#FactCheck: Fake Claim that US has used Indian Airspace to attack Iran
Executive Summary:
An online claim alleging that U.S. bombers used Indian airspace to strike Iran has been widely circulated, particularly on Pakistani social media. However, official briefings from the U.S. Department of Defense and visuals shared by the Pentagon confirm that the bombers flew over Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Indian authorities have also refuted the claim, and the Press Information Bureau (PIB) has issued a fact-check dismissing it as false. The available evidence clearly indicates that Indian airspace was not involved in the operation.
Claim:
Various Pakistani social media users [archived here and here] have alleged that U.S. bombers used Indian airspace to carry out airstrikes on Iran. One widely circulated post claimed, “CONFIRMED: Indian airspace was used by U.S. forces to strike Iran. New Delhi’s quiet complicity now places it on the wrong side of history. Iran will not forget.”
Fact Check:
Contrary to viral social media claims, official details from U.S. authorities confirm that American B2 bombers used a Middle Eastern flight path specifically flying over Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq to reach Iran during Operation Midnight Hammer.
The Pentagon released visuals and unclassified briefings showing this route, with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine explained that the bombers coordinated with support aircraft over the Middle East in a highly synchronized operation.
Additionally, Indian authorities have denied any involvement, and India’s Press Information Bureau (PIB) issued a fact-check debunking the false narrative that Indian airspace was used.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, official U.S. briefings and visuals confirm that B-2 bombers flew over the Middle East not India to strike Iran. Both the Pentagon and Indian authorities have denied any use of Indian airspace, and the Press Information Bureau has labeled the viral claims as false.
- Claim: Fake Claim that US has used Indian Airspace to attack Iran
- Claimed On: Social Media
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Related Blogs
Introduction
Twitter Inc.’s appeal against barring orders for specific accounts issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology was denied by a single judge on the Karnataka High Court. Twitter Inc. was also given an Rs. 50 lakh fine by Justice Krishna Dixit, who claimed the social media corporation had approached the court defying government directives.
As a foreign corporation, Twitter’s locus standi had been called into doubt by the government, which said they were ineligible to apply Articles 19 and 21 to their situation. Additionally, the government claimed that because Twitter was only designed to serve as an intermediary, there was no “jural relationship” between Twitter and its users.
The Issue
In accordance with Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, the Ministry issued the directives. Nevertheless, Twitter had argued in its appeal that the orders “fall foul of Section 69A both substantially and procedurally.” Twitter argued that in accordance with 69A, account holders were to be notified before having their tweets and accounts deleted. However, the Ministry failed to provide these account holders with any notices.
On June 4, 2022, and again on June 6, 2022, the government sent letters to Twitter’s compliance officer requesting that they come before them and provide an explanation for why the Blocking Orders were not followed and why no action should be taken against them.
Twitter replied on June 9 that the content against which it had not followed the blocking orders does not seem to be a violation of Section 69A. On June 27, 2022, the Government issued another notice stating Twitter was violating its directions. On June 29, Twitter replied, asking the Government to reconsider the direction on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality. On June 30, 2022, the Government withdrew blocking orders on ten account-level URLs but gave an additional list of 27 URLs to be blocked. On July 10, more accounts were blocked. Compiling the orders “under protest,” Twitter approached the HC with the petition challenging the orders.
Legality
Additionally, the government claimed that because Twitter was only designed to serve as an intermediary, there was no “jural relationship” between Twitter and its users.
Government attorney Additional Solicitor General R Sankaranarayanan argued that tweets mentioning “Indian Occupied Kashmir” and the survival of LTTE commander Velupillai Prabhakaran were serious enough to undermine the integrity of the nation.
Twitter, on the other hand, claimed that its users have pushed for these rights. Additionally, Twitter maintained that under Article 14 of the Constitution, even as a foreign company, they were entitled to certain rights, such as the right to equality. They also argued that the reason for the account blocking in each case was not stated and that Section 69a’s provision for blocking a URL should only apply to the offending URL rather than the entire account because blocking the entire account would prevent the creation of information while blocking the offending tweet only applied to already-created information.
Conclusion
The evolution of cyberspace has been substantiated by big tech companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon and many more. These companies have been instrumental in leading the spectrum of emerging technologies and creating a blanket of ease and accessibility for users. Compliance with laws and policies is of utmost priority for the government, and the new bills and policies are empowering the Indian cyberspace. Non Compliance will be taken very seriously, and the same is legalised under the Intermediary Guidelines 2021 and 2022 by Meity. Referring to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, which pertains to an exemption from liability of intermediary in some instances, it was said, “Intermediary is bound to obey the orders which the designate authority/agency which the government fixes from time to time.”
Executive Summary:
A video of Pakistani Olympic gold medalist and Javelin player Arshad Nadeem wishing Independence Day to the People of Pakistan, with claims of snoring audio in the background is getting viral. CyberPeace Research Team found that the viral video is digitally edited by adding the snoring sound in the background. The original video published on Arshad's Instagram account has no snoring sound where we are certain that the viral claim is false and misleading.
