#FactCheck - AI‑Manipulated Audio Used to Falsely Claim Trump Warned India Over Russia Ties

Introduction

‍

India is seeing a major change due to the introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) across all sectors of government, business, and the digital economy with regard to areas such as governance, healthcare, finance, and the infrastructure. The large scale and rapid pace of AI implementation are expected to lead to efficiency gains, innovations in products and services, and to drive economic growth; however, the growth of AI also creates many serious concerns regarding ethics, legality, and societal ramifications. Issues such as algorithmic bias in the use of algorithms by AI, a lack of transparency in decision-making algorithms, data protection risks resulting from AI employments, and unclear frameworks for determining accountability for AI-related action; bring issues of how we will govern AI in a responsible manner to the forefront of public policy discourse.

India wants to become an AI superpower and leader in technology on the world stage. As such, India has a dual responsibility to fuel innovation without discounting democratic ideals, human rights, and public trust. UNESCO's AI Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM) is a global tool for AI governance, created to provide concrete policy guidance on how to make ethical AI a reality. The India AI RAM Report is set to be formally released by UNESCO during the India AI Impact Summit 2026, taking place in New Delhi, as a major milestone in India's developing AI governance journey.

‍

What is UNESCO’s AI Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM)?

‍

UNESCO has created a simple yet effective tool, called the AI Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM), that can assist governments in determining how well they are prepared to develop, deploy and manage Artificial Intelligence ethically, responsibly and trustworthily. RAM provides a framework for diagnosing and self-assessing the state of a country’s ability to govern AI on the basis of evidence-based decision making rather than serving as a regulatory framework or ranking system.

The most important goal of RAM is to assess a country’s overall state of readiness to govern AI based on four dimensions: institutionally, legally, socially and technologically. In doing so, RAM examines how institutions function, their maturity level and the extent to which various policies align with one another; thereby giving governments an overview of strengths, weaknesses and priorities for reform.

Unlike other frameworks, RAM does not prescribe any one-size-fits-all solutions; instead, it uses a context sensitive approach when implementing the concepts of AI governance due to differing national realities, developmental priorities and social/economic conditions. Using the ethical principles established by UNESCO, RAM converts these principles into practical actions that can guide countries in their transition from abstract commitments to concrete strategies for governing AI.

‍

Key Dimensions Assessed Under RAM

‍

UNESCO's AI Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM) is a tool used to assess a country's readiness to implement ethical Artificial Intelligence through five interconnected dimensions. These include: the legal and regulatory dimension (which looks at the laws, rules, and safeguards that are currently in place related to AI), the social and cultural dimension (which looks at whether the public is aware of AI, whether it trusts AI, whether AI is an inclusive experience for all people who use AI and whether AI has affected society in various ways), and the economic dimension (which looks at innovation, participation from industry, and readiness of the market for AI).

Also included in the framework/functionality of the RAM are: scientific and educational dimension (which examines a country’s capacity to conduct serious scientific research, including research activities that prepare persons to be employable in AI jobs); and technological and infrastructure dimension (which examines the availability of data, digital infrastructure, and computing capabilities for AI projects in a country).

All five of these dimensions consider the entirety of the scope of an AI readiness evaluation to ensure that AI Governance is more than just a technical issue; rather, it is a condition of a country’s capacity to generate laws, create policy and maintain social equality in relation to all forms of Artificial Intelligence.

‍

Methodology and Nationwide Consultative Process

‍

RAM takes both qualitative and quantitative characteristics together to create an overall understanding of how ready any nation is for AI capabilities. It is designed with flexibility so nations can define their assessments with respect to their own institutional capabilities and development agenda.

Normally, RAM is implemented by an independent expert who is assisted by a national team consisting of various stakeholders. With respect to the RAM process used in India, it was conducted as a national consultation where representatives from across all sectors of society (government, private sector, academia, civil society, and young people) participated in the assessment's creation. This consultation process made sure there were many different viewpoints present, which increased the legitimacy of the assessment results and how relevant they are in each country. The consultation process also yields policy recommendations based on real life governing situations or challenges that are specific to different sectors.

