#FactCheck- AI-Generated Deepfake Falsely Attributes Film Remark to Army Chief Upendra Dwivedi

Executive Summary

A video featuring former Indian cricketer Sachin Tendulkar is being widely circulated on social media with the date “12-5-2026” displayed on the screen. In the viral clip, Tendulkar appears to promote an investment scheme, allegedly saying that people investing in the scheme today could earn Rs 80 lakh by the end of the day. Throughout the video, he is seen speaking about investment opportunities and financial returns. However, research conducted by CyberPeace Research Wing found that the video is AI-generated and misleading. The original footage was actually from an event marking the centenary celebrations of Sri Sathya Sai Baba.

‍

Claim

‍

A Facebook user shared the viral video on May 12, 2026, claiming that Sachin Tendulkar was endorsing a high-return investment scheme. The post quickly gained traction on social media platforms.

• https://www.facebook.com/1999330190535884/videos/985146933916502 

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we searched the internet using relevant keywords but found no credible media reports suggesting that Tendulkar had endorsed any such investment scheme. As part of our research, we extracted key frames from the viral clip and conducted a reverse image search. During the search, we found the original video uploaded on November 19, 2025, on the YouTube channel of IANS. According to the video description, Tendulkar was attending an event organized to mark the centenary year celebrations of Sri Sathya Sai Baba.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTDCg_kTIV4 

‍

‍

We further found a similar version of the same video uploaded on November 19, 2025, on the official Facebook page of Times Now, confirming that the footage was unrelated to any investment or financial scheme.

• https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1379249700417851

‍

 ‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research found that the viral video has been manipulated using AI-generated audio or editing techniques to falsely portray Sachin Tendulkar promoting an investment scheme. The original video was from a public event related to Sri Sathya Sai Baba’s centenary celebrations and had no connection to any financial investment platform.

‍

Introduction

On 20th March 2024, the Indian government notified the Fact Check Unit (FCU) under the Press Information Bureau (PIB) of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as the Fact Check Unit (FCU) of the Central Government. This PIB FCU is notified under the provisions of Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules 2023 (IT Amendment Rules 2023).

However, the next day, on 21st March 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the Centre's decision. The IT Amendment Rules of 2023 provide that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) can notify a fact-checking body to identify and tag what it considers fake news with respect to any activity of the Centre. The stay will be in effect till the Bombay High Court finally decides the challenges to the IT Rules amendment 2023.

The official notification dated 20th March 2024 read as follows:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (v) of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the Central Government hereby notifies the Fact Check Unit under the Press Information Bureau of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as the fact check unit of the Central Government for the purposes of the said sub-clause, in respect of any business of the Central Government.”

Impact of the notification

The impact of notifying PIB’s FCU under Rule 3(1)(b)(v)will empower the PIB’s FCU to issue direct takedown directions to the concerned Intermediary. Any information posted on social media in relation to the business of the central government that has been flagged as fake or false by the FCU has to be taken down by the concerned intermediary. If it fails to do so, it will lose the 'safe harbour' immunity against legal proceedings arising out of such information posted offered under Section 79 of IT Act, 2000.

Safe harbour provision u/s 79 of IT Act, 2000

Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 serves as a safe harbour provision for intermediaries. The provision states that "an intermediary shall not be liable for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him". However, it is notable that this legal immunity cannot be granted if the intermediary "fails to expeditiously" take down a post or remove a particular content after the government or its agencies flag that the information is being used unlawfully. Furthermore, intermediaries are obliged to observe due diligence on their platforms.

Rule 3 (1)(b)(v) Under IT Amendment Rules 2023

Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of The Information Technology(Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 [updated as on 6.4.2023] provides that all intermediaries [Including a social media intermediary, a significant social media intermediary and an online gaming intermediary], are required to make "reasonable efforts” or perform due diligence to ensure that their users do not "host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share” any information that “deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of the message or knowingly and intentionally communicates any misinformation or information which is patently false and untrue or misleading in nature or, in respect of any business of the Central Government, is identified as fake or false or misleading by such fact check unit of the Central Government as the Ministry may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, specify”.

