#FactCheck - False Claim of Italian PM Congratulating on Ram Temple, Reveals Birthday Thanks

Executive Summary:

A viral message is circulating claiming the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has banned the use of black ink for writing cheques. This information is incorrect. The RBI has not issued any such directive, and cheques written in black ink remain valid and acceptable. 

‍

Claim:

‍

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued new guidelines prohibiting using black ink for writing cheques. As per the claimed directive, cheques must now be written exclusively in blue or green ink.

‍Fact Check: 

‍

Upon thorough verification, it has been confirmed that the claim regarding the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issuing a directive banning the use of black ink for writing cheques is entirely false. No such notification, guideline, or instruction has been released by the RBI in this regard. Cheques written in black ink remain valid, and the public is advised to disregard such unverified messages and rely only on official communications for accurate information. 

As stated by the Press Information Bureau (PIB), this claim is false The Reserve Bank of India has not prescribed specific ink colors to be used for writing cheques. There is a mention of the color of ink to be used in point number 8, which discusses the care customers should take while writing cheques.

‍

‍

Conclusion:   

The claim that the Reserve Bank of India has banned the use of black ink for writing cheques is completely false. No such directive, rule, or guideline has been issued by the RBI. Cheques written in black ink are valid and acceptable. The RBI has not prescribed any specific ink color for writing cheques, and the public is advised to disregard unverified messages. While general precautions for filling out cheques are mentioned in RBI advisories, there is no restriction on the color of the ink. Always refer to official sources for accurate information.

• Claim: The new RBI ink guidelines are mandatory from a specified date.
• Claimed On: Social Media
• Fact Check:  False and Misleading 

‍

Introduction

The mysteries of the universe have been a subject of curiosity for humans over thousands of years. To solve these unfolding mysteries of the universe, astrophysicists are always busy, and with the growing technology this seems to be achievable. Recently, with the help of Artificial Intelligence (AI), scientists have discovered the depths of the cosmos. AI has revealed the secret equation that properly “weighs” galaxy clusters. This groundbreaking discovery not only sheds light on the formation and behavior of these clusters but also marks a turning point in the investigation and discoveries of new cosmos. Scientists and AI have collaborated to uncover an astounding 430,000 galaxies strewn throughout the cosmos. The large haul includes 30,000 ring galaxies, which are considered the most unusual of all galaxy forms. The discoveries are the first outcomes of the "GALAXY CRUISE" citizen science initiative. They were given by 10,000 volunteers who sifted through data from the Subaru Telescope. After training the AI on 20,000 human-classified galaxies, scientists released it loose on 700,000 galaxies from the Subaru data. 

Brief Analysis

A group of astronomers from the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ) have successfully applied AI to ultra-wide field-of-view images captured by the Subaru Telescope. The researchers achieved a high accuracy rate in finding and classifying spiral galaxies, with the technique being used alongside citizen science for future discoveries.

Astronomers are increasingly using AI to analyse and clean raw astronomical images for scientific research. This involves feeding photos of galaxies into neural network algorithms, which can identify patterns in real data more quickly and less prone to error than manual classification. These networks have numerous interconnected nodes and can recognise patterns, with algorithms now 98% accurate in categorising galaxies.

Another application of AI is to explore the nature of the universe, particularly dark matter and dark energy, which make up over 95% energy of the universe. The quantity and changes in these elements have significant implications for everything from galaxy arrangement.

AI is capable of analysing massive amounts of data, as training data for dark matter and energy comes from complex computer simulations. The neural network is fed these findings to learn about the changing parameters of the universe, allowing cosmologists to target the network towards actual data.

These methods are becoming increasingly important as astronomical observatories generate enormous amounts of data. High-resolution photographs of the sky will be produced from over 60 petabytes of raw data by the Vera C. AI-assisted computers are being utilized for this.

Data annotation techniques for training neural networks include simple tagging and more advanced types like image classification, which classify an image to understand it as a whole. More advanced data annotation methods, such as semantic segmentation, involve grouping an image into clusters and giving each cluster a label.

This way, AI is being used for space exploration and is becoming a crucial tool. It also enables the processing and analysis of vast amounts of data. This advanced technology is fostering the understanding of the universe. However, clear policy guidelines and ethical use of technology should be prioritized while harnessing the true potential of contemporary technology. 

Policy Recommendation

• Real-Time Data Sharing and Collaboration - Effective policies and frameworks should be established to promote real-time data sharing among astronomers, AI developers and research institutes. Open access to astronomical data should be encouraged to facilitate better innovation and bolster the application of AI in space exploration. 
  

• Ethical AI Use - Proper guidelines and a well-structured ethical framework can facilitate judicious AI use in space exploration. The framework can play a critical role in addressing AI issues pertaining to data privacy, AI Algorithm bias and transparent decision-making processes involving AI-based tech. 
• Investing in Research and Development (R&D) in the AI sector - Government and corporate giants should prioritise this opportunity to capitalise on the avenue of AI R&D in the field of space tech and exploration. Such as funding initiatives focusing on developing AI algorithms coded for processing astronomical data, optimising telescope operations and detecting celestial bodies.
• Citizen Science and Public Engagement - Promotion of citizen science initiatives can allow better leverage of AI tools to involve the public in astronomical research. Prominent examples include the SETI @ Home program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), encouraging better outreach to educate and engage citizens in AI-enabled discovery programs such as the identification of exoplanets, classification of galaxies and discovery of life beyond earth through detecting anomalies in radio waves. 
• Education and Training - Training programs should be implemented to educate astronomers in AI techniques and the intricacies of data science. There is a need to foster collaboration between AI experts, data scientists and astronomers to harness the full potential of AI in space exploration. 
• Bolster Computing Infrastructure - Authorities should ensure proper computing infrastructure should be implemented to facilitate better application of AI in astronomy. This further calls for greater investment in high-performance computing devices and structures to process large amounts of data and AI modelling to analyze astronomical data. 

Conclusion

AI has seen an expansive growth in the field of space exploration. As seen, its multifaceted use cases include discovering new galaxies and classifying celestial objects by analyzing the changing parameters of outer space. Nevertheless, to fully harness its potential, robust policy and regulatory initiatives are required to bolster real-time data sharing not just within the scientific community but also between nations. Policy considerations such as investment in research, promoting citizen scientific initiatives and ensuring education and funding for astronomers. A critical aspect is improving key computing infrastructure, which is crucial for processing the vast amount of data generated by astronomical observatories. 

References

• https://mindy-support.com/news-post/astronomers-are-using-ai-to-make-discoveries/
• https://www.space.com/citizen-scientists-artificial-intelligence-galaxy-discovery
• https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240325114118.htm
• https://phys.org/news/2023-03-artificial-intelligence-secret-equation-galaxy.html
• https://www.space.com/astronomy-research-ai-future

‍

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 

‍