#FactCheck- Doctored Audio in News18 Video Fuels False ‘Operation Sindoor’ Claim

AI systems have grown in both popularity and complexity on which they operate. They are enhancing accessibility for all, including people with disabilities, by revolutionising sectors including healthcare, education, and public services.  We are at the stage where AI-powered solutions that can help people with mental, physical, visual or hearing impairments perform everyday and complex tasks are being created. 

Generative AI is now being used to amplify human capability. The development of tools for speech-to-text and image recognition is helping in facilitating communication and interaction for visually or hearing-impaired individuals, and smart prosthetics are providing tailored support. Unfortunately, even with these developments, PWDs have continued to face challenges. Therefore, it is important to balance innovation with ethical considerations aand ensuring that these technologies are designed with qualities like privacy, equity, and inclusivity in mind. 

Access to Tech: the Barriers Faced by PWDs 

PWDs face several barriers while accessing technology. Identifying these challenges is important as they lack computer accessibility, in the use of hardware and software, which has become a norm in life nowadays. Website functions that only work when users click with a mouse, self-service kiosks without accessibility features, touch screens without screen reader software or tactile keyboards, and out-of-order equipment, such as lifts, captioning mirrors and description headsets, are just some difficulties that they face in their day-to-day life.

While they are helpful, much of the current technology doesn’t fully address all disabilities. For example, many assistive devices focus on visual or mobility impairments, but they fall short of addressing cognitive or sensory conditions. In addition to this, these solutions often lack personalisation, making them less effective for individuals with diverse needs. AI has significant potential to bridge this gap. With adaptive systems like voice assistants, real-time translation, and personalised features, AI can create more inclusive solutions, improving access to both digital and physical spaces for everyone.

The Importance of Inclusive AI Design

Creating an Inclusive AI design is important. It ensures that PWDs are not excluded from technological advancements because of the impairments that they are suffering from. The concept of an ‘inclusive or universal’ design promotes creating products and services that are usable for the widest possible range of people.  Tech Developers have an ethical responsibility to create advancements in AI that serve everyone. Accessibility features should be built into the core design. They should be treated as a practice rather than an afterthought. However, bias in AI development often stems from data of a non-representative nature, or assumptions can lead to systems that overlook or poorly serve PWDs. If AI algorithms are trained on limited or biased data, they risk excluding marginalised groups, making ethical, inclusive design a necessity for equity and accessibility.

Regulatory Efforts to Ensure Accessible AI

In India, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 impresses upon the need to provide PWDs with equal accessibility to technology. Subsequently, the DPDP Act of 2023 highlights data privacy concerns for the disabled under section 9 to process their data. 

On the international level, the newly incorporated EU’s AI Act mandates measures for transparent, safe, and fair access to AI systems along with including measures that are related to accessibility. 

In the US, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 508 of the 1998 amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are the primary legislations that work on promoting digital accessibility in public services.

Challenges in implementing Regulations for AI Accessibility for PWDs

Defining the term ‘inclusive AI’ is a challenge. When working on implementing regulations and compliance for the accessibility of AI, if the primary work is left undefined, it makes the task of creating tools to address the issue an issue. The rapid pace of tech and AI development has more often outpaced legal frameworks in development. This leads to the creation of enforcement gaps. Countries like Canada and tech industry giants like Microsoft and Google are leading forces behind creating accessible AI innovations. Their regulatory frameworks focus on developing AI ethics with inclusivity and collaboration with disability rights groups. 

India’s efforts in creating an inclusive AI include the redesign of the Sugamya Bharat app. The app had been created to assist PWDs and the elderly.  It will now be incorporating AI features specifically to assist the intended users. 

Though AI development has opportunities for inclusivity, unregulated development can be risky.  Regulation plays a critical role in ensuring that AI-driven solutions prioritise inclusivity, fairness, and accessibility, harnessing AI’s potential to empower PWDs and contribute to a more inclusive society.

