#FactCheck:AI-Generated War Video Falsely Linked to Israel-Iran Tensions Goes Viral
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media linking it to the ongoing tensions between Israel and Iran. The clip shows multiple fighter jets flying across the sky, while massive flames appear to be rising from tall buildings below. The visuals are dramatic and alarming, creating the impression of a large-scale military strike. Users sharing the video claim that after Israel carried out an attack, Iran launched a retaliatory strike on Israel, and that the viral footage captures the aftermath of this counterattack. However, research conducted by the CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. Our research revealed that the viral video is not authentic but AI-generated.
Claim
On the social media platform Facebook, a user shared the viral video with the caption: “Iran has also carried out a retaliatory attack on Israel.”
(Post link and archive link provided above.)
Factcheck
Upon closely examining the video, we noticed several irregularities in the visuals and motion patterns, which raised suspicion that the footage may have been generated using artificial intelligence. To verify this, we analyzed the video using the AI detection tool developed by Hive Moderation. According to the analysis report, there is a 62 percent likelihood that the viral video is AI-generated.
As part of further verification, we also scanned the video using Sightengine. The results indicated an even stronger probability, suggesting that the video is 99 percent AI-generated.
Conclusion
Our research confirms that the viral video does not depict a real military attack. It is AI-generated content being falsely shared in the context of Israel-Iran tensions.
Related Blogs
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/
Introduction
There is a rising desire for artificial intelligence (AI) laws that limit threats to public safety and protect human rights while allowing for a flexible and inventive setting. Most AI policies prioritize the use of AI for the public good. The most compelling reason for AI innovation as a valid goal of public policy is its promise to enhance people's lives by assisting in the resolution of some of the world's most difficult difficulties and inefficiencies and to emerge as a transformational technology, similar to mobile computing. This blog explores the complex interplay between AI and internet governance from an Indian standpoint, examining the challenges, opportunities, and the necessity for a well-balanced approach.
Understanding Internet Governance
Before delving into an examination of their connection, let's establish a comprehensive grasp of Internet Governance. This entails the regulations, guidelines, and criteria that influence the global operation and management of the Internet. With the internet being a shared resource, governance becomes crucial to ensure its accessibility, security, and equitable distribution of benefits.
The Indian Digital Revolution
India has witnessed an unprecedented digital revolution, with a massive surge in internet users and a burgeoning tech ecosystem. The government's Digital India initiative has played a crucial role in fostering a technology-driven environment, making technology accessible to even the remotest corners of the country. As AI applications become increasingly integrated into various sectors, the need for a comprehensive framework to govern these technologies becomes apparent.
AI and Internet Governance Nexus
The intersection of AI and Internet governance raises several critical questions. How should data, the lifeblood of AI, be governed? What role does privacy play in the era of AI-driven applications? How can India strike a balance between fostering innovation and safeguarding against potential risks associated with AI?
- AI's Role in Internet Governance:
Artificial Intelligence has emerged as a powerful force shaping the dynamics of the internet. From content moderation and cybersecurity to data analysis and personalized user experiences, AI plays a pivotal role in enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of Internet governance mechanisms. Automated systems powered by AI algorithms are deployed to detect and respond to emerging threats, ensuring a safer online environment.
A comprehensive strategy for managing the interaction between AI and the internet is required to stimulate innovation while limiting hazards. Multistakeholder models including input from governments, industry, academia, and civil society are gaining appeal as viable tools for developing comprehensive and extensive governance frameworks.
The usefulness of multistakeholder governance stems from its adaptability and flexibility in requiring collaboration from players with a possible stake in an issue. Though flawed, this approach allows for flaws that may be remedied using knowledge-building pieces. As AI advances, this trait will become increasingly important in ensuring that all conceivable aspects are covered.
The Need for Adaptive Regulations
While AI's potential for good is essentially endless, so is its potential for damage - whether intentional or unintentional. The technology's highly disruptive nature needs a strong, human-led governance framework and rules that ensure it may be used in a positive and responsible manner. The fast emergence of GenAI, in particular, emphasizes the critical need for strong frameworks. Concerns about the usage of GenAI may enhance efforts to solve issues around digital governance and hasten the formation of risk management measures.