‍

Institutional Partnerships Behind India’s RAM

‍

The India RAM Initiative was developed by the UNESCO South Asia Regional Office (as a partner of IndiaAI Mission and the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology) and implemented by Ikigai Law with the help of The Patrick J. McGovern Foundation. This demonstrated the need for and importance of partnership in developing governance frameworks for Artificial Intelligence (AI). The result of the RAM process is a collaborative effort that includes evidence-based international norm-setting capabilities from around the world; government policies under the guidance of national political leadership; independent legal-technical implementation; input from civil society; all with the goal of empowering (increasing) India's ability to establish and implement both a consistent (i.e., coherent) and comprehensive (i.e., inclusive) AI Governance Framework.

‍

Significance of the India AI RAM Report and Its Launch

‍

The India AI RAM Report provides a complete initial assessment of India’s AI ecosystem and includes key insights into AI readiness, governance strengths/weaknesses, and potential opportunities across multiple sectors. It identifies priority areas to promote a responsible and trustworthy AI ecosystem in India.

The report will be officially released during the India AI Impact Summit (February 16, 2026 at Bharat Mandapam, New Delhi) where Mr. Abhishek Venkateswaran (National Project Officer-Social and Human Sciences at UNESCO South Asia) offered additional insight into the consultative process and the overall importance of this launch on India's future AI policy path.

‍

Policy Relevance and the Road Ahead

‍

The RAM Framework gives the government a structure and roadmap for developing and implementing AI Governance. In doing this, RAM reinforces the alignment of IndiaAI Mission, which includes safety and trust in AI as one of the pillars. However, the results from this Assessment will not automatically translate to reforming institutions, issuing guidelines specific to sectors, or developing a mechanism for continued evaluation. Implementation will require strong and sustained commitment from political leaders, as well as the commitment of institutions involved in the reforms made possible by RAM's implementation.

‍

Conclusion

‍

UNESCO has developed an AI Readiness Assessment Methodology (AI-RAM) that can greatly advance the way India approaches governance with respect to artificial intelligence (AI). By focusing on "readiness" (doing what needs to be done), "responsibility" (being or having good moral principles) and "inclusivity" (including everyone), the AI-RAM will enable India to become an active participant in discussions around ethical use of AI at a global level. India is now positioned to take on a leadership role in the world by adopting this methodology, which provides a platform for establishing global standards for AI development. The real benefit of the AI-RAM will come from policy measures that will ensure future AI development in India is 'human-centered', 'trustworthy' and 'aligns with democratic values'.

‍

References

‍

1. https://icaire.org/files/UNESCORam-en.pdf
2. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2134492&reg=3&lang=2 
3. https://www.facebook.com/unesconewdelhi/videos/unesco-is-set-to-launch-the-india-ai-readiness-assessment-methodology-ram-report/25955631820699516/
4. https://www.unesco.org/ethics-ai/en/ram
5. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/unesco-meity-launch-exercise-to-assess-india-s-ai-readiness-101749188341803.html#
6. https://www.manoramayearbook.in/current-affairs/india/2025/06/09/unesco-ai-readiness-assessment-methodology-ram.html

‍

The world of Artificial Intelligence is entering a new phase with the rise of Agentic AI, often described as the third wave of AI evolution. Unlike earlier systems that relied on static models (that learn from the information that is fed) and reactive outputs, Agentic AI introduces intelligent agents that can make decisions, take initiative, and act autonomously in real time. These systems are designed to require minimal human oversight while actively collaborating and learning continuously. Such capabilities indicate an incoming shift, especially in the ways in which Indian businesses can function. For better understanding, Agentic AI is capable of streamlining operations, personalising services, and driving innovations at scale.

