#FactCheck - AI-Generated Image Falsely Linked to Mira–Bhayandar Bridge
Executive Summary
Mumbai’s Mira–Bhayandar bridge has recently been in the news due to its unusual design. In this context, a photograph is going viral on social media showing a bus seemingly stuck on the bridge. Some users are also sharing the image while claiming that it is from Sonpur subdivision in Bihar. However, an research by the CyberPeace has found that the viral image is not real. The bridge shown in the image is indeed the Mira–Bhayandar bridge, which is under discussion because its design causes it to suddenly narrow from four lanes to two lanes. That said, the bridge is not yet operational, and the viral image showing a bus stuck on it has been created using Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Claim
An Instagram user shared the viral image on January 29, 2026, with the caption:“Are Indian taxpayers happy to see that this is funded by their money?” The link, archive link, and screenshot of the post can be seen below.
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we first conducted a Google Lens reverse image search. This led us to a post shared by X (formerly Twitter) user Manoj Arora on January 29. While the bridge structure in that image matches the viral photo, no bus is visible in the original post.This raised suspicion that the viral image had been digitally manipulated.
We then ran the viral image through the AI detection tool Hive Moderation, which flagged it as over 99% likely to be AI-generated
Conclusion
The CyberPeace research confirms that while the Mira–Bhayandar bridge is real and has been in the news due to its design, the viral image showing a bus stuck on the bridge has been created using AI tools. Therefore, the image circulating on social media is misleading.
Related Blogs
Introduction:
This Op-ed sheds light on the perspectives of the US and China regarding cyber espionage. Additionally, it seeks to analyze China's response to the US accusation regarding cyber espionage.
What is Cyber espionage?
Cyber espionage or cyber spying is the act of obtaining personal, sensitive, or proprietary information from individuals without their knowledge or consent. In an increasingly transparent and technological society, the ability to control the private information an individual reveals on the Internet and the ability of others to access that information are a growing concern. This includes storage and retrieval of e-mail by third parties, social media, search engines, data mining, GPS tracking, the explosion of smartphone usage, and many other technology considerations. In the age of big data, there is a growing concern for privacy issues surrounding the storage and misuse of personal data and non-consensual mining of private information by companies, criminals, and governments.
Cyber espionage aims for economic, political, and technological gain. Fox example Stuxnet (2010) cyber-attack by the US and its allies Israel against Iran’s Nuclear facilities. Three espionage tools were discovered connected to Stuxnet, such as Gauss, FLAME and DuQu, for stealing data such as passwords, screenshots, Bluetooth, Skype functions, etc.
Cyber espionage is one of the most significant and intriguing international challenges globally. Many nations and international bodies, such as the US and China, have created their definitions and have always struggled over cyber espionage norms.
The US Perspective
In 2009, US officials (along with other allied countries) mentioned that cyber espionage was acceptable if it safeguarded national security, although they condemned economically motivated cyber espionage. Even the Director of National Intelligence said in 2013 that foreign intelligence capabilities cannot steal foreign companies' trade secrets to benefit their firms. This stance is consistent with the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) of 1996, particularly Section 1831, which prohibits economic espionage. This includes the theft of a trade secret that "will benefit any foreign government, foreign agent or foreign instrumentality.
Second, the US advocates for cybersecurity market standards and strongly opposes transferring personal data extracted from the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to cybercrime markets. Furthermore, China has been reported to sell OPM data on illicit markets. It became a grave concern for the US government when the Chinese government managed to acquire sensitive details of 22.1 million US government workers through cyber intrusions in 2014.
Third, Cyber-espionage is acceptable unless it’s utilized for Doxing, which involves disclosing personal information about someone online without their consent and using it as a tool for political influence operations. However, Western academics and scholars have endeavoured to distinguish between doxing and whistleblowing. They argue that whistleblowing, exemplified by events like the Snowden Leaks and Vault 7 disclosures, serves the interests of US citizens. In the US, being regarded as an open society, certain disclosures are not promoted but rather required by mandate.
Fourth, the US argues that there is no cyber espionage against critical infrastructure during peacetime. According to the US, there are 16 critical infrastructure sectors, including chemical, nuclear, energy, defence, food, water, and so on. These sectors are considered essential to the US, and any disruption or harm would impact security, national public health and national economic security.
The US concern regarding China’s cyber espionage
According to James Lewis (a senior vice president at the Center for US-China Economic and Security Review Commission), the US faces losses between $ 20 billion and $30 billion annually due to China’s cyberespionage. The 2018 U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Section 301 report highlighted instances, where the Chinese government and executives from Chinese companies engaged in clandestine cyber intrusions to obtaining commercially valuable information from the U.S. businesses, such as in 2018 where officials from China’s Ministry of State Security, stole trade from General Electric aviation and other aerospace companies.
