#FactCheck - Manipulated Image Alleging Disrespect Towards PM Circulates Online
Executive Summary:
A manipulated image showing someone making an offensive gesture towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi is circulating on social media. However, the original photo does not display any such behavior towards the Prime Minister. The CyberPeace Research Team conducted an analysis and found that the genuine image was published in a Hindustan Times article in May 2019, where no rude gesture was visible. A comparison of the viral and authentic images clearly shows the manipulation. Moreover, The Hitavada also published the same image in 2019. Further investigation revealed that ABPLive also had the image.
Claims:
A picture showing an individual making a derogatory gesture towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being widely shared across social media platforms.
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the news, we immediately ran a reverse search of the image and found an article by Hindustan Times, where a similar photo was posted but there was no sign of such obscene gestures shown towards PM Modi.
ABP Live and The Hitavada also have the same image published on their website in May 2019.
Comparing both the viral photo and the photo found on official news websites, we found that almost everything resembles each other except the derogatory sign claimed in the viral image.
With this, we have found that someone took the original image, published in May 2019, and edited it with a disrespectful hand gesture, and which has recently gone viral across social media and has no connection with reality.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, a manipulated picture circulating online showing someone making a rude gesture towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been debunked by the Cyberpeace Research team. The viral image is just an edited version of the original image published in 2019. This demonstrates the need for all social media users to check/ verify the information and facts before sharing, to prevent the spread of fake content. Hence the viral image is fake and Misleading.
- Claim: A picture shows someone making a rude gesture towards Prime Minister Narendra Modi
- Claimed on: X, Instagram
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
Related Blogs
Introduction
In an extensive order of 144 pages passed on May 29, 2026, Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court inter alia affirmed the right of an acquitted or discharged person to reinstate their digital identity. In a batch of more than 30 petitions relating to acquittals, family dispute cases, quashed criminal cases, and parties to proceedings, the petitioners argued that court documents and accusations, having lost their purpose, have kept occupying the search engine, leading to infringement of dignity, privacy, and career and personal life of these individuals. Citing Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as its foundation, the court affirmed that a right to life and personal liberty also includes a right to privacy and to leave behind failed proceedings and adopted wide de-indexing policies, including, where necessary, global de-indexing, thereby ushering in India's "right to be forgotten."
The Constitutional Argument: Article 21 and the Digital Self
The constitutional basis of the right to be forgotten in India rests on the landmark nine-judge bench ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled privacy to be a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and stated informational privacy is a facet of personal liberty. The Supreme Court observed that individuals have an interest in determining how the information concerning them is gathered, disseminated, and accessed.
Building upon this precedent, Justice Sachin Datta held that the right to be forgotten flows naturally from the constitutional guarantee of informational privacy. The judgment represents one of the most significant judicial applications of the Puttaswamy principles, particularly in the context of search engines and online judicial records. Noting the absence of a fully operational statutory framework despite the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the court exercised its constitutional jurisdiction to protect individuals from enduring digital harm caused by continued public accessibility of outdated or irrelevant personal information.
INDIAN APPLICATION OF THE GLOBAL PRECEDENT
Tracing back the genesis of this right, it lies in the worldwide jurisdiction on privacy, especially the European Court of Justice's landmark ruling of 2014 in Google Spain SL v. AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzlez, where it ruled that it is within one's power to ask search engines to de-list links that show personal information that is found to be outdated or irrelevant. This led to a legislated right to erasure by the inclusion of Article 17 in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), creating the right throughout the EU. India, on the other hand, saw a slow process of evolution when it came to this right. The Madras High Court acknowledged the right to be forgotten partially in 2021 when it directed a petitioner's name to be deleted from an acquittal judgment, which was affirmed by a Division Bench in 2024. Nevertheless, the above were merely judgments confined to the facts of a particular case. However, the decision of the Delhi High Court dated May 2026 proves to be the benchmark in laying down a comprehensive constitutional framework under Article 21 with guiding principles on when a request for de-linking would be entertained and, if warranted, would be extended throughout the world.
Anatomy of the Framework by the Delhi High Court
While Justice Sachin Datta’s ruling recognizes the right to be forgotten, its actual import lies in devising an operative framework. The Court noted that it would maintain judicial records indefinitely in keeping with open justice principles, but an individual's name may not act as a perennial search key with respect to private entities' search engines. Thus, courts will be allowed to de-index judicial records (except their legal reasoning, findings, and ratio decidendi, which will continue to be accessible) from the names appearing therein from search engines and legal databases. While personally identifying data will be obfuscated, the underlying legal reasoning will not be rendered unusable, as access to unredacted records will continue to be available to courts, parties, and authorities. Such orders are also possible to be effective internationally, rendering avoidance difficult. However, the right cannot be absolute, as it is largely unavailable for convicted individuals (particularly if convicted of offenses against women or children or crimes of breach of trust). Courts must pass a proportionality test in considering the balance between privacy and the public right to know. By stating that masking information has an impact on discoverability, not access, it achieves a reconciliation between informational privacy and open justice so that acquitted accused are not held hostage to past accusations forever in the online age.
