#FactCheck-Video falsely links Lt Gen Rajiv Ghai to party dance clip; actually shows content creator’s father

A word rooted in medical terminology keeps getting mistaken for a word rooted in technology, and that confusion is not just semantic. On 6 August 2026, it sat at the heart of a case where police in Uttar Pradesh reportedly treated the absence of WhatsApp chats, call recordings, and social media material as grounds to disbelieve a sexual assault complaint altogether, before the Allahabad High Court intervened. For an organisation working at the intersection of digital literacy and public safety, this case is less a story about a legal term and more a case study in how assumptions about digital evidence, when left unchecked, can become a barrier to justice rather than a tool for it. "Digital" here refers to a finger, not a device, and the gap between what police expected and what the law actually required is exactly where this case becomes instructive. Digital rape has nothing to do with the internet. Digit simply means finger, and the word describes non-consensual penetration by a finger, thumb, toe, or similar body part or object. That basic clarification matters because the same investigating officers who were expected to know the law also appear to have leaned on a mistaken evidentiary standard, one where a complaint without a digital trail was treated as a complaint without merit. The judgment that followed says as much about how the criminal justice system treats sexual assault complaints, and how it treats digital evidence, as it does about legal terminology.

The case, in brief

The matter is Arpit Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 others, 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 571, neutral citation 2026:AHC:168404-DB, decided by a Division Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena. Arpit Gupta, the owner of a Noida based real estate firm, Parit Associates (OPC) Private Limited, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash an FIR registered against him at Wave City police station, Ghaziabad, alleging rape, sexual harassment, and criminal intimidation. The complainant, a former employee of Gupta's company, alleged sustained workplace sexual harassment culminating in an act legally categorised as digital penetration, along with subsequent threats and intimidation. She resigned in April 2026. What followed procedurally is where the case becomes significant: Gupta filed a separate extortion complaint against her, she was arrested and later released on bail, and only after that sequence did she attempt to formally report the sexual assault, a report the police initially declined to register.

What followed complicates the picture considerably, and is central to why the case reached the High Court at all. On 14 April 2026, Gupta filed his own FIR against the complainant alleging extortion, claiming she had demanded 10 crore rupees from him. She was arrested in connection with that case and secured bail on 21 May 2026.  After her release, she attempted to register her own complaint of sexual assault, but police at Wave City station declined to register an FIR. A written complaint dated 7 July 2026 addressed directly to the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, also produced no result. The police investigating officer's report, dated 16 July 2026, went further still, terming her allegations false and characterising the sexual assault complaint as a retaliatory counter-blast to Gupta's extortion case, citing in particular the absence of supporting electronic material such as WhatsApp chats, call recordings, or social media evidence. Only after she approached a Magistrate under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, did the FIR finally get registered, by Magisterial order dated 20 July 2026.

The legal terminology: what "digital rape" actually means under BNS

Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced Section 375 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, defines rape. Clause (b) of Section 63 extends that definition to cover non-penile penetrative acts, specifically insertion, to any extent, of any object or body part other than the penis into specified parts of a woman's body, done without her consent or against her will, subject to the circumstances of absent consent set out in the section. Digital penetration, meaning penetration by finger or thumb, falls squarely within this clause. There is no standalone offence in the BNS titled "digital rape"; the term is a widely used medico-legal shorthand, not a separate statutory category, and the offence itself is prosecuted and punished as rape under Section 64 BNS, which prescribes the punishment provisions. In this particular case, the FIR reportedly also invoked Sections 74, 75(2), and 76 BNS, provisions dealing with assault or use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty, sexual harassment by a person in a position of authority, and related offences, alongside Section 351(3) BNS concerning criminal intimidation.

