#FactCheck - Viral Clip Not Harish Rana’s Farewell, Linked to Surat Woman’s Organ Donation
Executive Summary
Amid reports that AIIMS Delhi has initiated the process to implement the Supreme Court’s decision allowing passive euthanasia for Harish Rana, a video is being shared on social media claiming to show his emotional farewell. However, research by the CyberPeace found the viral claim to be misleading. Our research revealed that the video has no connection to the Harish Rana case. In reality, the footage is from Surat, Gujarat, where the family of a 45-year-old brain-dead woman donated her organs.
Claim:
On social media platform X (formerly Twitter), a user shared the viral video on March 16, 2026, with the caption:
“Harish Rana… struggled for life for 13 years… in the end said goodbye to the world through euthanasia… but even while leaving, gave new life to many through organ donation… eyes, liver, kidneys and several other organs will give a new life to many…”
Post link and archive link are given below:
Fact Check
We took screenshots from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search. This led us to an Instagram handle where the same video was uploaded on January 27, 2026.
- https://www.instagram.com/reels/DUAt_42k2ME/
According to the caption on the Instagram post, the video shows a brain-dead woman in Surat whose liver, both kidneys, and eyes were donated. The post also included an image of the woman. Based on clues from the viral video, we conducted a keyword search on Google and found a report on the website of News18 Gujarati.
According to the report, organ donation by Ritaben Hareshbhai Korat in Surat gave a new life to five patients. The report also carried her photograph, matching the visuals seen in the viral video.
Conclusion:
Our research found that the viral video has no connection to Harish Rana. It actually shows an incident from Surat, Gujarat, where the family of a 45-year-old brain-dead woman, Ritaben Korat, donated her organs.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media shows a woman using abusive language in front of a camera. Users sharing the clip claim that the woman is a professor at Galgotias University and that the video exposes her alleged reality. However, an research by CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. The probe revealed that the woman seen in the viral video has no connection with Galgotias University and is not a professor there.Fact-checking further showed that the video is not recent but around seven years old. The woman featured in the clip was identified as Shubhrastha, who is a political strategist by profession.
Claim:
A user on X (formerly Twitter) shared the viral video on February 18, 2026, claiming: “A ‘class in abuse studies’ at Galgotias University? An obscene video of a professor teaching ethics has gone viral. Another shameful chapter has been added to the list of controversies surrounding Galgotias University.” The post further alleged that after falsely claiming a Chinese robot as its own, the university’s “Culture and Ethics” faculty member was seen publicly using abusive language in the viral clip. The post link and its archived version are provided below:
Fact Check:
To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, we extracted key frames from the video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research , we found the same video uploaded on the Indian Spectator’s YouTube channel on June 9, 2018
The video was also found on another YouTube channel, where it had been uploaded on June 12, 2018.
Conclusion
The research clearly establishes that the woman seen in the viral video has no association with Galgotias University and is not a professor there. The clip is also not recent but approximately seven years old. The woman in the video was identified as Shubhrastha, a political strategist.
Introduction
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy) released the Draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026 on March 30, 2026, inviting public comments with a response window closing on April 14. This is a limited 15-day period for public input on proposed rules that will have major constitutional impacts. The brevity and timing of this opportunity demonstrate debatable commitment to stakeholder engagement and meaningful consultation by the drafting agency.
While MEITY describes the proposed amendments as "clarificatory and procedural nature," an analysis shows they will have substantive effects. Collectively, the amended language changes significantly how online speech will be regulated in India by providing the executive with more concentrated regulatory authority, limiting the required transparency of content enforcement, mandating greater retention of data without proportionality-based safeguards, and placing excessive compliance burden on intermediaries. Each of these changes has consequences beyond just changes in process and together, these changes collectively raise substantial concerns regarding compliance with Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Constitutional Baseline: Shreya Singhal and the Limits of Intermediary Liability
India’s Supreme Court decision in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 provides the foundation for intermediary liability, wherein the Court read down Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, holding that intermediaries are required to act upon receiving actual knowledge only through a court order or a valid notification by the appropriate government authority. The Supreme Court’s decision intended to provide a constitutional protection to intermediaries from being subjected to informal, unverified executive pressure to take down content by requiring that any such order be subject to some level of legal objective credibility or threshold.
Rule 3(4) of the proposed amendments places that balance under significant strain. By requiring intermediaries to comply with advisories, directions, standard operating procedures, codes of practice, and guidelines issued by the Ministry — and tying non-compliance to the loss of safe harbour — the draft effectively lowers the constitutional threshold that Shreya Singhal was designed to maintain. Compliance obligations now potentially arise from instruments that carry no judicial sanction and no mandatory public disclosure.
Rule 3(4): Delegated Legislation or Executive Overreach
The rule-making power conferred on the Central Government under Section 87 of the IT Act is limited to carrying out the provisions of the Act. It does not authorise the creation of new substantive obligations. This principle has been consistently affirmed in Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 and Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 399, where the Court held that delegated legislation must remain within the four corners of the parent statute.
Rule 3(4) tests those limits. It converts executive advisories into binding compliance instruments without a clear statutory foundation in either Section 79 or Section 87. Although the proposed rule requires that such instruments specify their legal basis, there is no requirement that they be published or made publicly accessible. This creates a framework in which legality risks becoming circular — instruments claimed to be lawful solely by reference to a provision that does not clearly authorise them, shielded from scrutiny by their own opacity. Justice Chandurkar’s judgment in Kunal Kamra v. Union of India identified precisely this defect in the Fact Check Unit amendment. Rule 3(4) replicates the structural problem in a broader form.