Conclusion

AI development can offer PWDs unprecedented independence and accessibility in leading their lives. The development of AI while keeping inclusivity and fairness in mind is needed to be prioritised. AI that is free from bias, combined with robust regulatory frameworks, together are essential in ensuring that AI serves equitably. Collaborations between tech developers, policymakers, and disability advocates need to be supported and promoted to build AI systems. This will in turn work towards bridging the accessibility gaps for PWDs. As AI continues to evolve, maintaining a steadfast commitment to inclusivity will be crucial in preventing marginalisation and advancing true technological progress for all.

References

• https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/over-1-4k-accessibility-related-complaints-filed-on-govt-app-75-solved-124090800118_1.html 
• https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/06/16/empowering-individuals-with-disabilities-through-ai-technology/ .
• https://hbr.org/2023/08/designing-generative-ai-to-work-for-people-with-disabilities ‍
• Thehttps://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/05/07/using-ai-to-empower-people-with-disabilities/andensur,personalization

Introduction

Big Tech has been pushing back against regulatory measures, particularly regarding data handling practices. X Corp (formerly Twitter) has taken a prominent stance in India. The platform has filed a petition against the Central and State governments, challenging content-blocking orders and opposing the Center’s newly launched Sahyog portal.  The X Corp has furthermore labelled the Sahyog Portal as a 'censorship portal' that enables government agencies to issue blocking orders using a standardized template.

The key regulations governing the tech space in India include the IT Act of 2000,  IT Rules 2021 and 2023 (which stress platform accountability and content moderation), and the DPDP Act 2023, which intersects with personal data governance. This petition by the X Corp raises concerns for digital freedom, platform accountability, and the evolving regulatory frameworks in India. 

Elon Musk vs Indian Government: Key Issues at Stake

The 2021 IT Rules, particularly Rule 3(1)(d) of Part II, outline intermediaries' obligations regarding ‘Content Takedowns’. Intermediaries must remove or disable access to unlawful content within 36 hours of receiving a court order or government notification. Notably, the rules do not require government takedown requests to be explicitly in writing, raising concerns about potential misuse. 

X’s petition also focuses on the Sahyog Portal, a government-run platform that allows various agencies and state police to request content removal directly. They contend that the failure to comply with such orders can expose intermediaries' officers to prosecution. This has sparked controversy, with platforms like Elon Musk’s X arguing that such provisions grant the government excessive control, potentially undermining free speech and fostering undue censorship.

The broader implications include geopolitical tensions, potential business risks for big tech companies, and significant effects on India's digital economy, user engagement, and platform governance. Balancing regulatory compliance with digital rights remains a crucial challenge in this evolving landscape.

The Global Context: Lessons from Other Jurisdictions

The ‘EU's Digital Services Act’ establishes a baseline 'notice and takedown' system. According to the Act, hosting providers, including online platforms, must enable third parties to notify them of illegal content, which they must promptly remove to retain their hosting defence. The DSA also mandates expedited removal processes for notifications from trusted flaggers, user suspension for those with frequent violations, and enhanced protections for minors. Additionally, hosting providers have to adhere to specific content removal obligations, including the elimination of terrorist content within one hour and deploying technology to detect known or new CSAM material and remove it.

In contrast to the EU, the US First Amendment protects speech from state interference but does not extend to private entities. Dominant digital platforms, however, significantly influence discourse by moderating content, shaping narratives, and controlling advertising markets. This dual role creates tension as these platforms balance free speech, platform safety, and profitability.

India has adopted a model closer to the EU's approach, emphasizing content moderation to curb misinformation, false narratives, and harmful content. Drawing from the EU's framework, India could establish third-party notification mechanisms, enforce clear content takedown guidelines, and implement detection measures for harmful content like terrorist material and CSAM within defined timelines. This would balance content regulation with platform accountability while aligning with global best practices.

Key Concerns and Policy Debates

As the issue stands, the main concerns that arise are:

1. The need for transparency in government orders for takedowns, the reasons and a clear framework for why they are needed and the guidelines for doing so. 
2. The need for balancing digital freedom with national security and the concerns that arise out of it for tech companies. Essentially, the role platforms play in safeguarding the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution of India. 
3. This court ruling by the Karnataka HC will have the potential to redefine the principles upon which the intermediary guidelines function under the Indian laws. 

