#FactCheck - Viral Claim of Highway in J&K Proven Misleading

Introduction

Since the inception of the Internet and social media platforms like Facebook, X (Twitter), Instagram, etc., the government and various other stakeholders in both foreign jurisdictions and India have looked towards the intermediaries to assume responsibility for the content floated on these platforms, and various legal provisions showcase that responsibility. For the first time in many years, these intermediaries come together to moderate the content by setting a standard for the creators and propagators of this content. The influencer marketing industry in India is at a crucial juncture, with its market value projected to exceed Rs. 3,375 crore by 2026. But every industry is coupled with its complications; like in this scenario, there is a section of content creators who fail to maintain the standard of integrity and propagate content that raises concerns of authenticity and transparency, often violating intellectual property rights (IPR) and privacy. 

As influencer marketing continues to shape digital consumption, the need for ethical and transparent content grows stronger. To address this, the India Influencer Governing Council (IIGC) has released its Code of Standards, aiming to bring accountability and structure to the fast-evolving online space.

Bringing Accountability to the Digital Fame Game

The India Influencer Governing Council (IIGC), established on 15th February, 2025, is founded with the objective to empower creators, advocate for fair policies, and promote responsible content creation. The IIGC releases the Code of Standard, not a moment too soon; it arrives just in time, a necessary safeguard before social media devolves into a chaotic marketplace where anything and everything is up for grabs. Without effective regulation, digital platforms become the marketplace for misinformation and exploitation. 

The IIGC leads the movement with clarity, stating that the Code is a significant piece that spans across 20 crucial sections governing key areas such as paid partnership disclosures, AI-generated personas, content safety, and financial compliance. 

Highlights from the Code of Standard

• The Code exhibits a technical understanding of the industry of content creation and influencer marketing. The preliminary sections advocate for accuracy, transparency, and maintaining credibility with the audience that engages with the content. Secondly, the most fundamental development is with regard to the “Paid Partnership Disclosure” included in Section 2 of the Code that mandates disclosure of any material connection, such as financial agreements or collaboration with the brand.
• Another development, which potently comes at a befitting hour, is the disclosure of “AI Influencers”, which establishes that the nature of the influencer has to be disclosed, and such influencers, whether fully virtual or partially AI-enhanced, must maintain the same standards as any human influencer. 
• The code ranges across various other aspects of influencer marketing, such as expressing unpaid “Admiration” for the brand and public criticism of the brand, being free from personal bias, honouring financial agreements, non-discrimination, and various other standards that set the stage for a safe and fair digital sphere. 
• The Code also necessitates that the platform users and the influencers handle sexual and sensitive content with sincere deliberation, and usage of such content shall be for educational and health-related contexts and must not be used against community standards. The Code includes various other standards that work towards making digital platforms safer for younger generations and impressionable minds. 

A Code Without Claws? Challenges in Enforcement 

The biggest obstacle to the effective implementation of the code is distinguishing between an honest promotion and a paid brand collaboration without any explicit mention of such an agreement. This makes influencer marketing susceptible to manipulation, and the manipulation cannot be tackled with a straitjacket formula, as it might be found in the form of exaggerated claims or omission of critical information.  

Another hurdle is the voluntary compliance of the influencers with the advertising standards. Influencer marketing is an exercise in a borderless digital cyberspace, where the influencers often disregard the dignified standards to maximise their earnings and commercial motives. 

The debate between self-regulation and government oversight is constantly churning, where experience tells us that overreliance on self-regulation has proven to be inadequate, and succinct regulatory oversight is imperative in light of social media platforms operating as a transnational commercial marketplace. 

CyberPeace Recommendations

• Introduction of a licensing framework for influencers that fall into the “highly followed” category with high engagement, who are more likely to shape the audience’s views. 
• Usage of technology to align ethical standards with influencer marketing practices, ensuring that misleading advertisements do not find a platform to deceive innocent individuals.
• Educating the audience or consumers on the internet about the ramifications of negligence and their rights in the digital marketplace. Ensuring a well-established grievance redressal mechanism via digital regulatory bodies. 
• Continuous and consistent collaboration and cooperation between influencers, brands, regulators, and consumers to establish an understanding and foster transparency and a unified objective to curb deceptive advertising practices. 