India and Agentic AI

Building as we go, India is making continuous strides in the AI revolution- deliberating on government frameworks, and simultaneously adapting. At Microsoft's Pinnacle 2025 summit in Hyderabad, India's pivotal role in shaping the future of Agentic AI was brought to the spotlight. With over 17 million developers on GitHub and ambitions to become the world's largest developer community by 2028, India's tech talent is gearing up to lead global AI innovations. Microsoft's Azure AI Foundry, also highlighted the country's growing influence in the AI landscape.

Indian companies are actively integrating Agentic AI into their operations to enhance efficiency and customer experience. Zomato is leveraging AI agents to optimise delivery logistics, ensuring timely and efficient service. Infosys has developed AI-driven copilots to assist developers in code generation, reducing development time, requiring fewer people to work on a particular project, and improving software quality. 

As per a report by Deloitte, the Indian AI market is projected to grow potentially $20 billion by 2028. However, this is accompanied by significant challenges. 92% of Indian executives identify security concerns as the primary obstacle to responsible AI usage. Additionally, regulatory uncertainties and privacy risks associated with sensitive data were also highlighted.

Challenges in Adoption

Despite the enthusiasm, several barriers hinder the widespread adoption of Agentic AI in India:

• Skills Gap: While the AI workforce is expected to grow to 1.25 million by 2027, the current growth rate of 13% is considered to be insufficient with respect to the demands of the market. 
• Data Infrastructure: Effective AI systems require robust, structured, and accessible datasets. Many organisations lack the necessary data maturity, leading to flawed AI outputs and decision-making failures.
• Trust and Governance: Building trust in AI systems is crucial. Concerns over data privacy, ethical usage, and regulatory compliance require robust governance frameworks to ensure the adoption of AI in a responsible manner.
• Looming fear of job loss: As AI continues to take up more sophisticated roles, a general feeling of hesitancy with respect to the loss of employment/human labour might come in the way of adopting such measures.
• Outsourcing: Currently, most companies prefer outsourcing or buying AI solutions rather than building them in-house. This gives rise to the issue of adapting to evolving needs.

The Road Ahead

‍

To fully realise the potential of Agentic AI, India must address the following challenges :

• Training the Workforce: Initiatives and workshops tailored for employees that provide AI training can prove to be helpful. Some relevant examples are Microsoft’s commitment to provide AI training to 2 million individuals by 2025 and Infosys's in-house AI training programs.
• Data Readiness: Investing in modern data infrastructure and promoting data literacy are essential to improve data quality and accessibility.
• Establishing Governance Frameworks: Developing clear regulatory guidelines and ethical standards will foster trust and facilitate responsible AI adoption. Like the IndiaAI mission, efforts regarding evolving technology and keeping up with it are imperative.

Agentic AI holds unrealised potential to transform India's business landscape when coupled with innovation and a focus on quality that enhances global competitiveness. India is at a position where by proactively addressing the existing challenges, this potential can be realised and set the foundation for a new technological revolution (along with in-house development), solidifying its position as a global AI leader.

References

• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/artificial-intelligence/india-facing-shortage-of-agentic-ai-professionals-amid-surge-in-demand/articleshow/120651512.cms?from=mdr
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/artificial-intelligence/india-a-global-leader-in-agentic-ai-adoption-deloitte-report/articleshow/119906474.cms?from=mdr
• https://inc42.com/features/from-zomato-to-infosys-why-indias-biggest-companies-are-betting-on-agentic-ai/
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/agentic-ai-next-big-leap-in-workplace-automation-101742548406693.html
• https://www.deloitte.com/in/en/about/press-room/india-rides-the-agentic-ai-wave.html
• https://www.businesstoday.in/tech-today/news/story/ais-next-chapter-starts-in-india-microsoft-champions-agentic-ai-at-pinnacle-2025-474286-2025-05-01
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/calm-before-ai-storm-a-moment-to-prepare-101746110985736.html‍
• https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology/why-agentic-ai-is-the-next-big-thing/3828357/
  

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.

‍