#FactCheck - Viral Video of Anti-RSS Slogans Is From 2022 Telangana, Not Uttar Pradesh

Introduction

Cybercrimes have been traversing peripheries and growing at a fast pace. Cybercrime is known to be an offensive action that either targets or operates through a computer, a computer network or a networked device, according to Kaspersky.  In the “Era of globalisation” and a “Digitally coalesced world”, there has been an increase in International cybercrime. Cybercrime could be for personal or political objectives. Nevertheless, Cybercrime aims to sabotage networks for motives other than gain and be carried out either by organisations or individuals. Some of the cybercriminals have no national boundaries and are considered a global threat. They are likewise inordinately technically adept and operate avant-garde strategies. 

The 2023 Global Risk Report points to exacerbating geopolitical apprehensions that have increased the advanced persistent threats (APTs), which are evolving globally as they are ubiquitous. Christine Lagarde, the president of the European Central Bank and former head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in 2020 cautioned that a cyber attack could lead to a severe economic predicament. Contemporary technologies and hazardous players have grown at an exceptional gait over the last few decades. Also, cybercrime has heightened on the agenda of nation-states, establishments and global organisations, as per the World Economic Forum (WEF). 

The Role of the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee 

In two shakes, the United Nations (UN) has a major initiative to develop a new and more inclusive approach to addressing cybercrime and is presently negotiating a new convention on cybercrime. The following convention seeks to enhance global collaboration in the combat against cybercrime. The UN has a central initiative to develop a unique and more inclusive strategy for addressing cybercrime. The UN passed resolution 74/247, which designated an open-ended ad hoc committee (AHC) in December 2019 entrusted with setting a broad global convention on countering the use of information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for illicit pursuits. 

The Cybercrime treaty, if adopted by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) would be the foremost imperative UN mechanism on a cyber point. The treaty could further become a crucial international legal framework for global collaboration on arraigning cyber criminals, precluding and investigating cybercrime. There have correspondingly been numerous other national and international measures to counter the criminal use of ICTs. However, the UN treaty is intended to tackle cybercrime and enhance partnership and coordination between states. The negotiations of the Ad Hoc Committee with the member states will be completed by early 2024 to further adopt the treaty during the UNGA in September 2024.

However, the following treaty is said to be complex. Some countries endorse a treaty that criminalises cyber-dependent offences and a comprehensive spectrum of cyber-enabled crimes.  The proposals of Russia, Belarus, China, Nicaragua and Cuba have included highly controversial recommendations. Nevertheless, India has backed for criminalising crimes associated with ‘cyber terrorism’ and the suggestions of India to the UN Ad Hoc committee are in string with its regulatory strategy in the country. Similarly, the US, Japan, the UK, European Union (EU) member states and Australia want to include core cyber-dependent crimes. 

Nonetheless, though a new treaty could become a practical instrument in the international step against cybercrime, it must conform to existing global agencies and networks that occupy similar areas. This convention will further supplement the "Budapest Cybercrime Convention" on cybercrime that materialised in the 1990s and was signed in Budapest in the year 2001.

Conclusion

According to Cyber Security Ventures, global cybercrime is expected to increase by 15 per cent per year over the next five years, reaching USD 10.5 trillion annually by 2025, up from USD 3 trillion in 2015. The UN cybercrime convention aims to be more global. That being the case, next-generation tools should have state-of-the-art technology to deal with new cyber crimes and cyber warfare. The global crevasse in nation-states due to cybercrime is beyond calculation. It could lead to a great cataclysm in the global economy and threaten the political interest of the countries on that account. It is crucial for global governments and international organisations. It is necessary to strengthen the collaboration between establishments (public and private) and law enforcement mechanisms. An “appropriately designed policy” is henceforward the need of the hour.