Claims:
A video of Pakistani Olympic gold medalist Arshad Nadeem wishing Independence Day with snoring audio in the background.
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the posts, we thoroughly checked the video, we then analyzed the video in TrueMedia, an AI Video detection tool, and found little evidence of manipulation in the voice and also in face.
We then checked the social media accounts of Arshad Nadeem, we found the video uploaded on his Instagram Account on 14th August 2024. In that video, we couldn’t hear any snoring sound.
Hence, we are certain that the claims in the viral video are fake and misleading.
Conclusion:
The viral video of Arshad Nadeem with a snoring sound in the background is false. CyberPeace Research Team confirms the sound was digitally added, as the original video on his Instagram account has no snoring sound, making the viral claim misleading.
- Claim: A snoring sound can be heard in the background of Arshad Nadeem's video wishing Independence Day to the people of Pakistan.
- Claimed on: X,
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
Introduction
In a setback to the Centre, the Bombay High Court on Friday 20th September 2024, struck down the provisions under IT Amendment Rules 2023, which empowered the Central Government to establish Fact Check Units (FCUs) to identify ‘fake and misleading’ information about its business on social media platforms.
Chronological Overview
- On 6th April 2023, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 (IT Amendment Rules, 2023). These rules introduced new provisions to establish a fact-checking unit with respect to “any business of the central government”. This amendment was done In exercise of the powers conferred by section 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. (IT Act).
- On 20 March 2024, the Central Government notified the Press Information Bureau (PIB) as FCU under rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules 2023 (IT Amendment Rules 2023).
- The next day on 21st March 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the Centre's decision on notifying PIB -FCU, considering the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. A detailed analysis covered by CyberPeace on the Supreme Court Stay decision can be accessed here.
- In the latest development, the Bombay High Court on 20th September 2024, struck down the provisions under IT Amendment Rules 2023, which empowered the Central Government to establish Fact Check Units (FCUs) to identify ‘fake and misleading’ information about its business on social media platforms.
Brief Overview of Bombay High Court decision dated 20th September 2024
Justice AS Chandurkar was appointed as the third judge after a split verdict in January 2023 by a division bench consisting of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhal. As a Tie-breaker judge' Justice AS Chandurkar delivered the decision striking down provisions for setting up a Fact Check Unit under IT amendment 2023 rules. Striking down the Centre's proposed fact check unit provision, Justice A S Chandurkar of Bombay High Court also opined that there was no rationale to undertake an exercise in determining whether information related to the business of the Central govt was fake or false or misleading when in digital form but not doing the same when such information was in print. It was also contended that there is no justification to introduce an FCU only in relation to the business of the Central Government. Rule 3(1)(b)(v) has a serious chilling effect on the exercise of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution since the communication of the view of the FCU will result in the intermediary simply pulling down the content for fear of consequences or losing the safe harbour provision given under IT Act.
Justice Chandurkar held that the expressions ‘fake, false or misleading’ are ‘vague and overbroad’, and that the ‘test of proportionality’ is not satisfied. Rule 3(1)(b)(v), was violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (a) and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and it is “ultra vires”, or beyond the powers, of the IT Act.
Role of Expert Organisations in Curbing Mis/Disinformation and Fake News
In light of the recent developments, and the rising incidents of Mis/Disinformation and Fake News it becomes significantly important that we all stand together in the fight against these challenges. The actions against Mis/Disinformation and fake news should be strengthened by collective efforts, the expert organisations like CyberPeace Foundation plays an key role in enabling and encouraging netizens to exercise caution and rely on authenticated sources, rather than solely rely on govt FCU to block the content.
Mis/Disinformation and Fake News should be stopped, identified and countered by netizens at the very first stage of its spread. In light of the Bombay High Court's decision to stuck down the provision related to setting up the FCU by the Central Government, it entails that the government's intention to address misinformation related solely to its business/operations may not have been effectively communicated in the eyes of the judiciary.
It is high time to exercise collective efforts against Mis/Disinformation and Fake News and support expert organizations who are actively engaged in conducting proactive measures, and campaigns to target these challenges, specifically in the online information landscape. CyberPeace actively publishes fact-checking reports and insights on Prebunking and Debunking, conducts expert sessions and takes various key steps aimed at empowering netizens to build cognitive defences to recognise the susceptible information, disregard misleading claims and prevent further spreads to ensure the true online information landscape.
References:
- https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/09/20/bombay-high-court-it-rules-amendment-2023-fact-check-units-article14-article19-legal-news/#:~:text=Bombay%20High%20Court%3A%20A%20case,grounds%20that%20it%20violated%20constitutional
- https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/bombay-hc-strikes-down-it-act-amendment-fact-check-unit-9579044/
- https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/supreme-court-stay-on-centres-notification-of-pibs-fact-check-unit-under-it-amendment-rules-2023