The Road to Implementation
However, the judgment presents a thick knot of practical issues, the solution to which may take considerable time to untangle. How will petitions for masking orders be filed by those who need them? Will there be a prescribed form? How will legal database systems such as Indian Kanoon and SCC Online operationalize name-based de-indexing while keeping their vast archives usable for lawyers? More significantly, what kind of legal force will global directions for de-indexing hold over those search engines whose main servers lie outside of Indian territory?
This is not to say the judgment isn't important. It simply presents a predictable, almost mundane set of issues that all ambitious pronouncements on constitutional rights face when translated into the world of administration issues that came up even when the EU was first struggling with enforcing the GDPR in 2018. India now has its framework, and the details of its implementation will undoubtedly come through future rounds of litigation, guidelines, and perhaps even legislation.
What remains abundantly clear, though, is the message conveyed by the Delhi High Court that digital permanency is a crime, especially when it causes the most incriminating of a person's legal actions to follow them perpetually, even long after they have been given due process by the system. As Justice Datta eloquently put it, privacy in the digital age is 'not about secrecy but about an individual's control over the dissemination of personal information.' "Now an element of constitutional law in India, the verdict is a declaration that will resonate long beyond the thirty-odd petitions that called it into being.
Conclusion
The ultimate finding of the 2026 right-to-be-forgotten judgment in Delhi High Court reinforces human dignity in the digital era. The Court has acknowledged the need for acquittals and exonerations to have meaningful implications offline, ensuring an individual is not eternally punished through online searches for alleged wrongdoing. Building on the right to privacy established by K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, informational privacy now stands at the core of constitutional guarantees, and India joins the nations establishing precedents to balance openness with dignity.
Executive Summary
A video of BJP MP Ravi Kishan is being widely circulated on social media with the claim that the Gorakhpur MP was mocking Prime Minister Narendra Modi and criticizing his working style and frequent foreign visits.In the viral clip, Ravi Kishan can be heard saying that “he likes to travel,” “comes to Parliament only for a few minutes,” and does not like pressure or responsibility. The clip also features him using phrases such as “azad panchhi” (free bird) and “azad parinda.” However, CyberPeace Research Wingresearch found the claim to be misleading. The research revealed that in the original video, Ravi Kishan was actually criticizing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. A cropped portion of his statement is being shared out of context with a false claim.
Claim
An X (formerly Twitter) user shared the viral clip and wrote that Ravi Kishan was referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, alleging that Modi enjoys travelling abroad, spends little time in Parliament, and feels uncomfortable under pressure.
- https://x.com/Aarti202/status/2058523226305900586
- https://archive.ph/j5MaV
Fact Check
To verify the viral claim, we performed a reverse search using key frames from the video. During the research, we found the original video uploaded on the Facebook page of ANI on May 13, 2026.
The caption of the post read:“War does not seem to be ending…” Ravi Kishan warns the country about the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.At around the 4-minute-40-second timestamp, an ANI reporter asks Ravi Kishan about Rahul Gandhi distancing himself from the CBI Director selection process. Responding to that question, Ravi Kishan makes the remarks that later went viral.
This clearly establishes that Ravi Kishan was not referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, but was commenting on Rahul Gandhi. In his response, he says that “it is good that he has freed himself” and refers to Rahul Gandhi as an “azad parinda” (free bird).
During the research, we also found the same video posted on Ravi Kishan’s official X account on May 23. The caption of the post stated:“Congress should now free its prince Rahul Gandhi.”This further confirms that the viral clip has been misleadingly edited and shared out of context
Conclusion
The research found that Ravi Kishan’s remarks in the original video were directed at Rahul Gandhi, not Prime Minister Narendra Modi. An edited portion of the video has been falsely shared with a misleading claim.
Introduction
Due to the rapid growth of high-capability AI systems around the world, growing concerns regarding safety, accountability, and governance have arisen throughout the world; thus, California has responded by passing the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA), the first state statute focused on "frontier" (highly capable) AI models. This statute is unique in that it does not only target harms caused by AI models in the form of consumer protection as compared to the majority of state statutes; rather, this statute addresses the catastrophic and systemic risks to society associated with large-scale AI systems. As California is a global technology leader, the TFAIA is positioned to have a significant impact on both domestic regulation and the evolution of international legal frameworks for AI technology (and as such has the potential to influence corporate compliance practices and the establishment of global norms related to the use of AI).