China's response to the US accusations of cyber espionage
China's perspective on cyber espionage is outlined by its 2014 anti-espionage law, which was revised in 2023. Article 1 of this legislation is formulated to prevent, halt, and punish espionage actions to maintain national security. Article 4 addresses the act of espionage and does not differentiate between state-sponsored cyber espionage for economic purposes and state-sponsored cyber espionage for national security purposes. However, China doesn't make a clear difference between government-to-government hacking (spying) and government-to-corporate sector hacking, unlike the US. This distinction is less apparent in China due to its strong state-owned enterprise (SOE) sector. However, military spying is considered part of the national interest in the US, while corporate spying is considered a crime.
China asserts that the US has established cyber norms concerning cyber espionage to normalize public attribution as acceptable conduct. This is achieved by targeting China for cyber operations, imposing sanctions on accused Chinese individuals, and making political accusations, such as blaming China and Russia for meddling in US elections. Despite all this, Washington D.C has never taken responsibility for the infamous Flame and Stuxnet cyber operations, which were widely recognized as part of a broader collaborative initiative known as Operation Olympic Games between the US and Israel. Additionally, the US takes the lead in surveillance activities conducted against China, Russia, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, and several French presidents. Surveillance programs such as Irritant Horn, Stellar Wind, Bvp47, the Hive, and PRISM are recognized as tools used by the US to monitor both allies and adversaries to maintain global hegemony.
China urges the US to cease its smear campaign associated with Volt Typhoon’s cyberattack for cyber espionage, citing the publication of a report titled “Volt Typhoon: A Conspiratorial Swindling Campaign Targets with U.S. Congress and Taxpayers Conducted by U.S. Intelligence Community” by China's National Computer Virus Emergency Response Centre and the 360 Digital Security Group on 15 April. According to the report, 'Volt Typhoon' is a ransomware cyber criminal group self-identified as the 'Dark Power' and is not affiliated with any state or region. Multiple cybersecurity authorities in the US collaborated to fabricate this story just for more budgets from Congress. In the meantime, Microsoft and other U.S. cybersecurity firms are seeking more big contracts from US cybersecurity authorities. The reality behind “Volt Typhoon '' is a conspiratorial swindling campaign to achieve two objectives by amplifying the "China threat theory" and cheating money from the U.S. Congress and taxpayers.
Beijing condemned the US claims of cyber espionage without any solid evidence. China also blames the US for economic espionage by citing the European Parliament report that the National Security Agency (NSA) was also involved in assisting Boeing in beating Airbus for a multi-billion dollar contract. Furthermore, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff also accused the US authorities of spying against the state-owned oil company “Petrobras” for economic reasons.
Conclusion
In 2015, the US and China marked a milestone as both President Xi Jinping and Barack Obama signed an agreement, committing that neither country's government would conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of trade secrets, intellectual property, or other confidential business information to grant competitive advantages to firms or commercial sectors. However, the China Cybersecurity Industry Alliance (CCIA) published a report titled 'US Threats and Sabotage to the Security and Development of Global Cyberspace' in 2024, highlighting the US escalating cyber-attack and espionage activities against China and other nations. Additionally, there has been a considerable increase in the volume and sophistication of Chinese hacking since 2016. According to a survey by the Center for International and Strategic Studies, out of 224 cyber espionage incidents reported since 2000, 69% occurred after Xi assumed office. Therefore, China and the US must address cybersecurity issues through dialogue and cooperation, utilizing bilateral and multilateral agreements.
Executive Summary
A video of Bollywood actor Akshay Kumar is being widely shared on social media with the claim that he commented on the documentary series “Declassified: Operation Sindoor,” which is based on the military operations carried out by the Indian armed forces against Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack in April 2025. In the viral clip, Kumar purportedly says that the documentary is performing very well, while the Indian Army's actual performance during Operation Sindoor was “nothing special.” The Research Wing of CyberPeace found that the viral video has been manipulated. Kumar did not make any such remarks about the documentary or the Indian Army.
Claim
A post on X allegedly shows Akshay Kumar saying that the recently released documentary “Declassified: Operation Sindoor” is doing well, while the Indian Army's actual performance during the operation was “nothing special.”
https://x.com/StrategicVang/status/2089563446597636212?s=20
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we conducted a Google search using keywords such as “Akshay Kumar,” “Operation Sindoor” and “documentary.” The search did not yield any credible media report confirming that Kumar had made the alleged remarks. We also checked Kumar’s official social media accounts but found no post or video in which he commented on “Declassified: Operation Sindoor” or criticised the Indian Army’s battlefield performance.
https://www.facebook.com/akshaykumarofficial/
We then conducted a reverse image search of key frames from the viral video. This led us to an X post by Lokmat Times Nagpur, which carries the same visuals seen in the viral clip. The post was published on December 10, 2025, and its watermark is also visible in the viral footage. This establishes that the original footage was available well before the documentary’s release. In the original video, Kumar can be seen speaking about the Indian Street Premier League, and not the “Declassified: Operation Sindoor” documentary or the Indian Army.
https://x.com/LokmatTimes_ngp/status/1998460903415595252
We further analysed the viral video using multiple AI-detection tools. Hive Moderation indicated a high probability of AI-generated/deepfake content
Another detector classified Kumar’s voice as likely deepfake, while Resemble AI also flagged the audio as fake.