Several AI governance frameworks have been published throughout the world in recent years, with the goal of offering high-level guidelines for safe and trustworthy AI development. The OECD's "Principles on Artificial Intelligence" (OECD, 2019), the EU's "Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI" (EU, 2019), and UNESCO's "Recommendations on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence" (UNESCO, 2021) are among the multinational organizations that have released their own principles. However, the advancement of GenAI has resulted in additional recommendations, such as the OECD's newly released "G7 Hiroshima Process on Generative Artificial Intelligence" (OECD, 2023).
Several guidance documents and voluntary frameworks have emerged at the national level in recent years, including the "AI Risk Management Framework" from the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a voluntary guidance published in January 2023, and the White House's "Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights," a set of high-level principles published in October 2022 (The White House, 2022). These voluntary policies and frameworks are frequently used as guidelines by regulators and policymakers all around the world. More than 60 nations in the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Europe had issued national AI strategies as of 2023 (Stanford University).
Conclusion
Monitoring AI will be one of the most daunting tasks confronting the international community in the next centuries. As vital as the need to govern AI is the need to regulate it appropriately. Current AI policy debates too often fall into a false dichotomy of progress versus doom (or geopolitical and economic benefits versus risk mitigation). Instead of thinking creatively, solutions all too often resemble paradigms for yesterday's problems. It is imperative that we foster a relationship that prioritizes innovation, ethical considerations, and inclusivity. Striking the right balance will empower us to harness the full potential of AI within the boundaries of responsible and transparent Internet Governance, ensuring a digital future that is secure, equitable, and beneficial for all.
References
- The Key Policy Frameworks Governing AI in India - Access Partnership
- AI in e-governance: A potential opportunity for India (indiaai.gov.in)
- India and the Artificial Intelligence Revolution - Carnegie India - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Rise of AI in the Indian Economy (indiaai.gov.in)
- The OECD Artificial Intelligence Policy Observatory - OECD.AI
- Artificial Intelligence | UNESCO
- Artificial intelligence | NIST
Executive Summary:
A viral online image claims to show Arvind Kejriwal, Chief Minister of Delhi, welcoming Elon Musk during his visit to India to discuss Delhi’s administrative policies. However, the CyberPeace Research Team has confirmed that the image is a deep fake, created using AI technology. The assertion that Elon Musk visited India to discuss Delhi’s administrative policies is false and misleading.
Claim
A viral image claims that Arvind Kejriwal welcomed Elon Musk during his visit to India to discuss Delhi’s administrative policies.
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the viral posts, we conducted a reverse image search using InVid Reverse Image searching tool. The search traced the image back to different unrelated sources featuring both Arvind Kejriwal and Elon Musk, but none of the sources depicted them together or involved any such event. The viral image displayed visible inconsistencies, such as lighting disparities and unnatural blending, which prompted further investigation.
Using advanced AI detection tools like TrueMedia.org and Hive AI Detection tool, we analyzed the image. The analysis confirmed with 97.5% confidence that the image was a deepfake. The tools identified “substantial evidence of manipulation,” particularly in the merging of facial features and the alignment of clothes and background, which were artificially generated.
Moreover, a review of official statements and credible reports revealed no record of Elon Musk visiting India to discuss Delhi’s administrative policies. Neither Arvind Kejriwal’s office nor Tesla or SpaceX made any announcement regarding such an event, further debunking the viral claim.
Conclusion:
The viral image claiming that Arvind Kejriwal welcomed Elon Musk during his visit to India to discuss Delhi’s administrative policies is a deep fake. Tools like Reverse Image search and AI detection confirm the image’s manipulation through AI technology. Additionally, there is no supporting evidence from any credible sources. The CyberPeace Research Team confirms the claim is false and misleading.
- Claim: Arvind Kejriwal welcomed Elon Musk to India to discuss Delhi’s administrative policies, viral on social media.
- Claimed on: Facebook and X(Formerly Twitter)
- Fact Check: False & Misleading