CyberPeace View

This is where the case circles back to the concern raised at the outset. The most instructive part of this judgment for the wider public may not be the definition of digital rape at all, but the police's original insistence on WhatsApp chats and call recordings before treating the complaint as credible. That reflex, a growing habit of associating the credibility of any complaint with the existence of a corresponding digital trail, reflects a wider and increasingly common misunderstanding about how evidence actually works in criminal law. Not every offence leaves an electronic footprint, and sexual assault, by its nature, frequently occurs without any accompanying digital record at all. Treating the absence of a chat log or a recording as evidence of falsehood inverts the legal presumption entirely, and risks turning digital literacy gaps within law enforcement into a structural barrier for genuine complainants who have no messages to produce because none were ever exchanged. As India's criminal justice system increasingly interacts with digital evidence, this case is a useful reminder that digital forensics should supplement an investigation, never gatekeep its starting point.

There is a genuinely technology rooted counterpart to this terminology confusion worth flagging, and it sits at the opposite end of the spectrum from where this case began. While "digital rape" has nothing to do with computers, "virtual rape" very much does, and it is an emerging harm India's legal framework is still catching up to. In January 2024, British police opened what was reported as the first investigation of its kind after a minor's avatar was allegedly gang assaulted by other avatars on Meta's metaverse platform, and similar incidents, avatars groped or sexually harassed within minutes of entering platforms like Horizon Worlds, have been documented repeatedly since, including a widely reported case involving psychotherapist Nina Jane Patel as far back as 2021. These incidents involve no physical contact whatsoever, yet researchers and legal scholars studying virtual reality note that immersive VR environments are specifically engineered to create a sense of embodiment, where the brain processes an avatar's violation as something closer to a real bodily experience than a typical online interaction, producing genuine trauma responses in victims. India's legal position here remains only partially settled. The POCSO Act's coverage of non-contact sexual abuse of minors likely extends to avatar based assaults on children, but adult victims of virtual sexual violence in India currently have no clearly dedicated statutory provision, leaving prosecutors to stretch existing harassment and outraging modesty provisions, originally drafted for a physical world, onto a form of harm the legislature has not yet explicitly addressed. As metaverse and VR platforms grow their user base in India, that gap is one worth closing before, rather than after, a case forces the question, much as this one forced the question of how police ought to treat digital evidence.

Conclusion

Two lessons run through this judgment. First, that the law's protection of bodily autonomy extends well beyond narrow, traditional definitions of penetration, a principle Section 63(b) BNS makes explicit. Second, that a complainant reporting a cognizable offence cannot be made to investigate her own case before the police will even open a file. FIR registration is not conviction, and conviction requires investigation, evidence, and trial to follow. What this case asks of the system is simpler than any of that: register the complaint, then do the work of finding out what happened.

References

1. https://www.barandbench.com/news/digital-rape-allahabad-hc-orders-inquiry-against-senior-ghaziabad-police-officers-for-not-filing-fir
2. https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-hc-police-cant-refuse-fir-sexual-complaint-non-production-evidence-545374

‍

Introduction
‍

In April 2026, a class action suit in a federal court in California rejuvenated one of the most basic assertions in digital communication: that private messages are private. The suit claims that Meta Platforms, its subsidiary WhatsApp, and third-party contractors such as Accenture could have accessed user messages even though it had long promised end-to-end encryption.

This case is not merely about a single company or a single platform. It poses more profound questions regarding the definition, communication and regulation of privacy in an age when digital infrastructure is becoming more and more incomprehensible or unprovable to regular users.
‍

What the Lawsuit Actually Says
‍

The suit was filed by plaintiffs Brian Y. Shirazi and Nida Samson, who alleged that WhatsApp, Meta and contractors had intercepted and shared private messages with third parties without their consent. The complaint states that the federal investigators were notified by the whistleblowers that employees of Meta and external contractors had access to the content of WhatsApp messages that were expected to be encrypted and inaccessible.

