policies, integrating cutting-edge deepfake detection technologies, supporting the development of ethical AI, and encouraging candid communication and cooperation. We can all work together to effectively and mindfully manage the problems presented by deepfake technology by combining these tactics and making adjustments to the constantly changing terrain. Creating a true cyber-safe environment for netizens. 

References:

• https://yourstory.com/2023/11/unveiling-deepfake-technology-impact
• https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/celebrities/story/deepfake-alert-priyanka-chopra-falls-prey-after-rashmika-mandanna-katrina-kaif-and-alia-bhatt-2472293-2023-12-05
• https://www.csoonline.com/article/1251094/deepfakes-emerge-as-a-top-security-threat-ahead-of-the-2024-us-election.html
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/hc-unwilling-to-step-in-to-curb-deepfakes-delhi-high-court/articleshow/105739942.cms
• https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-among-top-targets-of-deepfake-identity-fraud-2472241-2023-12-05
• https://sumsub.com/fraud-report-2023/