#FactCheck-AI-generated image falsely shows Yusuf Pathan joining BJP with JP Nadda

Introduction

The recent events in Mira Road, a bustling suburb on the outskirts of Mumbai, India, unfold like a modern-day parable, cautioning us against the perils of unverified digital content. The Mira Road incident, a communal clash that erupted into the physical realm, has been mirrored and magnified through the prism of social media. The Maharashtra Police, in a concerted effort to quell the spread of discord, issued stern warnings against the dissemination of rumours and fake messages. These digital phantoms, they stressed, have the potential to ignite law and order conflagrations, threatening the delicate tapestry of peace.

The police's clarion call came in the wake of a video, mischievously edited, that falsely claimed anti-social elements had set the Mira Road railway station ablaze. This digital doppelgänger of reality swiftly went viral, its tendrils reaching into the ubiquitous realm of WhatsApp, ensnaring the unsuspecting in its web of deceit.

In this age of information overload, where the line between fact and fabrication blurs, the police urged citizens to exercise discernment. The note they issued was not merely an advisory but a plea for vigilance, a reminder that the act of sharing unauthenticated messages is not a passive one; it is an act that can disturb the peace and unravel the fabric of society.

The Massacre 

The police's response to this crisis was multifaceted. Administrators and members of social media groups found to be the harbingers of such falsehoods would face legal repercussions. The Thane District, a mosaic of cultural and religious significance, has been marred by a series of violent incidents, casting a shadow over its storied history. The police, in their role as guardians of order, have detained individuals, scoured social media for inauthentic posts, and maintained a vigilant presence in the region.

The Maharashtra cyber cell, a digital sentinel, has unearthed approximately 15 posts laden with videos and messages designed to sow discord among the masses. These findings were shared with the Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar (MBVV) police, who stand ready to take appropriate action. Inspector General Yashasvi Yadav of the Maharashtra cyber cell issued an appeal to the public, urging them to refrain from circulating such unverified messages, reinforcing the notion that the propagation of inauthentic information is, in itself, a crime.

The MBVV police, in their zero-tolerance stance, have formed a team dedicated to scrutinizing social media posts. The message is clear: fake news will be met with strict action. The right to free speech on social media comes with the responsibility not to share information that could incite mischief. The Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act serve as the bulwarks against such transgressions.

The Aftermath 

In the aftermath of the clashes, the police have worked tirelessly to restore calm. A young man, whose video replete with harsh and obscene language went viral, was apprehended and has since apologised for his actions. The MBVV police have also taken to social media to reassure the public that the situation is under control, urging them to avoid circulating messages that could exacerbate tensions.

The Thane district has witnessed acts of vandalism targeting shops, further escalating tensions. In response, the police have apprehended individuals linked to these acts, hoping that such measures will expedite the return of peace. Advisories have been issued, warning against the dissemination of provocative messages and rumours.

In total, 19 individuals have been taken into custody in relation to numerous incidents of violence. The Mira-Bhayandar and Vasai-Virar police have underscored their commitment to legal action against those who spread rumours through fake messages. The authorities have also highlighted the importance of brotherhood and unity, reminding citizens that above all, they are Indians first.

Conclusion 

In a world where old videos, stripped of context, can fuel tensions, the police have issued a note referring to the aforementioned fake video message. They urge citizens to exercise caution, to neither believe nor circulate such messages. Police Authorities have assured that no one involved in the violence will be spared, and peace committees are being convened to restore harmony. The Mira Road incident serves as a sign of the prowess of information and responsibility that comes with it. In the digital age, where the ephemeral and the eternal collide, we must navigate the waters of truth with care. Ultimately, it is not just the image of a locality that is at stake, but the essence of our collective humanity.

References 

• https://youtu.be/gK2Ac1qP-nE?feature=shared
• https://www.mid-day.com/mumbai/mumbai-crime-news/article/mira-road-communal-clash-those-spreading-fake-messages-to-face-strict-action-say-mira-bhayandar-vasai-virar-cops-23331572
• https://www.mid-day.com/mumbai/mumbai-news/article/mira-road-communal-clash-cybercops-on-alert-for-fake-clips-23331653
• https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/national/2024/01/24/bom43-mh-shops-3rdld-vandalism.html

‍

Introduction
‍

The rise of artificial intelligence has transformed how individuals search for information, buy and compare products online. Unlike the traditional search engines like Google  that presents the user with a set of links and directs users to websites, AI-powered systems provide synthesised answers and recommendations which means we don't have to click through every link to find what we are looking for, we simply have to ask an LLM and it provides recommendations based on our needs expressed through prompt. This development has raised important legal and commercial questions, one such question was addressed in the judgement of Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited v. Open AI Inc. and Others (2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5738) decided by HMJ Ravi Krishan Kapur of Calcutta High court on 20 May 2026. If an AI platform becomes a primary source of information, can a business demand inclusion in its responses? Is it a legal injury if the LLM omits a business? More fundamentally, how do the existing laws classify technologies that not only process information, but also generate new content? These were the questions that came before Calcutta High Court. Although the dispute arose from Indiamart’s complaint regarding visibility on ChatGPT search, the judgement explored beyond the disagreement between two private entities.