PIB - FCU

The PIB - Fact Check Unit(FCU) was established in November 2019 to prevent the spread of fake news and misinformation about the Indian government. It also provides an accessible platform for people to report suspicious or questionable information related to the Indian government. This FCU is responsible for countering misinformation on government policies, initiatives, and schemes. The FCU is tasked with addressing misinformation about government policies, initiatives, and schemes, either directly (Suo moto) or through complaints received. On 20th March 2024,via a gazetted notification, the Centre notified the Press Information Bureau's fact-check unit (FCU) as the nodal agency to flag fake news or misinformation related to the central government. However, The Supreme Court stayed the Centre's notification of the Fact-Check Unit under IT Amendment Rules 2023.

Concerns with IT Amendment Rules 2023

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology(MeitY) amended the IT Rules of 2021. The ‘Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023’ (IT Amendment Rules 2023) were notified by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology on 6 April 2023. The rules introduced new provisions to establish a fact-checking unit with respect to “any business of the central government” and also made other provisions pertaining to online gaming.

The Constitutional validity of  IT Amendment Rules 2023 has been challenged through a writ petition challenging the IT Rules 2023 in the Bombay High Court. The contention is that the rules raise "serious constitutional questions," and Rule 3(1)(b)(v), as amended in 2023, impacts the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression would fall for analysis by the High Court.

Supreme Court Stays Setting up of FCU

A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandra Hud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra convened to hear Special Leave Petitions filed by Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India and the Association of Indian Magazines challenging the refusal of the Bombay High Court to stay the implementation of the IT Rules 2023. The Supreme Court has stayed the Union's notification of the Fact-Check Unit under the IT Amendment Rules 2023, pending the Bombay High Court's decision on the challenges to the IT Rules Amendment 2023.

Emphasizing Freedom of Speech in the Democratic Environment

The advent of advanced technology has also brought with it a new generation of threats and concerns: the misuse of said technology in the form of deepfakes and misinformation is one of the most pressing concerns plaguing society today. This realization has informed the critical need for stringent regulatory measures. The government is rightly prioritizing the need to immediately address digital threats, but there must be a balance between our digital security policies and the need to respect free speech and critical thinking. The culture of open dialogue is the bedrock of democracy. The ultimate truth is shaped through free trade in ideas within a competitive marketplace of ideas. The constitutional scheme of democracy places great importance on the fundamental value of liberty of thought and expression, which has also been emphasized by the Supreme Court in its various judgements.

The IT Rules, 2023,provide for creating a "fact check unit" to identify fake or false or misleading information “in relation to any business of the central government "This move raised concerns within the media fraternity, who argued that the determination of fake news cannot be placed solely in the hands of the government. It is also worth noting that if users post something illegal, they can still be punished under laws that already exist in the country.

We must take into account that freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Constitution is not an absolute right. Article 19(2) imposes restrictions on the Right to Freedom of Speech and expression. Hence, there has to be a balance between regulatory measures and citizens' fundamental rights.

Nowadays, the term ‘fake news’ is used very loosely. Additionally, there is a dearth of clearly established legal parameters that define what amounts to fake or misleading information. Clear definitions of the terms should be established to facilitate certainty as to what content is ‘fake news’ and what content is not. Any such restriction on speech must align with the exceptions outlined in Article19(2) of the Constitution.

Conclusion

Through a government notification, PIB - FCU was intended to act as a government-run fact-checking body to verify any information about the Central Government. However, the apex court of India stayed the Centre's notification. Now, the matter is sub judice, and we hope for the judicial analysis of the validity of IT Amendment Rules 2023.

Notably, the government is implementing measures to combat misinformation in the digital world, but it is imperative that we strive for a balance between regulatory checks and individual rights. As misinformation spreads across all sectors, a centralised approach is needed in order to tackle it effectively. Regulatory reforms must take into account the crucial roleplayed by social media in today’s business market: a huge amount of trade and commerce takes place online or is informed by digital content, which means that the government must introduce policies and mechanisms that continue to support economic activity. Collaborative efforts between the government and its agencies, technological companies, and advocacy groups are needed to deal with the issue better at a higher level.