This directly puts into question the main privacy promise of WhatsApp. The platform has been promoting itself as an end-to-end encrypted service in which not even WhatsApp can read your messages. The case asserts that this assertion was deceptive in its application and that no one ever gave any consent prior to their messages being intercepted, stored, or read.

The plaintiffs are proposing to represent a nationwide class of users of WhatsApp who sent or received messages between April 5, 2016, and the current time and subclasses in California and Pennsylvania. The claims involve breach of contract, California laws on privacy and data violations, false advertising and the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.

It should be mentioned that they are allegations. Similar assertions have been refuted by Metacomet in the past, with the company asserting that its encryption frameworks ensure that the company cannot access the messages. The case is in progress, and no facts have been found.
‍

The Grey Area No One Talks About
‍

In order to see the significance of this lawsuit outside the court, it is useful to consider the way modern messaging platforms actually work. In principle, end-to-end encryption means that only the sender and receiver can decipher a message. Even the service provider should not be able to access the content.

However, there is a grey space that is seldom publicly discussed: content moderation. User reports, metadata analysis or restricted message review processes are common methods used by platforms to identify harmful content, like fraud, child exploitation, or spam. The complaint indicates that such moderation procedures might have opened avenues to the content of messages to human reviewers or automated systems more than users were made to think.

This is not the first time that privacy and safety are at odds. Many jurisdictions have also advocated access to encrypted communications through legal means in the name of national security or criminal investigations. What this suit does is put that tension into even more stark relief by asking whether platforms are really open with users about these trade-offs.
‍

The Consent Problem

‍

The emphasis on consent is one of the most significant implications of this case. The plaintiffs claim that the users were never warned that their messages would be accessed by the employees or third parties and were never provided with any meaningful option on the same.

This is where the case turns into a data governance issue, rather than a legal one. Most data protection models consider the legality of data processing to be based on whether the users know how their data is being processed or not. When the accusations are found to be true, then the matter is not technical. It would be a contractual and ethical failure, a disjuncture between what platforms promise and what they do.

The implications are huge to the billions of users who use WhatsApp to communicate, both personally and professionally, and even politically.

‍

What This Means Going Forward

‍

An effective attack on the encryption assertions of WhatsApp might have actual implications for the rest of the digital ecosystem. Users might start doubting that any platform can be really considered to guarantee privacy. The regulators can advocate more stringent disclosure policies and compulsory independent audits of encryption systems. Social networks might have to re-architect their moderation frameworks to make sure that safety features do not silently compromise privacy guarantees that they claim.

Meanwhile, there is a real policy dilemma in this case that cannot be disregarded. Complete privacy may preclude the capacity to identify abuse or hateful material. The manner in which that balance is achieved and, more to the point, the manner in which it is made transparent to users is an issue that has yet to be addressed by policymakers, civil society and the tech industry.

Other technical experts have also questioned the plausibility of the claims in the lawsuit at scale, noting that it would be an extraordinary undertaking to systematically bypass end-to-end encryption. This further supports the argument of independent verification mechanisms. The problem is that users should not be forced to decide what they should believe in more: corporate guarantees or legal charges. There must be rules that can be enforced which are above the two.

‍

Conclusion: Beyond One Lawsuit
‍

The WhatsApp class action is eventually concerning a structural issue within the digital economy. Users are expected to have faith in systems that they cannot observe, on the assertions that they cannot test themselves.

This case is a warning, regardless of whether the allegations are proved or not. Privacy cannot be based on marketing language. It needs legally binding norms, actual transparency in the treatment of data, and external control that will provide users with something more to hang on than a tagline.

