#FactCheck-AI-Generated Image of Virat Kohli and Anushka Sharma Falsely Shared as a Real Candid Moment

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

Imagine spending two years , 730 days of early mornings, missed social events, and relentless mock tests  preparing for a single examination. Now imagine that on the morning of that exam, your phone buzzes with a forwarded video claiming the question paper has already leaked. Your heart sinks. You do not know whether to trust it or ignore it. You have about forty minutes before you must enter the hall. This was the reality for a section of the 22 lakh students who sat for the NEET UG 2026 re-examination on June 21, 2026, when a fabricated video alleging a paper leak on Telegram began circulating across WhatsApp groups and X within hours of the exam commencing. The National Testing Agency (NTA) swiftly and categorically denied the claims, activated the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), and appealed to the public not to amplify unverified content. The examination concluded without incident. But the episode laid bare a challenge that no security perimeter or surveillance camera can fully address: the weaponisation of misinformation against India's high-stakes examination ecosystem.

‍

The Anatomy of Examination Misinformation

‍

Why Examinations Are a Prime Target

India's national examinations are uniquely fertile ground for misinformation. With over 22 lakh candidates registered for NEET UG 2026 alone, the audience is vast, anxious, and hungry for any update  verified or otherwise. Research by MIT has found that false stories spread six times faster than accurate ones on social media, and are seventy percent more likely to be reshared. In India, where over 535 million people use WhatsApp and studies show that most users tend to trust messages forwarded by family and friends, the conditions for viral misinformation are near-ideal. According to a 2020 Microsoft survey, 52 percent of Indian respondents encountered misinformation at least once a day, the highest rate globally.

What makes examination-related misinformation especially dangerous is its timing. Fabricated content is almost always released on examination day itself, the precise moment when candidates are most emotionally vulnerable, official channels are stretched thin, and the window for effective rebuttal is narrowest. The NEET UG 2026 fake video, circulated on Telegram and amplified across closed WhatsApp groups, fits this pattern precisely. It was engineered not to inform, but to destabilise.

‍

A History That Sharpens the Anxiety

This misinformation did not emerge in a vacuum. The shadow of the 2024 NEET UG controversy  in which the Supreme Court of India confirmed that at least 155 students had directly benefited from a genuine paper leak, and which triggered nationwide protests, CBI investigations, and a parliamentary uproar — still looms large. Students and parents conditioned by that experience are primed to believe the worst, even when claims are entirely false. In 2026, that residual anxiety became the very vulnerability that bad actors sought to exploit. The government's response which included temporarily restricting access to Telegram in the lead-up to the re-examination  underscored just how seriously the threat of examination misinformation is now being taken at the highest levels.

‍

The NTA's Response: Why It Matters

‍

1. Speed and Transparency as Governance Tools: In crisis communication, the first credible voice usually wins. The NTA's near-immediate public denial posted on official social media handles and amplified by the Press Information Bureau's PIB Fact Check unit was a meaningful departure from the delayed, defensive responses that characterised earlier examination controversies. By directly labelling the video "FAKE" in capital letters, describing its creation as "a serious offence," and simultaneously appealing to students to rely only on official sources at neet.nta.nic.in, the NTA left little room for the false narrative to consolidate. NTA Director General Abhishek Singh went further, publicly stating that the agency was "100 per cent confident" in the integrity of the process and that no complaints of a genuine paper leak had been received. This matters beyond crisis management. Public trust in examination systems is not rebuilt through official statements alone , it is rebuilt through the consistent, transparent exercise of institutional authority. A swift, fact-based rebuttal, deployed before rumour hardens into public belief, is as much a governance act as it is a communications strategy.

‍

2. Cybercrime Coordination as a Structural Shift: Perhaps the most significant development in the NTA's response was its coordination with I4C and law enforcement agencies to trace the origin of the fabricated video. This signals a structural evolution: examination misinformation is no longer being treated as an administrative inconvenience but as cybercrime with legal consequences under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The announcement that legal action would follow also carries a deterrent message to potential future actors — that the machinery of cybercrime enforcement will be activated, and that fabricating content to mislead examination candidates is a prosecutable offence.