References

• https://egazette.gov.in/(S(xzwt4b4haaqja32xqdiksbju))/ViewPDF.aspx
• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2015792
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/govt-notifies-fact-checking-unit-under-pib-to-check-fake-news-misinformation-related-to-centre/articleshow/108653787.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.epw.in/journal/2023/43/commentary/it-amendment-rules-2023.html#:~:text=The%20Information%20Technology%20Amendment%20Rules,to%20be%20false%20or%20misleading
• ‍https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/supreme-court-kunal-kamra-editors-guild-notifying-fact-check-unit-it-rules-2023-252998
• ‍https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/21/india-top-court-stays-government-move-to-form-fact-check-unit-under-it-laws
• ‍https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Information%20Technology 28Intermediary%20Guidelines%20and%20Digital% 20Media%20Ethics%20Code%29%20Rules%2C%202021%20%28updated%2006.04.2023%29-.pdf
• 2024 SCC On Line Bom 360

‍

For years, Malaysia governed artificial intelligence the way most countries did before they had to, with guidelines nobody could be fined for ignoring. The National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics, published by Malaysia's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation back in September 2024, told developers and deployers what "responsible AI" should look like. It just never made anyone legally responsible for anything.

Malaysia is now attempting to change that. On 10 July 2026, the National AI Office (NAIO), operating under the Ministry of Digital, released a Public Consultation Paper for what would become Malaysia's first horizontal AI statute: a single law covering AI across every sector, rather than a patchwork of guidelines, data protection rules, and whatever a particular regulator happens to think about algorithms this year. Written submissions closed on 31 July 2026, and the government has said it wants the Bill tabled and completed before the year is out. That is an aggressive timeline for a law this broad, and it tells you something about how urgently Putrajaya wants this on the books.

Why "horizontal" matters here

Most of the world's AI rules so far have been vertical. A banking regulator handles AI in banking, a health authority handles AI in diagnostics, and everything in between is grey space. Malaysia's own consultation paper is refreshingly candid about the problem this creates: it warns of "differing standards and approaches" building up across sectors, and notes that existing tools only really respond after something has already gone wrong.

The Bill tries to fix that by sitting above the sector specific rules rather than replacing them. It rests on three pillars. 

1. First, a Central AI Authority, which would still lean on existing regulators (think Bank Negara Malaysia for financial services or the Securities Commission for capital markets) through what the paper calls "Sectoral Leads." 
2. Second, a set of baseline principles written into law rather than left as suggestions: human dignity, transparency and explainability, accountability, safety and security, and data governance. 
3. Third, a structure that scales obligations to how dangerous a given AI system actually is, instead of regulating a spam filter and a hospital triage algorithm with the same rulebook.

‍

The mechanics: three tiers, two roles, one authority

The risk framework itself splits into three tiers: Tier 1 for unacceptable risk, Tier 2 for high risk, and Tier 3 for low risk, with obligations scaling up as the potential for harm does. Obligations fall on two kinds of actors: Developers, who materially shape what a system can do, and Deployers, who actually run it in the real world. A single company can be both. This split deliberately echoes the controller and processor distinction from Malaysia's Personal Data Protection Act, though not perfectly, a point several legal commentators have already flagged as a source of future confusion, since a Deployer processing personal data will usually be a controller under the PDPA, while a Developer offering a hosted model might only be a processor.

The Central AI Authority itself is proposed to run three functions: an AI Safety function that maintains the risk framework and oversees testing and incident reporting; an Investigation and Enforcement function with power to demand fact finding and issue directions after incidents; and an AI Enablement function that produces guidance, templates, training, and runs the AI Sandbox, a controlled testing environment meant to let companies experiment before the full weight of compliance lands on them. For smaller businesses without in house compliance teams, that enablement mandate may end up mattering more day to day than the enforcement powers do.

Two more features round out the design. An incident reporting mechanism would require Developers and Deployers to flag not just failures but near misses and unexpected effects, with the public also able to lodge complaints directly. And the Bill's territorial reach is broad by design: it would apply to any AI system designed, developed, or used in Malaysia, regardless of where the underlying infrastructure sits, carving out exemptions only for personal use and national security matters.

How this stacks up against the EU AI Act

Malaysia's drafters have clearly been reading Brussels' homework, and it shows in the structure: a tiered risk model, a central authority, mandatory obligations tied to risk level. But the resemblance is more skeletal than skin deep once you look at the details.