Understanding the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act
The Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act provides a specific regulatory process for companies that create sophisticated AI systems with societal, economic, or national security implications. Covered developers are required to publish an extensive safety and transparency policy that details how they navigate risk throughout the artificial intelligence lifecycle. The act requires developers to notify the government of any significant incidents or failures with their deployed frontier models on a timely basis.
A significant aspect of the TFAIA is that it establishes the concept of "process transparency", which does not explicitly control how AI developers create their models, but rather holds them accountable for their internal safety governance by mandating that they develop Documented safety frameworks that outline risk assessment, mitigation, and monitoring processes. The act allows developers to protect their trade secrets, patents, and national defense concerns by providing them with limited opportunities for exemption and/or redaction of their documents so that they can maintain a balance between data openness and safeguarding sensitive information..
Extraterritorial Impact on Global AI Developers
While the Act is a state law, its implementation has far-reaching effects. Many of the largest AI companies have facilities, research labs or customers in California. Therefore, to be compliant with the TFAIA, these companies are required to do so commercially. The ability to develop a unified compliance model across regions enables companies to avoid developing duplicate compliance models.
This same pattern has occurred in other regulatory areas, like data protection regulations; where a region's regulations effectively became global compliance benchmarks for that regulatory area. The TFAIA could similarly serve as a global standard for transparency in frontier AI and shape how companies build their governance structure globally even if they don't have explicit regulations in the regions where they operate.
Influence on International AI Regulatory Models
The TFAIA offers a unique perspective on global discussions about regulating AI. In contrast to other legislation which defines different levels of risk depending on the type of AI, the TFAIA targets specifically high-impact or emerging technologies. Other nations may see value in this model of tiered regulations based on capability and apply it for their own regulation of AI, with the strictest obligations placed on those with the most critical potential harm.
The TFAIA may serve as a guide for international public policy makers by showing how they can reference existing standards and best practices in developing regulations, thus improving interoperability and potentially lessening regulatory barriers to cross-border AI innovations.
Corporate Governance, Compliance Costs, and Competition
From an industry perspective, the Act revolutionizes the way companies govern themselves. Developers are now required to create thorough risk assessments, red-teaming exercises, incident response protocols, and have board oversight for AI safety and regulation. The number of people involved in this process increases accountability but at the same time the increases will create a burden of cost for all involved.
The burden of compliance will be easier for large tech companies than for smaller or start-ups, and thus large tech companies may solidify their position of dominance over the development of frontier AI. Smaller and newer developers may be blocked from entering the market unless some form of proportional or scaled compliance mechanism for where they operate emerges. These developments certainly raise issues surrounding innovation policy and competition law at a global scale that will need to be addressed by regulators in conjunction with AI safety concerns.
Transparency, Public Trust, and Accountability
The TFAIA bolsters the capability of citizens, researchers and journalists to oversee the development and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) through its requirement for public disclosure of the safety framework of AI systems. The disclosures will allow citizens, researchers and journalists to critically evaluate corporate claims of responsible AI development. Over time, this evaluation could increase trust in publically regulated AI systems and would expose businesses that exhibit a poor risk management process.
However, how useful this transparency is depends on the quality and comparability of the information being disclosed. Many current disclosures are either too vague or too complex, thus limiting the ability to conduct meaningful oversight. There should be a push for clearer guidance and/or the establishment of standardised disclosure forms for the purposes of public accountability (i.e., citizens) and uniformity between countries.
Conclusion
The Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act is a transformative development in the regulation of Artificial Intelligence Technology, specifically, a whole new risk profile of this new generation of AI / (Advanced High-Powered) Technologies such as Autonomous Vehicles. This new California law will create global impact because it Be will change how technology companies operate, create regulatory frameworks and develop standards to govern/oversee the use of Autonomous Vehicles. The Act creates a “transparent” means for regulating (or governing) Autonomous Vehicles as opposed to relying solely on “technical” means for these systems. As other regions experience similar challenges that US Government is facing with respect to this new generation of AI (written laws), California's approach will likely be used as an example for how AI laws are written in the future and develop a more unified and responsible international AI regulatory framework.
References
- https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/california-enacts-landmark-ai-transparency-law-transparency-frontier-artificial
- https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/09/29/governor-newsom-signs-sb-53-advancing-californias-world-leading-artificial-intelligence-industry/
- https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/251001-california-enacts-ai-safety-transparency-regulation-tfaia-sb-53
- https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2025/10/california-law-mandates-increased-developer-transparency-for-large-ai-models