References

• https://www.kaspersky.co.in/resource-center/threats/what-is-cybercrime
• https://www.cyberpeace.org/
• https://www.interpol.int/en/Crimes/Cybercrime
• https://www.bizzbuzz.news/bizz-talk/ransomware-attacks-on-startups-msmes-on-the-rise-in-india-cyberpeace-foundation-1261320
• https://www.financialexpress.com/business/digital-transformation-cyberpeace-foundation-receives-4-million-google-org-grant-3282515/
• https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/08/what-un-cybercrime-treaty-and-why-does-it-matter
• https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/global-rules-crack-down-cybercrime/
• https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2023/
• https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2021/03/global-cyber-threat-to-financial-systems-maurer.htm
• https://www.eff.org/issues/un-cybercrime-treaty#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20is%20currently,of%20billions%20of%20people%20worldwide.
• https://cybersecurityventures.com/hackerpocalypse-cybercrime-report-2016/
• https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/the-budapest-convention
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/counter-use-of-technology-for-cybercrime-india-tells-un-ad-hoc-group/articleshow/92237908.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
• https://consultation.dpmc.govt.nz/un-cybercrime-convention/principlesandobjectives/supporting_documents/Background.pdf
• https://unric.org/en/a-un-treaty-on-cybercrime-en-route/

‍

Introduction

‍

The courts in India have repeatedly emphasised the importance of “enhanced customer protection” and “limited liability” on their part. The rationale behind such imperatives is to extend security against exploitation by institutions that are equipped with all the means to manipulate customers. India, with its looming financial literacy gaps that have to be addressed, needs to curb any manipulation on the part of banking institutions. Various studies have highlighted this gap in recent times; for example, according to the National Centre for Financial Education, only 27% of Indian people are financially literate, which is much less than the 42% global average. With only 19% of millennials exhibiting sufficient financial awareness yet expressing high trust in their financial skills, the issue is very worrisome. Thus, the increasing number of financial frauds intensifies the issue. 

Zero Liability in Cyber Frauds: Regulatory Safeguards for Digital Banking Customers

‍

In light of the growing emphasis on financial inclusion and consumer protection, and in response to the recent rise in complaints regarding unauthorised debits from customer accounts and cards, the framework for assessing customer liability in such cases has been re-evaluated. The RBI’s circular dated July 6, 2017 titled “Customer Protection-Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions”  serves as the foundation for regulatory protections for Indian customers of digital banking. A clear and organised framework for determining customer accountability is outlined in the circular, which acknowledges the exponential increase in electronic transactions and related scams. It assigns proportional obligations for unauthorised transactions resulting from system-level breaches, client carelessness, and bank contributory negligence. Most importantly it establishes the zero responsibility concept, which protects clients from monetary losses in cases when the bank or another system component is at fault and the client promptly reports the breach. 

This directive’s sophisticated approach to consumer protection is what makes it unique. It requires banks to set up strong fraud prevention systems, proactive alerting systems, and round-the-clock reporting systems. Furthermore, it significantly alters the power dynamics between financial institutions and customers by placing the onus of demonstrating customer negligence completely on the bank. The circular emphasises prompt reversal of funds to impacted customers and requires banks to implement Board-approved policies on liability to redress. As a result, it is a consumer rights charter rather than just a compliance document, promoting confidence and financial accountability in India’s digital banking sector. 

Judicial Endorsement in Reinforcing the Zero Liability Principle

‍

 In the case of Suresh Chandra Negi & Anr. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (Writ (C) No. 24192 of 2022) The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that the burden of proving consumer accountability rests firmly on the banking institution, hence reaffirming the zero liability concept in circumstances of unapproved electronic banking transactions. The Division bench emphasised the regulatory requirement that banks provide adequate proof before assigning blame to customers, citing Clause 12 of the RBI’s circular dated June 6, 2017, Customer Protection—Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions. In a similar scenario, the Bombay HC held that a customer is entitled to zero liability when an authorized transaction occurs due to a third-party breach, where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor the customer, provided the fraud is promptly reported. 

The zero liability principle, as envisaged under Clause 8 of the RBI circular, has emerged as a cornerstone of consumer protection in India’s digital banking ecosystem.  