The EU AI Act is a fully codified regulation running to hundreds of pages, with named prohibited practices spelled out in an annex, specific high risk categories listed by sector, and detailed conformity assessment procedures before a system ever reaches the market. Malaysia's Bill, at consultation stage, is still working from principles and a harm list rather than an exhaustive catalogue of prohibited or high risk use cases, closer in spirit to a framework law that leaves the granular detail to subsidiary guidelines and Sectoral Leads. That's partly a function of timeline: the EU spent roughly three years negotiating its Act before adoption, while Malaysia is trying to move from consultation paper to finished statute inside a single year.

Enforcement philosophy differs too. Brussels built the AI Act around compliance that happens before deployment: conformity assessments, technical documentation, and sign off procedures similar to product safety certification, particularly for high risk systems. Malaysia's design leans more on an enablement first posture, with sandboxes, guidance, and incident reporting sitting alongside enforcement powers rather than in front of them, at least as currently framed. Whether that survives contact with the final legislative text is an open question. The consultation drew real pushback from law firms wanting harsher penalty ranges and clearer thresholds, so the version tabled in Parliament may look tougher than the one made public in July.

There's also a jurisdictional difference worth flagging. The EU AI Act has genuine extraterritorial teeth backed by the largest single market in the developed world, which is why companies far outside Europe still comply with it. Malaysia's Bill claims similarly broad reach on paper, covering any system used in Malaysia regardless of where it's hosted, but the practical leverage to enforce that against a foreign Developer is a different question entirely, and one the Edwin Lee and Partners (Law firm based in malaysia) submission specifically raised as a gap needing an international cooperation mechanism.

India and AI Regulation

India has spent the past year deliberately walking in the evolving direction. Through MeitY's India AI Governance Guidelines, released in November 2025 ahead of the India AI Impact Summit, explicitly reject a standalone AI statute in favour of what officials have repeatedly called a "light touch" model: seven guiding principles, trust, people first, innovation, fairness, accountability, transparency, and safety, layered on top of existing law rather than a new one. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the IT Act, 2000 with amendment rules, do most of the actual legal work, with sector regulators like the RBI and SEBI handling the specifics for their own industries.

The contrast with Malaysia is almost a case study in two governance philosophies. Where Malaysia is building a central authority with enforcement teeth from day one, India has so far preferred advisory bodies, an AI Governance Group and a proposed AI Safety Institute, that shape norms without imposing binding cross sectoral obligations. 

Where Malaysia's Bill would be justiciable law with penalties attached, India's framework is closer to a philosophy statement with sandboxes and a national incident database bolted on. That is not a weaker approach so much as a different, and arguably shrewd, bet. India is the world's largest testing ground for AI adoption at scale, from welfare delivery to vernacular language tools, and a heavy compliance regime risks slowing exactly the kind of grassroots experimentation the government is trying to encourage. Betting on existing law and institutional judgment, at least for now, keeps that door open, and it has let India move fast without waiting for a perfect law first.

That said, India's position has been visibly shifting. In July 2026, MeitY Secretary S. Krishnan signalled the government is now exploring dedicated AI legislation after all, a notable departure from the "no early regulation" stance the ministry had held in 2023, and this is likely accelerated by growing concern over deepfakes and synthetic media, which already prompted binding traceability and labelling obligations under amended intermediary rules earlier this year. 

The stakes for the next few months

None of this is finished. Malaysia's Bill is still a consultation paper, not enacted law, and the gap between what NAIO proposed in July and what Parliament eventually passes could be significant. Several submissions are already pushing for a wider harm list, sharper enforcement thresholds, and clearer rules for foreign Developers who never set foot in Kuala Lumpur. But the direction is set. Malaysia has decided AI governance can no longer run on goodwill and voluntary guidelines, and it now attempts to write enforceable AI law on a real deadline rather than settling for guidelines. However, the final Bill lives up to that ambition, or gets watered down in the process, is something only the next few months will show. 