Potential Outcomes and the Way Forward

While we wait for the Hon’ble Court’s directives and orders in response to the filed suit, while the court's decision could favour either side or lead to a negotiated resolution, the broader takeaway is the necessity of collaborative policymaking that balances governmental oversight with platform accountability. This debate underscores the pressing need for a structured and transparent regulatory framework for content moderation. Additionally, this case also highlights the importance of due process in content regulation and the need for legal clarity for tech companies operating in India. Ultimately, a consultative and principles-based approach will be key to ensuring a fair and open digital ecosystem.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/elon-musks-x-sues-union-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations/article69352961.ece
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/elon-musk-s-x-sues-union-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations-101742463516588.html
• https://www.financialexpress.com/life/technology-explainer-why-has-x-accused-govt-of-censorship-3788648/
• https://thelawreporters.com/elon-musk-s-x-sues-indian-government-over-alleged-censorship-and-it-act-violations ‍
• https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/digilinks/2023/february/the-eu-digital-services-act---a-new-era-for-online-harms-and-intermediary-liability

Executive Summary:

A misleading video has been widely shared online, falsely portraying Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru stating that he was not involved in the Indian independence struggle and he even opposed it. The video is a manipulated excerpt from Pandit Nehru’s final major interview in 1964 with American TV host Arnold Mich. The original footage available on India’s state broadcaster Prasar Bharati’s YouTube channel shows Pandit Nehru discussing about Muhammad Ali Jinnah, stating that Jinnah did not participate in the independence movement and opposed it. The viral video falsely edits Pandit Nehru’s comments to create a false narrative, which has been debunked upon reviewing the full, unedited interview.

Claims:

In the viral video, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru states that he was not involved in the fight for Indian independence and even opposed it.

‍

‍

Fact check:

Upon receiving the posts, we thoroughly checked the video and then we divided the video into keyframes using the inVid tool. We reverse-searched one of the frames of the video. We found a video uploaded by Prasar Bharati Archives official YouTube channel on 14 May 2019.

The description of the video reads, “Full video recording of what was perhaps Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's last significant interview to American TV Host Arnold Mich Jawaharlal Nehru's last TV Interview - May 1964e his death. Another book by Chandrika Prasad provides a date of 18th May 1964  when the interview was aired in New York, this is barely a few days before the death of Pandit Nehru on 27th May 1964.”

On reviewing the full video, we found that the viral clip of Pandit Nehru runs from 14:50 to 15:45. In this portion, Pandit Nehru is speaking about Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a key leader of the Muslim League.

At the timestamp 14:34, the American TV interviewer Arnold Mich says, “You and Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah, you were all involved at that point of Independence and then partition in the fight for Independence of India from the British domination.” Pandit Nehru replied, “Mr. Jinnah was not involved in the fight for independence at all. In fact, he opposed it. Muslim League was started in about 1911 I think. It was started really by the British encouraged by them so as to create factions, they did succeed to some extent. And ultimately there came the partition.” 

Upon thoroughly analyzing we found that the viral video is an edited version of the real video to misrepresent the actual context of the video.

We also found the same interview uploaded on a Facebook page named Nehru Centre for Social Research on 1 December 2021.

Hence, the viral claim video is misleading and fake.

Hence, the viral video is fake and misleading and netizens must be careful while believing in such an edited video.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the viral video claiming that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru stated that he was not involved in the Indian independence struggle is found to be falsely edited. The original footage reveals that Pandit Nehru was referring to Muhammad Ali Jinnah's participation in the struggle, not his own. This explanation debunks the false story conveyed by the manipulated video.

• Claim:  Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru stated that he was not involved in the struggle for Indian independence and even he opposed it.
• Claimed on: YouTube, LinkedIn, Facebook, X (Formerly known as Twitter)
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

‍