#FactCheck - Fake Graphic Falsely Claims Amit Shah Urged People to Skip Meals Amid Crisis Rumours

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. 

1. The generated information must be prominently labelled or embedded with a permanent, unique metadata or identifier. The label or metadata must be:

1. Visibly displayed or made audible in a prominent manner on or within that synthetically generated information.
2. 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.
3. 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. 

2. 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

‍

1. 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. 

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 

‍

1. Amendments To The Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules 2021 It Rules 2021 | Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology

2. https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/generative-ai/worldwide 

‍

Executive Summary

‍

A social media post featuring a graphic attributed to Navbharat Times and BJP MP Ravi Kishan is being widely circulated. The post falsely claims that Ravi Kishan made a controversial statement saying, “Narendra Modi should be ashamed, Meloni is of his granddaughter’s age.” CyberPeace Research Wing investigation found that the claim is false. In the original Navbharat Times postcard, Ravi Kishan is seen saying that people should stop criticising the Prime Minister, otherwise they may have to face consequences.

‍

Claim

‍

An X (formerly Twitter) user named “Prem Jai Moolnivasi Paswan” shared the viral post and alleged that Ravi Kishan made objectionable remarks targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

• https://www.facebook.com/premjaymulnivasi.paswan/posts/pfbid02Drv387K2ugesnP9vvbJXgqU7yTZkrUhVAB5y9euzHuxpigWa8uDEnu3E2T6oox8Wl?rdid=4VbtbVi1G8bgo12d 
• https://archive.ph/NHBXP

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

During the investigation, we searched for the alleged statement using relevant keywords but found no credible reports or evidence supporting the claim. We then examined Navbharat Times’ official social media handles. A similar-looking but authentic postcard was found on the official Facebook page of Navbharat Times (Uttar Pradesh) dated May 18, 2026.

The original post quoted Ravi Kishan differently, stating that criticism of the Prime Minister should be avoided, or else consequences may follow. Nowhere in the authentic post is the viral controversial remark mentioned.

• https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1506971284773126&set=a.685493923587537

‍

‍

Further investigation revealed that Navbharat Times itself issued a clarification on its official X handle, stating that the viral post is fake and that legal action would be taken against misuse of its name.

• https://x.com/NavbharatTimes/status/2058095280416051491?s=20 

Conclusion

‍

The viral claim is false. The authentic Navbharat Times postcard shows Ravi Kishan saying that criticism of the Prime Minister should be stopped, or there would be consequences. The viral graphic has been altered to spread misinformation.

‍

Introduction

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued an advisory on March 1 2024, urging platforms to prevent bias, discrimination, and threats to electoral integrity by using AI, generative AI, LLMs, or other algorithms. The advisory requires that AI models deemed unreliable or under-tested in India must obtain explicit government permission before deployment. While leveraging Artificial Intelligence models, Generative AI, software, or algorithms in their computer resources, Intermediaries and platforms need to ensure that they prevent bias, discrimination, and threats to electoral integrity. As Intermediaries are required to follow due diligence obligations outlined under “Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)Rules, 2021, updated as of 06.04.2023”. This advisory is issued to urge the intermediaries to abide by the IT rules and regulations and compliance therein.  

Key Highlights of the Advisories

• Intermediaries and platforms must ensure that users of Artificial Intelligence models/LLM/Generative AI, software, or algorithms do not allow users to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update, or share unlawful content, as per Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules. 
• The government emphasises intermediaries and platforms to prevent bias or discrimination in their use of Artificial Intelligence models, LLMs, and Generative AI, software, or algorithms, ensuring they do not threaten the integrity of the electoral process.
• The government requires explicit permission to use deemed under-testing or unreliable AI models, LLMs, or algorithms on the Indian internet. Further, it must be deployed with proper labelling of potential fallibility or unreliability.  Further, users can be informed through a consent popup mechanism.
• The advisory specifies that all users should be well informed about the consequences of dealing with unlawful information on platforms, including disabling access, removing non-compliant information, suspension or termination of access or usage rights of the user to their user account and imposing punishment under applicable law. It entails that users are clearly informed, through terms of services and user agreements, about the consequences of engaging with unlawful information on the platform. 
• The advisory also indicates measures advocating to combat deepfakes or misinformation. The advisory necessitates identifying synthetically created content across various formats, advising platforms to employ labels, unique identifiers, or metadata to ensure transparency. Furthermore, the advisory mandates the disclosure of software details and tracing the first originator of such synthetically created content.

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Union Minister of State for IT, specified that

“Advisory is aimed at the Significant platforms, and permission seeking from Meity is only for large platforms and will not apply to startups. Advisory is aimed at untested AI platforms from deploying on the Indian Internet. Process of seeking permission , labelling & consent based disclosure to user about untested platforms is insurance policy to platforms who can otherwise be sued by consumers. Safety & Trust of India's Internet is a shared and common goal for Govt, users and Platforms.”

Conclusion

MeitY's advisory sets the stage for a more regulated Al landscape. The Indian government requires explicit permission for the deployment of under-testing or unreliable Artificial Intelligence models on the Indian Internet. Alongside intermediaries, the advisory also applies to digital platforms that incorporate Al elements. Advisory is aimed at significant platforms and will not apply to startups. This move safeguards users and fosters innovation by promoting responsible AI practices, paving the way for a more secure and inclusive digital environment.

References 

• https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/03/04/meity_ai_advisory_1_march.pdf
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/govts-ai-advisory-will-not-apply-to-startups-mos-it-rajeev-chandrasekhar/articleshow/108197797.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Advisory%2015March%202024.pdf

‍