‍

References
‍

• https://www.bitdefender.com/en-us/blog/hotforsecurity/lawsuit-claims-meta-can-access-whatsapp-messages-despite-end-to-end-encryption-2
• https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2026/02/02/whatsapp-encryption-a-lawsuit-and-a-lot-of-noise/
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-25/lawsuit-claims-meta-can-see-whatsapp-chats-in-breach-of-privacy
• https://www.classaction.org/blog/despite-privacy-promises-meta-third-parties-read-and-store-whatsapp-messages-class-action-lawsuit-alleges

‍

Introduction

Social media is the new platform for free speech and expressing one’s opinions. The latest news breaks out on social media and is often used by political parties to propagate their parties during the elections. Hashtag (#)is the new weapon, a powerful hashtag that goes a long way in making an impact in society that so at a global level. Various hashtags have gained popularity in the last years, such as – #blacklivesmatter, #metoo, #pride, #cybersecurity, and many more, which were influential in spreading awareness among the people regarding various social issues and taboos, which then were removed from multiple cultures. Social media is strengthened by social media influencers who are famous personalities with a massive following as they create regular content that the users consume and share with their friends. Social media is all about the message and its speed, and hence issues like misinformation and disinformation are widespread on nearly all social media platforms, so the influencers play a keen role in making sure the content on social media is in compliance with its community and privacy guidelines.

The Know-How

The Department of Consumer Affairs under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution released a guide, ‘Endorsements Know-hows!’ for celebrities, influencers, and virtual influencers on social media platforms, The guide aims to ensure that individuals do not mislead their audiences when endorsing products or services and that they are in compliance with the Consumer Protection Act and any associated rules or guidelines. Advertisements are no longer limited to traditional media like print, television, or radio, with the increasing reach of digital platforms and social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, there has been a rise in the influence of virtual influencers, celebrities, and social media influencers. This has led to an increased risk of consumers being misled by advertisements and unfair trade practices by these individuals on social media platforms. Endorsements must be made in simple, clear language, and terms such as “advertisement,” “sponsored,” or “paid promotion” can be used. They should not endorse any product or service and service in which they have done due diligence or that they have not personally used or experienced. The Act established guidelines for protecting consumers from unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements. The Department of Consumer Affairs published Guidelines for prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022, on 9th June 2022. These guidelines outline the criteria for valid advertisements and the responsibilities of manufacturers, service providers, advertisers, and advertising agencies. These guidelines also touched upon celebrities and endorsers. It states that misleading advertisements in any form, format, or medium are prohibited by law.

The guidelines apply to social media influencers as well as virtual avatars promoting products and services online. The disclosures should be easy to notice in post descriptions, where you can usually find hashtags or links. It should also be prominent enough to be noticeable in the content,

Changes Expected

The new guidelines will bring about uniformity in social media content in respect of privacy and the opinions of different people. The primary issue being addressed is misinformation, which was at its peak during the Covid-19 pandemic and impacted millions of people worldwide. The aspect of digital literacy and digital etiquette is a fundamental art of social media ethics, and hence social media influencers and celebrities can go a long way in spreading awareness about the same among common people and regular social media users. The increasing threats of cybercrimes and various exploitations over cyberspace can be eradicated with the help of efficient awareness and education among the youth and the vulnerable population, and the influencers can easily do the same, so its time that the influencers understand their responsibility of leading the masses online and create a healthy secure cyber ecosystem. Failing to follow the guidelines will make social media influencers liable for a fine of up to Rs 10 lakh. In the case of repeated offenders, the penalty can go up to Rs 50 lakh.

Conclusion

The size of the social media influencer market in India in 2022 was $157 million. It could reach as much as $345 million by 2025. Indian advertising industry’s self-regulatory body Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), shared that Influencer violations comprise almost 30% of ads taken up by ASCI, hence this legal backing for disclosure requirements is a welcome step. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs had been in touch with ASCI to review the various global guidelines on influencers. The social media guidelines from Clairfirnia and San Fransisco share the same basis, and hence guidelines inspired by different countries will allow the user and the influencer to understand the global perspective and work towards securing the bigger picture. As we know that cyberspace has no geographical boundaries and limitations; hence now is the time to think beyond conventional borders and start contributing towards securing and safeguarding global cyberspace.