Another landmark judgment that has given this principle the front stage in addressing banking frauds is Hare Ram Singh vs RBI &Ors. (W.P. (C) 13497/2022) laid down by Delhi HC which is an important legal turning point in the development of the zero liability principle under the RBI’s 2017 framework. The court reiterated the need to evaluate customer diligence in light of new fraud tactics like phishing and vishing by holding the State Bank of India (SBI) liable for a cyber fraud incident even though the transactions were authenticated by OTP. The ruling made it clear that when complex social engineering or technical manipulation is used, banks are nonetheless accountable even if they only rely on OTP validation. The legal protection provided to victims of unauthorised electronic banking transactions is strengthened by the court’s emphasis on the bank having the burden of evidence in accordance with RBI standards. 

Importantly, this ruling lays the full burden of securing digital banking systems on financial organisations and supports the judiciary’s increasing acknowledgement of the digital asymmetry between banks and consumers. It emphasises that prompt consumer reporting, banks’ failure to disclose important credentials, and their own operational errors must all be taken into consideration when determining culpability. As a result, this decision establishes a strong precedent that will increase consumer confidence, promote systemic advancements in digital risk management, and better integrate the zero liability standard into Indian digital banking law. In a time when cyber vulnerabilities are growing, it acts as a beacon for financial accountability. 

Conclusion

‍

The Zero Liability Principle serves as a vital safety net for customers navigating an increasingly intricate and precarious financial environment in a time when digital transactions are the foundation of contemporary banking. In addition to codifying strong safeguards against unauthorized electronic transactions, the RBI’s 2017 framework rebalanced  the fiduciary relationship by putting financial institutions squarely in charge. Through significant rulings, the courts have upheld this protective culture and emphasised that banks, not the victims of cybercrime, bear the burden of proof. 

It would be crucial to execute these principles consistently, review them frequently, and raise public awareness as India transitions to a more digital economy. In order to ensure that consumers are not only protected but also empowered must become more than just a policy on paper. 

‍

References

• https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/making-money-vs-managing-money-india-s-critical-financial-literacy-gap-125021900786_1.html 
• https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-ruling-bank-liability-unauthorized-electronic-transaction-and-customer-fault-297962 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/white-collar-crime-anti-corruption-fraud/1635616/cyber-law-series-2-issue-10-the-zero-liability-principle-in-cyber-fraud-hare-ram-singh-v-reserve-bank-of-india-ors-case 

‍

Overview of the Advisory

‍

On 18 November 2025, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) published an Advisory that addresses all of the private satellite television channels in India. The advisory is one of the critical institutional interventions to the broadcast of sensitive content regarding recent security incidents concerning the blast at the Red Fort on November 10^th, 2025. This advisory came after the Ministry noticed that some news channels have been broadcasting content related to alleged persons involved in Red Fort blasts, justifying their acts of violence, as well as information/video on explosive material. Broadcasting like this at this critical situation may inadvertently encourage or incite violence, disrupt public order, and pose risks to national security. 

‍

Key Instructions under the Advisory

‍

The advisory provides certain guidelines to the TV channels to ensure strict compliance with the Programming and Advertising Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The television channels are advised to exercise the highest level of discretion and sensitivity possible in reporting on issues involving alleged perpetrators of violence, and especially when reporting on matters involving the justification of acts of violence or providing instructional media on making explosive materials. The fundamental focus is to be very strict in following the Programme and Advertising Code as stipulated in the Cable Television Network Rules. In particular, broadcasters should not make programming that:

• Contain anything obscene, defamatory, deliberately false, or suggestive innuendos and half-truths.
• Likely to encourage or incite violence, contain anything against the maintenance of law and order, or promote an anti-national attitude.
• Contain anything that affects the integrity of the Nation.
• Could aid, abet or promote unlawful activities.

‍

Responsible Reporting Framework

‍

The advisory does not constitute outright censorship but instead a self-regulatory system that depends on the discretion and sensitivity of the TV channels focused on differentiating between broadcasting legitimate news and the content that crosses the threshold from information dissemination to incitement. 

‍

Why This Advisory is Important in a Digital Age

‍

With the modern media systems, there has been an erosion of the line between the journalism of the traditional broadcasting medium and digital virality. The contents of television are no longer limited to the scheduled programs or cable channels of distribution. The contents of a single news piece, especially that of dramatic or contentious nature, can be ripped off, revised and repackaged on social media networks within minutes of airing- often without the context, editorial discretion or timing indicators.