‍

The Dispute
‍

IndiaMart is one of India’s largest electronic business-to-business marketplaces since 1996, serving millions of buyers and sellers across India. They also have registered trademarks and their entire business depends on visibility on the internet considering the digitalisation of the market. Open AI launched ChatGPT search in October 2024, which is a feature that supplements AI responses with links to relevant web sources. Indiamart alleged that ChatGPT was not displaying links to their online platform in the same way that it displayed links to other competing services or individual sellers. A major grievance raised by Indiamart was that ChatGPT allegedly bypassed IndiaMart market listings by directing users to sellers’ individual websites while continuing to provide platform level links for other competing platforms. Hence, they contended that this practice diverted users away from their platform and negatively affected their business interests. The company argued that such exclusion amounted to discriminatory treatment and resulted in economic harm, diluted its trademarks and amounted to disparagement. They alleged that it violated their rights under article 14, 19, 21 under the constitution and rights under IT Act and IT Rules also. When IndiaMart sought an explanation from OpenAI, the company stated that its decision was influenced by the inclusion of IndiaMart in the United States Trade Representative (USTR) Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy 2024, a U.S. government report that identifies online and physical marketplaces alleged to facilitate intellectual property infringements. IndiaMart challenged this justification, arguing that the USTR report has no statutory or binding force in India. It further alleged selective discrimination, pointing out that several other platforms featured on the same USTR list including DHGate, Pinduoduo, Shopee, and Taobao continued to remain accessible through ChatGPT-generated responses. Consequently, IndiaMart approached the Calcutta High Court seeking interim relief directing ChatGPT to display and provide access to IndiaMart links in its responses.

‍

ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT

‍

IndiaMart's contentions: They argued that ChatGPT, because its search feature, performs the role of an "intermediary" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act and is therefore required to comply with the obligations imposed under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Relying on Rule 3(1)(n), IndiaMart argued that an intermediary cannot engage in discriminatory treatment of platforms or selectively restrict access to information. IndiaMart further maintained that users have a right to access information relating to its platform and that the omission of IndiaMart links from ChatGPT's responses violated this interest. They alleged violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, along with the broader principle of a user's "right to know", to argue that OpenAI owed an obligation to display IndiaMart listings in response to relevant queries. In addition, IndiaMart alleged that the exclusion of its links caused commercial harm, diluted its trademarks, amounted to disparagement, and constituted an unfair trade practice that adversely affected its business and reputation.

OpenAI's contentions: OpenAI asserted that IndiaMart had no legally enforceable ‘Right to visibility’ on ChatGPT. They argued that neither contract, statute, nor constitutional law imposed any obligation on OpenAI to display, prioritise, or recommend IndiaMart links in response to user queries. In the absence of any recognised legal right, there could be no actionable injury and therefore no valid cause of action. OpenAI also challenged the classification of ChatGPT as an "intermediary" under the Information Technology Act, 2000. According to OpenAI, ChatGPT does not merely host, transmit, or facilitate access to third-party content but also generates responses through its large language model (LLM) and therefore functions more closely as an "originator" than an intermediary. Consequently, the obligations applicable to intermediaries under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, including those relied upon by IndiaMart, were inapplicable. With respect to the USTR Notorious Markets List, OpenAI submitted that its reliance on the report formed part of its internal risk-management and business policies. Such decisions, it argued, were matters of private commercial judgment and not ordinarily subject to judicial review. OpenAI further pointed out that IndiaMart had also previously blocked ChatGPT from accessing and crawling its website that weakened the company's demand for greater visibility within ChatGPT-generated responses.

Court’s decision: The court rejected Indiamart's claim that they were entitled to be displayed in ChatGPT searches. The court emphasised the autonomy of private businesses, the court held that the right to carry on trade and business is "inviolable" and that no law can compel one private entity to operate their platform for the benefit of another, which is based on foundational economic philosophy of laissez faire. Unless there is a contractual, statutory or constitutional obligation, a platform has no duty to the other platform to promote or advance their economic interest. Applying this principle, the court found no such duty or “vested legal right” that entitled IndiaMart’s visibility on ChatGPT. The court reasoned that even if users possess the ‘right to know’, Indiamart could not convert that interest into an enforceable claim under article 19(1)(g) or other legal provision. The court looked at the dispute as one arising from commercial disadvantage rather than violation of any legally protected right. Although the reduced visibility may have had economic consequences, economic harm does not by itself create a cause of action.