Conclusion
The viral video has been digitally manipulated to make it appear as though Akshay Kumar commented on the “Declassified: Operation Sindoor” documentary and criticised the Indian Army’s performance during Operation Sindoor. The original footage predates the documentary and shows Kumar speaking about the Indian Street Premier League. The viral claim is false.
Introduction
Freedom of speech and expression is fundamental to democracy and is constitutionally entrenched in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The explosion of online spaces, brought about by the digital age, in the form of social media, blogs, and messaging apps, has reinterpreted how information is authored, disseminated, and consumed. This digital revolution has galvanised individuals to engage further inclusively in public debate, but has also fanatically magnified the risks of misinformation, hate speech, and threats to public order. Against this background, the judiciary is increasingly called upon to determine the limits of free speech, primarily where state regulation seeks to infringe upon constitutional protection.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework related to Freedom of Speech
The judiciary plays an integral role in balancing the fundamental right of freedom of speech with the regulation of online content, especially during the fast-paced evolution of the digital world. In India, with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech, the courts bear the critical responsibility of protecting this liberty while recognising the State's legitimate interests in restricting harmful or unlawful content on a digital scale. This adjudicatory dilemma is even trickier because the said right has been held by the Supreme Court not to be an absolute one and is subject to "reasonable restrictions" as in Article 19(2), which recognises restrictions in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, decency, and morality. Freedom of speech, being the cornerstone of democracy in India, does have an umbrella of reasonable restrictions under which the state can regulate any form of speech that infringes upon other equally compelling societal interests. However, with the coming of the internet and other digital communication arrangements, there was a need to develop new statutory instruments, i.e., Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and Rules made thereunder, including Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021. These enactments attempt to regulate digital content, confronting issues such as hate speech, misinformation, and content that threatens public order. The judiciary's mandate is to interpret the enactments within the constitutional precincts, thus ensuring that the arbitrariness of State action is not aggravated or that the regulation is not overbroad. Judicial Landmark Decisions Affirming Balance The judiciary has played a front-ranking role in elaborating a jurisprudence protecting free speech in delineating legitimate regulation thereof. The Supreme Court judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015, is seminal. Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down as it was vague and overly broad, causing a chilling effect on online speech. The Court has emphasised that any limitation on speech must be precise and fall strictly within the parameters laid down in Article 19(2). While the Court recognises that harmful online content needs to be addressed, the remedy must not encroach upon free political debate, satire, and criticism vital for democracy.
Following this, the Anuradha Bhasin case clarified the convergence of free speech and online access. The court held that the right to free speech had a vital medium in the form of the internet and that it would have to be an inevitable, proportionate shutdown, and transparent for challenge before the judiciary for any shutdown of the internet. This reaffirmed that restrictions on online speech must be rigorously tested.
Subsequent cases involve limitations on the 2021 IT Rules, whereby such government bodies can demand that “fake” or “misleading” material be taken off the internet. Courts move with circumspection, recognising the government's interest in fighting bogus information but remaining vigilant against over-regulation that can be code for pre-emptive censorship and threatening healthy discourses.
The virtual world raises particular and deeper questions: the viral nature of online speech multiplies its impact, distributing both democratic ideas and abusive material instantaneously. The courts recognise this twinning. While pressurising the legislature and executive to formulate clearer, more precise rules, courts simultaneously act as constitutional Guardians, avoiding breaches of the right with executive excess or vague laws. There is a strain between judicial activism, which promotes constitutional rights aggressively, and the fear of judicial paternalism, courts overreaching into policy arenas. But there is a need for vigilance by the judiciary due to the rapidly changing nature of digital technologies and threats to the freedoms of democracy. The judiciary continues to give contours to free speech and online regulation. There are enforcement issues, such as ongoing abuse of struck-down provisions, such as Section 66A, that the court counters with reaffirmation of constitutional directives. The evolving jurisprudence balances on thin stilts, upholding the democratic spirit of India by securing speech on online spaces and sanctioning reasonable, transparent moderation of harmful speech.
Conclusion
The Indian judiciary's leadership in balancing online content regulation with the freedom of speech is central and refined. The courts continually emphasise that speech on the digital medium is highly constitutionally protected and that restrictions must be legally valid, specific, essential, and proportionate. By classical decisions and constant review of new regulating actions, courts safeguard democratic participation in the digital public domain from unmeritorious censorship. Concurrently, the courts recognize the responsibility of the state in regulating digital ills such as mis recipe and hate speech, demanding parameters that uphold constitutional freedoms and the due process. The balancing act of the judiciary continues to be fundamental in defining India's digital democracy so that free speech can thrive even as the state upholds public order and human dignity in the digital communication age.