References

• Ministry of Digital. "Kementerian Digital Mulakan Libat Urus Cadangan Rang Undang Undang Tadbir Urus Kecerdasan Buatan (AI)." 10 July 2026. https://www.digital.gov.my/en-GB/siaran/Kementerian-Digital-Mulakan-Libat-Urus-Cadangan-Rang-Undang-Undang-Tadbir-Urus-Kecerdasan-Buatan-(AI)
• Digital Watch Observatory. "Malaysia launches consultations on AI Governance Bill." July 2026. https://dig.watch/updates/malaysia-ai-governance-bill-consultation
• Baker McKenzie, Wong and Partners. "Malaysia: Public Consultation on the AI Governance Bill." July 2026. https://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/insight/publications/2026/07/malaysia-public-consultation-on-the-ai-governance-bill
• Digital Policy Alert. "Testing requirements in AI Governance Bill" and related entries on the National AI Office consultation. https://digitalpolicyalert.org
• Rahmat Lim and Partners. "National AI Office issues public consultation paper on proposed Artificial Intelligence (AI) Governance Bill." https://www.rahmatlim.com/perspectives/articles/33264/mykh-national-ai-office-issues-public-consultation-paper-on-proposed-artificial-intelligence-ai-governance-bill
• Edwin Lee and Partners. "Malaysia's AI Governance Bill: Our Submission to the Consultation." https://lpplaw.my/ai-governance-malaysia/
• Kiizen. "Overview of the Proposed Malaysia's AI Governance Bill." https://www.kiizen.com.my/proposed-malaysias-ai-governance-bill/
• Zicelegal. "Consultation Alert: Public Consultation on Malaysia's AI Governance Bill." https://www.ziclegal.com/resources/consultation-alert-public-consultation-on-malaysias-ai-governance-bill
• Welcome.AI. "Malaysia's AI Governance Bill Expands Regulation and Accountability for Businesses." July 2026. https://www.welcome.ai/content/malaysias-ai-governance-bill-expands-regulation-and-accountability-for-businesses
• Regulations.ai. "Malaysia AI Regulation Overview." https://regulations.ai/regulations/RAI-MY-NA-SUMMARY-2026
• w.media. "Malaysia to enact AI law." https://w.media/malaysia-to-enact-ai-law/
• VisionIAS. "India's New AI Governance Guidelines Push Hands Off Approach." November 2025. https://visionias.in/blog/current-affairs/indias-new-ai-governance-guidelines-push-hands-off-approach
• EY India. "AI governance guidelines: A bet on innovation." https://www.ey.com/en_in/insights/ai/ai-governance-guidelines-a-bet-on-innovation
• TechnoSports. "Airegulation: Indian Government Finalizes AI Regulation." May 2026. https://technosports.co.in/airegulation-india-framework/
• The AI Track. "India AI Governance Guidelines Released for 2025 to 26." https://theaitrack.com/india-ai-governance-guidelines-2025/
• Lexology, contributed by a law firm. "India's AI Governance Model: MeitY's AI Guidelines and The Evolving Copyright Landscape." March 2026. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ffc0c58c-3727-4472-9914-5fa6a33ffffd
• Srishti IAS. "India's First AI Governance Framework 2026: Principles, Oversight, and Inclusive Growth Strategy." February 2026. https://srishtiias.com/india-first-ai-governance-framework-ahead-of-impact-summit-2026/
• Whalesbook. "India Plans Dedicated AI Law, Shifting From Light Touch Approach." July 2026. https://www.whalesbook.com/news/English/other/India-Plans-Dedicated-AI-Law-Shifting-From-Light-Touch-Approach/6a4811c9c7db2a6cf1650f24
• Saikrishna and Associates. "Decoding the India AI Governance Guidelines." November 2025. https://www.saikrishnaassociates.com/decoding-the-india-ai-governance-guidelines/
• News on Air. "MeitY Unveils India AI Governance Guidelines to Promote Safe and Responsible AI Adoption." 5 November 2025. https://www.newsonair.gov.in/meity-unveils-india-ai-governance-guidelines-to-promote-safe-and-responsible-ai-adoption

Contributors

‍

1. Maj. Vineet Kumar, Founder & Global President, CyberPeace 
2. Mr. Neeraj Soni, Senior Research Analyst, Policy & Advocacy, CyberPeace 

‍