#FactCheck: Viral Deepfake Video of Modi, Shah, Jaishankar Apologize for Operation Sindoor Blunder
Executive Summary:
Recently, we came upon some AI-generated deep fake videos that have gone viral on social media, purporting to show Indian political figures Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar apologizing in public for initiating "Operation Sindoor." The videos are fake and use artificial intelligence tools to mimic the leaders' voices and appearances, as concluded by our research. The purpose of this report is to provide a clear understanding of the facts and to reveal the truth behind these viral videos.
Claim:
Multiple videos circulating on social media claim to show Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Central Home Minister Amit Shah, and External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar publicly apologised for launching "Operation Sindoor." The videos, which are being circulated to suggest a political and diplomatic failure, feature the leaders speaking passionately and expressing regret over the operation.
Fact Check:
Our research revealed that the widely shared videos were deepfakes made with artificial intelligence tools. Following the 22 April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack, after “Operation Sindoor”, which was held by the Indian Armed Forces, this video emerged, intending to spread false propaganda and misinformation.
Finding important frames and visual clues from the videos that seemed suspicious, such as strange lip movements, misaligned audio, and facial distortions, was the first step in the fact-checking process. By putting audio samples and video frames in Hive AI Content Moderation, a program for detecting AI-generated content. After examining audio, facial, and visual cues, Hive's deepfake detection system verified that all three of the videos were artificial intelligence (AI) produced.
Below are three Hive Moderator result screenshots that clearly flag the videos as synthetic content, confirming that none of them are authentic or released by any official government source.
Conclusion:
The artificial intelligence-generated videos that claim Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar apologized for the start of "Operation Sindoor" are completely untrue. A purposeful disinformation campaign to mislead the public and incite political unrest includes these deepfake videos. No such apology has been made by the Indian government, and the operation in question does not exist in any official or verified capacity. The public must exercise caution, avoid disseminating videos that have not been verified, and rely on reliable fact-checking websites. Such disinformation can seriously affect national discourse and security in addition to eroding public trust.
- Claim: India's top executives apologize publicly for Operation Sindoor blunder.
- Claimed On: Social Media
- Fact Check: AI Misleads
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
Amid heightened tensions in West Asia following the conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran, a video showing a large explosion behind a building is being widely shared on social media.
Users claim that the footage shows an Iranian missile strike on a US military base in Kuwait. However, CyberPeace Research Wing research found the claim to be misleading. The viral video is actually from an Israeli airstrike in southern Lebanon. While Kuwait said its air defence systems intercepted missiles and drones during regional hostilities, the viral footage has no connection to any alleged attack on a US base in Kuwait.
Claim
An Instagram user, “indiscope24hr,” shared the video on May 28, 2026, with text overlaid on the clip stating:“Iran launches a deadly missile attack on a US base in Kuwait.”The caption claimed that Iran targeted a US airbase in retaliation for American military action and that Kuwait’s air defence systems were intercepting incoming missiles and drones.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted key frames from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. This led us to a post shared on May 28, 2026, by the Instagram account “iltv_israel,” which identified the footage as an Israeli Air Force strike on a Hezbollah target in the southern Lebanese city of Tyre.
Further research found the same footage in a video report uploaded by the New York Post’s YouTube channel on May 28, 2026. According to the report, Israel carried out strikes targeting Hezbollah positions in Tyre, southern Lebanon.
We also found the clip in a video report published by NBC News. The report stated that Israel intensified strikes in southern Lebanon despite an existing ceasefire agreement.
The matching visuals across these reports confirm that the viral footage originated from Lebanon and not from Kuwait.
Conclusion
The viral claim is misleading. The video does not show an Iranian missile strike on a US military base in Kuwait. It actually depicts an Israeli airstrike carried out in the Lebanese city of Tyre on May 28, 2026, and is being shared with a false context on social media.
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
.webp)
Introduction
India's Competition Commission of India (CCI) on 18th November 2024 imposed a ₹213 crore penalty on Meta for abusing its dominant position in internet-based messaging through WhatsApp and online display advertising. The CCI order is passed against abuse of dominance by the Meta and relates to WhatsApp’s 2021 Privacy Policy. The CCI considers Meta a dominant player in internet-based messaging through WhatsApp and also in online display advertising. WhatsApp's 2021 privacy policy update undermined users' ability to opt out of getting their data shared with the group's social media platform Facebook. The CCI directed WhatsApp not to share user data collected on its platform with other Meta companies or products for advertising purposes for five years.
CCI Contentions
The regulator contended that for purposes other than advertising, WhatsApp's policy should include a detailed explanation of the user data shared with other Meta group companies or products specifying the purpose. The regulator also stated that sharing user data collected on WhatsApp with other Meta companies or products for purposes other than providing WhatsApp services should not be a condition for users to access WhatsApp services in India. CCI order is significant as it upholds user consent as a key principle in the functioning of social media giants, similar to the measures taken by some other markets.
Meta’s Stance
WhatsApp parent company Meta has expressed its disagreement with the Competition Commission of India's(CCI) decision to impose a Rs 213 crore penalty on them over users' privacy concerns. Meta clarified that the 2021 update did not change the privacy of people's personal messages and was offered as a choice for users at the time. It also ensured no one would have their accounts deleted or lose functionality of the WhatsApp service because of this update.
Meta clarified that the update was about introducing optional business features on WhatsApp and providing further transparency about how they collect data. The company stated that WhatsApp has been incredibly valuable to people and businesses, enabling organization's and government institutions to deliver citizen services through COVID and beyond and supporting small businesses, all of which further the Indian economy. Meta plans to find a path forward that allows them to continue providing the experiences that "people and businesses have come to expect" from them. The CCI issued cease-and-desist directions and directed Meta and WhatsApp to implement certain behavioral remedies within a defined timeline.
The competition watchdog noted that WhatsApp's 2021 policy update made it mandatory for users to accept the new terms, including data sharing with Meta, and removed the earlier option to opt-out, categorized as an "unfair condition" under the Competition Act. It was further noted that WhatsApp’s sharing of users’ business transaction information with Meta gave the group entities an unfair advantage over competing platforms.
CyberPeace Outlook
The 2021 policy update by WhatsApp mandated data sharing with Meta's other companies group, removing the opt-out option and compelling users to accept the terms to continue using the platform. This policy undermined user autonomy and was deemed as an abuse of Meta's dominant market position, violating Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, as noted by CCI.
The CCI’s ruling requires WhatsApp to offer all users in India, including those who had accepted the 2021 update, the ability to manage their data-sharing preferences through a clear and prominent opt-out option within the app. This decision underscores the importance of user choice, informed consent, and transparency in digital data policies.
By addressing the coercive nature of the policy, the CCI ruling establishes a significant legal precedent for safeguarding user privacy and promoting fair competition. It highlights the growing acknowledgement of privacy as a fundamental right and reinforces the accountability of tech giants to respect user autonomy and market fairness. The directive mandates that data sharing within the Meta ecosystem must be based on user consent, with the option to decline such sharing without losing access to essential services.
References
