#FactCheck: Old Video of India-Pakistan Independence Day Celebrations in London Falsely Linked to Protest Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar
Executive Summary
A video is being shared on social media with the claim that Pakistani flags were waved during a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in London. CyberPeace Research found that the video is not from a protest against the SIR in London. Instead, it shows a joint event held in London on August 15 to mark the Independence Days of India and Pakistan.
Claim:
Social media users are claiming that more Pakistanis than Indians participated in a protest against the SIR in London, with several Pakistani flags visible during the demonstration. The post links the alleged presence of Pakistanis to Pakistan’s purported interest in the protests against the SIR in India and suggests that the demonstration was part of a larger conspiracy against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
https://x.com/rrakesh_pandey/status/2111720154795233494?s=20
Fact Check
During our research into the viral video claiming that Pakistani flags were waved during a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in London, a keyword search led us to the same video uploaded on the Instagram account of a Pakistani man, Amir Hashmi, on October 17. Notably, the video was uploaded on the same day that protests against Gyanesh Kumar were held in London.
https://www.instagram.com/reels/DemgSnHNRot/
During our research, we also found a video uploaded on August 16, 2026, to the Instagram account of the same individual, Pakistani singer Amir Hashmi, who is based in London. The video contained visuals matching those seen in the viral clip. The accompanying caption stated that the footage showed celebrations marking the Independence Days of Pakistan and India jointly at Piccadilly Circus in London.
According to another post on Amir Hashmi’s Instagram account, the event was held at Piccadilly Circus on August 15, 2026, local time in England.
https://www.instagram.com/reels/Db9A0paoIvh/
Conclusion
The evidence gathered during our research confirms that the video being shared with the claim that Pakistani flags were waved during a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in London actually shows an event held on August 15. However, the Pakistani singer shared the video on October 17, the same day protests against Gyanesh Kumar took place in London.
Related Blogs
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.
- The generated information must be prominently labelled or embedded with a permanent, unique metadata or identifier. The label or metadata must be:
- Visibly displayed or made audible in a prominent manner on or within that synthetically generated information.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
2. https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/generative-ai/worldwide
Executive Summary:
A video featuring Sara Netanyahu, wife of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is being widely circulated on social media. In the clip, she is seen attending an online meeting and repeatedly closing her eyes. The video is being shared with claims that it is recent and shows her under the influence of drugs. Some posts also suggest that Prime Minister Netanyahu has died. However, research by the CyberPeace found that the claim is misleading. The video is not recent and has been online since 2020.
Claim:
Social media users are sharing the video claiming that Sara Netanyahu appeared intoxicated following the alleged death of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The clip is also being falsely presented as a recent development. An X user, Christopher Montgomery (@Montgsignals), shared the video with the caption suggesting that Netanyahu may have died and that his wife appeared in a drug-influenced state during a recent court hearing via Zoom.
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we first examined reports regarding the alleged death of Benjamin Netanyahu. There is no credible evidence supporting this claim. In fact, on March 20, Netanyahu himself addressed the media and dismissed such rumours, confirming that he is alive.
We then analyzed the viral video by extracting keyframes and conducting a reverse search. This led us to the same video posted on a Facebook account under the name Roni Schneider Malia on November 4, 2020. The Hebrew caption associated with the post translates to: “Filmed during a psychological conference on Zoom.”
This confirms that the video is old and unrelated to any recent developments.
Conclusion:
The viral claim is misleading. The video of Sara Netanyahu is not recent but has been available online since 2020. It is being falsely linked to baseless claims about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s death
Executive Summary
Amid the ongoing conflict between the US-Israel and Iran, a video of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being widely circulated on social media. In the clip, he is allegedly heard supporting Israel and calling Iran a “terrorist state.” The video also appears to show him speaking about the idea of “Akhand Bharat.” Many users are sharing this video as genuine. However, a detailed research by the CyberPeacefound that the claim is false. The viral video is a deepfake created using AI technology.
Claim:
A Facebook page named “Pushpendra Kulshreshtha” shared the video on March 23, 2026, with a caption suggesting that PM Modi made strong remarks in support of Israel and against Iran.
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we first conducted a keyword search to find any credible reports or official statements where PM Modi made such remarks. However, no reliable news reports or authentic videos supporting the claim were found. We then extracted keyframes from the viral video and performed a reverse image search using Google Lens. This led us to the original video posted on the X (formerly Twitter) handle of ANI on March 12, 2026.
The visuals, including PM Modi’s attire and the stage setup, matched the viral clip—indicating that the fake video was created using this original footage. However, in the authentic video, PM Modi did not make any statements about Iran, Israel, or “Akhand Bharat” as seen in the viral version. In the original footage, PM Modi is seen addressing the NXT Summit in Delhi, where he spoke about the global energy crisis arising from ongoing conflicts and highlighted the expansion of LPG and PNG facilities in India. Additionally, a customised keyword search led us to a press release issued by the Prime Minister's Office regarding his address at the summit. The statement heard in the viral clip was not found there either.
Conclusion:
The viral video of PM Modi is a deepfake. He did not make any statement calling Iran a “terrorist state” or expressing support for Israel in the manner shown. The original video is from a summit held in Delhi and has been manipulated using AI to spread misleading claims.