References

• https://iigc.org/code-of-standards/influencers/code-of-standards-v1-april.pdf
• https://legalonus.com/the-impact-of-influencer-marketing-on-consumer-rights-and-false-advertising/
• https://exhibit.social/news/india-influencer-governing-council-iigc-launched-to-shape-the-future-of-influencer-marketing/

‍

Introduction

On April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment that cast a sharp light on one of the most overlooked yet pressing issues in modern governance—digital inequity. In a country that has a staggering 900 million Internet users, the ruling highlights a disheartening reality, a paradox that brings the “digital divide” to centre stage. While India may be the world’s second-largest online market, a significant segment of its population remains digitally disenfranchised. The judgment, delivered in response to two interconnected petitions, underscored that access to the internet is no longer a luxury but a lifeline integral to exercising fundamental rights. The court pointed out in clear terms that the government must build a digital ecosystem that is inclusive and accessible to all and attributed the right to digital access as an intrinsic part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 as enshrined under the Indian Constitution. 

Understanding the Context: What Prompted the Petitions? 

The judgment springs out of two writ petitions, which sought instructions or guidelines for people with blindness or limited vision and acid attack survivors, respectively, to conduct digital Know Your Customer (KYC)/e-KYC/video KYC mandated by RBI’s KYC Master Directions, 2016, which were reserved for judgment on January 28. The court delivered the judgment on April 30, 2025, emphasising the fact that true inclusion in this digital era is confounded in an inclusive digital infrastructure, and it must provide reasonable accommodation to those who face impediments due to any disability or disfigurement. 

In consonance with its view, it laid down various guidelines that ensure that all persons with disabilities or acid attack survivors are treated even when digital processes are involved in accordance with the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “RPwD Act”)

Another major observation made by the Honourable SC judges is that the mode of facilitation of government services is through digital platforms, i.e., e-governance, and access to all these welfare schemes is the right of every citizen, irrespective of the fact that they suffer from any disability. The failure of the provisioning of e-governance of these facilities to these individuals is a gross failure of the objectives of these schemes. 

Key Observations and Directives

The court directed the government to release fresh guidelines that establish alternative methods to conduct digital KYC/e-KYC for all persons who suffer any impairment, low vision, or disfigurement with greater sensitivity, particularly for acid-attack survivors. The court made its intention very clear that the right to digital access is intrinsic to the right to life and liberty. All the tasks that are included within the ambit of digital KYC, such as pen-on-paper signatures, screen signatures, and the brief window for OTP entry, create an inaccessible and exclusionary framework, violating not just the dignity but the legal rights granted protection under the RPwD Act, 2016. The ruling directs a fundamental reimagining of digital governance through the lens of inclusion, equality, and dignity. 

Conclusion

The court is not mincing its words when it declares digital accessibility as a constitutional imperative; it has made it clear that bridging the digital divide is no longer optional but a legal duty. The decision marks the new beginning and a propeller of digital transformation, and a delightful amalgamation of digital access and the rights of people. The effect of this judgment will not be restricted to one class of people. Still, it will cater to all those individuals who face these obstacles on a daily basis due to the exclusionary nature of digital platforms. 

References

• https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/right-to-digital-access-part-of-article-21-supreme-court-directs-to-make-ekyc-process-accessible-to-persons-with-disabilities-290778

‍

Introduction 

The Data Protection Data Privacy Act 2023 is the most essential step towards protecting, prioritising, and promoting the users’ privacy and data protection. The Act is designed to prioritize user consent in data processing while assuring uninterrupted services like online shopping, intermediaries, etc. The Act specifies that once a user provides consent to the following intermediary platforms, the platforms can process the data until the user withdraws the rights of it. This policy assures that the user has the entire control over their data and is accountable for its usage.