This effect makes sensitive content have a multiplier effect. The short news item about a suspect justifying violence or containing bombs can be viewed by millions on YouTube, WhatsApp, Twitter/X, Facebook, by spreading organically and being amplified by an algorithm. Studies have shown that misinformation and sensational reporting are much faster to circulate compared to factual corrections- a fact that has been noticed in the recent past during conflicts and crisis cases in India and other parts of the world.

‍

Vulnerabilities of Information Ecosystems

• The advisory is created in a definite information setting that is characterised by:
• Rapid Viral Mechanism: Content spreads faster than the process of verification. 
• Algorithmic-driven amplification: Platform mechanism boosts emotionally charged content.
• Coordinated amplification networks: Organised groups are there to make these posts, videos viral, to set a narrative for the general public. 
• Deepfake and synthetic media risks: Original broadcasts can be manipulated and reposted with false attribution. 

‍

Interconnection with Cybersecurity and National Security

‍

Verified or sensationalised reporting of security incidents poses certain weaknesses:

1. Trust Erosion: Trust is broken when the masses observe broadcasters in the air giving unverified claims or emotional accounts as facts. This is even to security agencies, law enforcement and government institutions themselves. The lack of trust towards the official information gives rise to information gaps, which are occupied by rumours, conspiracy theories, and enemy tales.
2. Cognitive Fragmentation: Misinformation develops multiple versions of the truth among the people. The narratives given to citizens vary according to the sources of the media that they listen to or read. This disintegration complicates organising the collective response of the society an actual security threat because the populations can be organised around misguided stories and not the correct data.
3. Radicalisation Pipeline: People who are interested in finding ideological backgrounds to violent action might get exposed to media-created materials that have been carefully distorted to evidence justifications of terrorism as a valid political or religious stand.

‍

How Social Instability Is Exploited in Cyber Operations and Influence Campaigns

‍

Misinformation causes exploitable vulnerability in three phases. 

1. First, conflicting unverified accounts disintegrate the information environment-populations are presented with conflicting versions of events by various media sources. 
2. Second, institutional trust in media and security agencies is shaken by exposure to subsequently rectified false information, resulting in an information vacuum. 
3. Third, in such a distrusted and puzzled setting, the population would be susceptible to organised manipulation by malicious agents.
4. Sensationalised broadcasting gives opponents assets of content, narrative frameworks, and information gaps that they can use to promote destabilisation movements. These mechanisms of exploitation are directly opposed by responsible broadcasting.

‍

Media Literacy and Audience Responsibility

‍

Structural Information Vulnerabilities-

A major part of the Indian population is structurally disadvantaged in information access:

• Language barriers: Infrastructure in the field of fact-checking is still highly centralised in English and Hindi, as vernacular-language misinformation goes viral in Tamil, Telugu, Marathi, Punjabi, and others.

• Digital literacy gaps: It is estimated that there are about 40 million people in India who have been trained on digital literacy, but more than 900 million Indians access digital content with different degrees of ability to critically evaluate the content.
• Divides between rural and urban people: Rural citizens and less affluent people experience more difficulty with access to verification tools and media literacy resources.
• Algorithmic capture: social media works to maximise engagement over accuracy, and actively encourages content that is emotionally inflammatory or divisive to its users, according to their history of engagement.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The advisory of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is an acknowledgment of the fact that media accountability is a part of state security in the information era. It states the principles of responsible reporting without interference in editorial autonomy, a balance that various stakeholders should uphold. Implementation of the advisory needs to be done in concert with broadcasters, platforms, civil society, government and educational institutions. Information integrity cannot be handled by just a single player. Without media literacy resources, citizens are unable to be responsible in their evaluation of information. Without open and fast communication with the media stakeholders, government agencies are unable to combat misinformation. 

The recommendations include collaborative governance, i.e., institutional forms in which media self-regulation, technological protection, user empowerment, and policy frameworks collaborate and do not compete. The successful deployment of measures will decide whether India can continue to have open and free media without compromising on information integrity that is sufficient to provide national security, democratic governance and social stability during the period of high-speed information flow, algorithmic amplification, and information warfare actions.

‍

References

‍

https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-11/advisory-18.11.2025.pdf

‍