Compliance Pressure and the Logic of Over-Censorship
The practical consequence of Rule 3(4) lies not only in its legality but in how it reshapes incentive structures for platforms. An intermediary facing the permanent threat of safe harbour loss will not wait to assess the legal merit of each advisory. The rational calculation is to comply early, broadly, and without friction. Lawful content — particularly satire, political commentary, and journalism — becomes vulnerable not because it is unlawful, but because it presents regulatory risk.
This dynamic was visible on 18 March 2026, when stand-up comedian Pulkit Mani (@hunnywhoisfunny) found his satirical Instagram reel being restricted across India. The video had accumulated over 16.5 million views. Users encountered a notice citing Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. No reasons were publicly provided. No prior hearing was offered. The same night, several political parody and satire accounts were withheld on X.
Data Retention, Privacy, and the Proportionality Test
The amendments to Rules 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(h) extend data retention obligations by making them additional to requirements under any other law. The existing 180-day floor for retained user data — covering removed content, registration information, and associated records — becomes a minimum rather than a ceiling. No maximum is specified, and no proportionality requirement accompanies the extension.
This raises direct concerns under Article 21 as interpreted in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, which held that any state intrusion into privacy must satisfy the triple test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Undefined retention periods, with no statutory ceiling and no requirement of purpose limitation, risk failing all three. The longer user data is held, including metadata, device information, and records of removed content, the greater the exposure to surveillance, unauthorised access, and use beyond the original justification.
Circumventing Judicial Scrutiny Through Procedural Redesign
The Bombay High Court, in its August 2021 order, stayed provisions of the IT Rules’ oversight mechanism as prima facie violative of Article 19(1)(a). The Madras High Court in T.M. Krishna v. Union of India affirmed that stay, cautioning that government-controlled media oversight risked undermining press independence. Both matters remain pending before the Delhi High Court.
The amendments to Rules 8(1) and 14 restructure the same oversight machinery through a modified procedural design. By extending the Inter-Departmental Committee’s jurisdiction to cover “matters” referred by the Ministry with no requirement of a complainant, no defined subject matter, and no guaranteed prior hearing, the proposed rules effectively reconstitute what courts found constitutionally suspect. Individual users posting news and current affairs content are now brought within reach of blocking mechanisms originally designed for institutional publishers.
Conclusion
As seen above, the Draft IT Rules 2026 are unable to meet the constitutional and judicial requirements to regulate free speech. What the proposed amendments construct is a durable system in which platforms self-censor under liability pressure, data is retained without proportionate justification, and content oversight expands through procedural adjustment rather than parliamentary legislation. Regulation of the digital public sphere is both legitimate and necessary. But it must be anchored in law, not in the quiet authority of executive advisories. The law must ultimately remain anchored in constitutional values, guided by the enduring principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
The comment period closes on 14 April 2026.
Submissions may be sent to itrules.consultation@meity.gov.in.
References
- https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/03/30591fc6e322dcbcc9dae84a0f02e9e7.pdf
- https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/03/a71a21d35c107f2e528363d3eb17646a.pdf
- https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/02/550681ab908f8afb135b0ad42816a1c9.pdf
- https://neopolitico.com/india/government-blocks-viral-satirical-reel-impersonating-pm-modi-raising-fresh-questions-on-free-speech-and-digital-regulation/
- https://internetfreedom.in/sound-the-alarm-iffs-first-read-on-meitys-draft-it-rules-second-amendment-2026/
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media and linked to protests that allegedly took place in Lucknow after the reported killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.Users claim that police in the capital of Uttar Pradesh baton-charged people who were protesting against the United States and Israel. The video is being widely circulated across social media platforms with this claim. However, research by CyberPeace found the claim to be false. Our verification revealed that the video is not from Lucknow but from Bareilly, and it is related to an incident that took place on September 26, 2025, when Uttar Pradesh Police baton-charged protesters during a rally held in support of the “I Love Mohammad” campaign.
Claim Post:
On March 3, 2026, an X (formerly Twitter) user shared the viral video claiming that the Uttar Pradesh Police took action against people blocking roads in Lucknow and creating unrest in support of Ali Khamenei.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted key frames from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the search, we found a similar video posted on Instagram on September 26, 2025, indicating that the footage predates the current claim.
Further research led us to the same video on the website of Aaj Tak, where it was published on September 26, 2025.
According to the report, protests erupted in Bareilly after Friday prayers over a controversy related to “I Love Mohammad” posters. Hundreds of people took to the streets carrying banners and posters. The report further stated that protesters, responding to a call by cleric Maulana Tauqeer Raza, attempted to break police barricades and move forward. Police initially tried to persuade the crowd to disperse, but when the situation escalated and the crowd refused to back down, officers resorted to baton-charging to control the situation. The incident reportedly led to tension in the area.
Conclusion:
Our research found that the viral video being shared as police action on protesters in Lucknow after the alleged killing of Ali Khamenei is misleading. The footage is actually from Bareilly and shows a police baton-charge during a protest rally held on September 26, 2025 in support of the “I Love Mohammad” campaign.