‍

A keen Outlook 

The Following Act also provides highlights for user-specific purpose, which is limited to data processing. This step prevents the misuse of data and also ensures that the processed data is being for the purpose for which it was obtained at the initial stage from the user.

1. Data Fudiary and Processing of Online Shopping Platforms: The Act Emphasises More on Users’ Consent. Once provided, the Data Fudiary can constantly process the data until it is specifically withdrawn by the Data Principal.

• Detailed Analysis

• Consent as a Foundation: The Act places the user's consent as a backbone to the data processing. It sets clear boundaries for data processing. It can be Collecting, Processing, and Storing, and must comply with users’ consent before being used.
• Uninterrupted Data processing: With the given user consent, the intermediaries are not time-restrained. As long as the user does not obligate their consent, the process will be ongoing.

2. Consent and Order Fulfillment: Consent, once provided, encloses all the activities related to the specific purpose for which it was meant to the data it was given for subsequent actions such as order fulfilment. 

• Detailed Analysis

• Purpose-Limited Consent: The consent given is purpose-limited. The platform cannot misuse the obtained data for its personal use.
• Seamless User Experience: By ensuring that the user consent covers the full transactions, spared from the unwanted annoyance of repeated consent requests from the actual ongoing activities. 

3. Data Retention and Rub Out on Online Platforms: Platforms must ensure data minimisation post its utilisation period. This extends to any kind of third-party processors they might take on.

• Detailed Analysis

• Minimization and Security Assurance: By compulsory data removal on post ultization,This step helps to reduce the volume of data platforms hold, which leads to minimizing the risk to data.
• Third-Party Accountability, User Privacy Protection. 

‍

Influence from Global frameworks

The impactful changes based on global trends and similar legislation( European Union’s GDPR) here are some fruitful changes in intermediaries and social media platforms experienced after the implementation of the DPDP Act 2023.

1. Solidified Consent Mechanism: Platforms and intermediatries need to ensure the users’ consent is categorically given, and informed, and should be specific to which the data is obtained. This step may lead to user-friendly consent forms activities and prompts. 
2. Data Minimizations: Platforms that tend to need to collect the only data necessary for the specific purpose mentioned and not retain information beyond its utility.
3. Transparency and Accountability: Data collecting Platforms need to ensure transparency in data collecting, data processing, and sharing practices. This involves more detailed policy and regular audits.
4. Data Portability: Users have the right to request for a copy of their own data used in format, allowing them to switch platforms effectively.
5. Right to Obligation: Users can have the request right to deletion of their data, also referred to as the “Right to be forgotten”.
6. Prescribed Reporting: Under circumstances of data breaches, intermediary platforms are required to report the issues and instability to the regulatory authorities within a specific timeline.
7. Data Protection Authorities: Due to the increase in data breaches, Large platforms indeed appoint data protection officers, which are responsible for the right compliance with data protection guidelines.
8. Disciplined Policies: Non-compliance might lead to a huge amount of fines, making it indispensable to invest in data protection measures.
9. Third-Party Audits: Intermediaries have to undergo security audits by external auditors to ensure they are meeting the expeditions of the following compliances.
10. Third-Party Information Sharing Restrictions: Sharing personal information and users’ data with third parties (such as advertisers) come with more detailed and disciplined guideline and user consent.

‍

Conclusion 

The Data Protection Data Privacy Act 2023 prioritises user consent, ensuring uninterrupted services and purpose-limited data processing. It aims to prevent data misuse, emphasising seamless user experiences and data minimisation. Drawing inspiration from global frameworks like the EU's GDPR, it introduces solidified consent mechanisms, transparency, and accountability. Users gain rights such as data portability and data deletion requests. Non-compliance results in significant fines. This legislation sets a new standard for user privacy and data protection, empowering users and holding platforms accountable. In an evolving digital landscape, it plays a crucial role in ensuring data security and responsible data handling.

‍

References:

• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/privacy-protection/1355068/data-protection-law-in-india-analysis-of-dpdp-act-2023-for-businesses--part-i
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/explained-indias-new-digital-personal-data-protection-framework-101691912775654.html

‍