The court also took into consideration whether ChatGPT should be classified as an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 or as an originator under Section 2(1)(za). This was an important distinction, because the intermediaries can claim safe harbour protection under section 79 of the IT act, but the originators cannot. The court expressed a preliminary view that ChatGPT is generative capabilities, place it closer to an originator than an intermediary because, unlike conventional search engines, which identify and rank existing information, Generative AI systems, analyse the data and produce new output based on algorithms, which is in response to the user’s prompt. The Court also referenced the NITI Aayog National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (pages 7 to 12) to support its observations that ChatGPT does not merely store, host or transmit information, it can produce essays, research material, code, creative writing, and other forms of content that did not previously exist in that exact form, hence extending beyond the conventional understanding of an intermediary. The court also recognised that it is a vexed issue and remains unsettled because AI systems operate in response to users instructions and do not function independently, which is why the court refrained from providing a definitive classification and acknowledged that the question may ultimately require legislative clarification as well.

In addition to this, the Court took the view that the IndiaMart’s grievances did not amount to an Intellectual property dispute, as they found no trademark infringement or dilution because any reference to the "IndiaMart" mark was merely descriptive and did not constitute commercial use "in the course of trade" under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. IndiaMart also hadn’t demonstrated any false or misleading use of its trademark.

Similarly, the Court found that claims of disparagement, trade libel, and injurious falsehood were unsustainable because such claims require the publication of a false statement that harms reputation and since ChatGPT had not published any derogatory statement about IndiaMart, the mere omission of links could not amount to disparagement or libel. The Court relied on Tech Plus Media v. Jyoti Janda, that allegations of unfairness or copyright infringement must be supported by specific pleadings and evidence.

Beyond the immediate dispute, the judgment shed light on the growing difficulty of applying legal categories created for an earlier internet era to generative AI systems. The Information Technology Act was enacted at a time when internet regulation focused primarily on websites, service providers, and electronic communications and therefore existing classifications may not adequately address the hybrid nature of contemporary AI technologies. The Court acknowledged OpenAI's concern that granting IndiaMart's request could trigger floodgates of litigation on similar claims from businesses dissatisfied with AI-generated visibility, however, it clarified that such concerns cannot outweigh genuine legal claims or fundamental rights. The Court suggested that legislative intervention may eventually be necessary.

‍

Conclusion
‍

This judgement not only addressed the visibility issue in AI generated responses, but also whether visibility itself can become a legally protected interest in AI-driven searches? As more and more users rely on AI generated output for their preference rather than traditional search engine output, the power to decide what information is displayed and what is not will eventually become economically significant. The Calcutta High Court through this judgement declined to create any such right through judicial interventions and also highlighted that the existing legal framework is not adequately equipped to address the novel challenges posed by generative AI.

‍(This blog is based on the judgment in Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited v. Open AI Inc. and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5738, decided on May 20, 2026 by the Calcutta High Court, and related reporting by LiveLaw and SCC Times.)

‍

References
‍

• https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/calcutta-high-court/no-right-to-visibility-exists-on-private-ai-platforms-calcutta-high-court-refuses-to-direct-chatgpt-to-display-indiamart-links-536891
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/06/03/chatgpt-intermediary-originator-it-act-calcutta-high-court/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198449710/

‍

Executive Summary

‍
Amid rising tensions in West Asia and concerns over the safety of Indian seafarers, a video showing a vessel engulfed in flames and thick black smoke is being widely circulated on social media. The clip is being shared with the claim that it depicts a US attack on a ship carrying Indian nationals in Omani waters. CyberPeace Research Wing  research found the claim to be misleading. The viral video predates the incident it is being linked to and is not related to any recent attack.

‍

Claim:
‍

A Facebook user shared the video alleging that the United States attacked a ship carrying Indian citizens in the maritime region near Oman. The post has been widely circulated as part of the ongoing West Asia tensions. Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/reel/3031094270427837, https://www.facebook.com/reel/3031094270427837 

‍

‍

Fact Check:
‍

A reverse image search of keyframes from the viral video led to several media reports published on 2 March 2026, which carried the same visuals seen in the circulating clip. The reports indicated that the footage showed a vessel targeted amid escalating tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, following restrictions on maritime movement in the region. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/iran-targets-6th-ship-in-hormuz-strait-video-shows-billowing-smoke-11159019

‍

‍

Further research also found the same visuals in a Moneycontrol report published on 2 March 2026. The report clearly established that the footage is from an earlier incident and not linked to any recent developments. https://www.moneycontrol.com/world/indian-crew-member-killed-after-drone-boat-strikes-oil-tanker-off-oman-coast-first-indian-casualty-in-us-iran-tensions-article-13848303.html

‍

‍

Conclusion:
‍

The research confirms that the viral video is not related to any recent US attack on a vessel carrying Indian nationals. The footage has been online since at least March 2026 and shows an earlier incident involving the oil tanker Skylight during tensions in the Strait of Hormuz. Hence, the claim being circulated on social media is misleading.

‍