‍

The Human and Institutional Cost

The costs of examination misinformation are neither abstract nor trivial. Mental health experts have warned that controversies surrounding national-level examinations can have serious long-term psychological consequences for aspirants. Dr. Mustafa Nadeem Kirmani of Amity University has noted that such crises increase the risk of students taking "extreme steps like suicide attempts, anger toward the system, and hopelessness," and can, in the long run, lead to clinical depression. In the wake of the 2026 paper leak controversy, multiple reports of student deaths by suicide were linked to the compounded pressures of exam cancellation and uncertainty a grim reminder of the real human stakes behind governance failures in this domain. For institutions, every viral misinformation episode generates an avoidable administrative crisis. Helplines are overwhelmed, examination centre staff face panicked queries, and senior officials are pulled into damage control rather than exam administration. The credibility of clarifications issued under pressure is itself questioned by a public already primed for suspicion. This administrative burden, multiplied across 5,440 examination centres in India and 14 abroad, represents a significant and entirely unnecessary cost.

‍

Building a Resilient Ecosystem: What Needs to Change

‍

1. Proactive Communication and Platform Coordination: Institutional credibility is built before a crisis, not during one. Examination bodies must invest in sustained pre-examination communication that educates candidates and parents about the existence of misinformation campaigns and tells them exactly where to look for verified updates. This means highly visible, verified social media presences with large followings, real-time update protocols, and formal escalation channels with platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram, X, and YouTube to enable rapid takedown of false examination-related content. The IT Amendment Rules of 2023, which require significant social media intermediaries to act on government-flagged content, provide a legal basis for such coordination  but the operational infrastructure to activate it at speed must be built in advance, not improvised on the day.

‍

2. Fact-Checking Partnerships and Digital Literacy: Independent organisations such as BOOM Live, Alt News, and Vishvas News have proven their capacity to rapidly debunk examination misinformation. Formalising their role through a structured public-private partnership  where examination authorities share real-time verified information with empanelled fact-checkers  could close the window during which false content circulates unchallenged. Equally critical is investment in digital media literacy among students and parents. A 2018 survey found that nearly 45 percent of Indian respondents were unaware of any fact-checking organisations. Addressing this gap through school curricula, coaching networks, and the Ministry of Education's DIKSHA platform  is a preventive investment far less costly than repeated crisis management.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The NTA's handling of the NEET UG 2026 fake video was, by recent standards, exemplary. It was fast, transparent, authoritative, and backed by the activation of cybercrime enforcement. But a single well-managed episode does not constitute a resilient system. India runs some of the world's largest entrance examinations, and the stakes medical seats, livelihoods, and the aspirations of crores of young people are too high for crisis response alone to suffice. Combating examination misinformation requires permanent structural investment: dedicated rapid-response cells within examination bodies, formalised fact-checking pipelines, proactive platform coordination, and a sustained public education effort around digital verification. Protecting the integrity of India's examination ecosystem is not merely an administrative responsibility. It is a commitment to the millions of students who give everything they have to compete fairly and who deserve a system that protects them not only from cheating, but from the fear of it.

‍

References

‍

1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/131900261.cms
2. https://www.india.com/education/neet-ug-2026-re-exam-paper-leak-claim-goes-viral-nta-says-video-is-fake-and-false-fabricated-examination-conducted-successfully-8453620/
3. https://www.republicworld.com/education/neet-ug-re-exam-nta-says-paper-leak-video-fake-test-conducted-successfully-2026-06-22-129346
4. https://thefederal.com/category/education/neet-re-exam-paper-leak-admission-system-crisis-247410
5. https://www.outlookindia.com/healthcare-spotlight/beyond-the-paper-leak-emotional-trauma-among-neet-aspirants-raises-concern
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_NEET_controversy
7. https://kaval.chat/blog/misinformation-scam-statistics-india-2026/
8. https://www.ijert.org/the-virality-gap-political-misinformation-and-the-information-crisis-in-india-s-digital-democracy-ijertv15is050041
9. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/digital-skills/digital-civility
10. https://www.meity.gov.in/content/information-technology-intermediary-guidelines-and-digital-media-ethics-code-amendment
11. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1999 
12. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx 
13. https://www.careerindia.com/news/addressing-the-mental-health-crisis-sparked-by-net-and-neet-paper-leaked-in-india-041963.html
14. https://thediplomat.com/2025/03/indias-growing-misinformation-crisis-a-threat-to-democracy/

‍

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.

‍