#FactCheck:AI-Generated War Video Falsely Linked to Israel-Iran Tensions Goes Viral

Executive Summary:
‍
A widely circulated claim on social media, including a post from the official X account of Pakistan, alleges that the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) carried out an airstrike on India, supported by a viral video. However, according to our research, the video used in these posts is actually footage from the video game Arma-3 and has no connection to any real-world military operation. The use of such misleading content contributes to the spread of false narratives about a conflict between India and Pakistan and has the potential to create unnecessary fear and confusion among the public.

‍

Claim:
‍
Viral social media posts, including the official Government of Pakistan X handle, claims that the PAF launched a successful airstrike against Indian military targets. The footage accompanying the claim shows jets firing missiles and explosions on the ground. The video is presented as recent and factual evidence of heightened military tensions.

Fact Check:

As per our research using reverse image search, the videos circulating online that claim to show Pakistan launching an attack on India under the name 'Operation Sindoor' are misleading. There is no credible evidence or reliable reporting to support the existence of any such operation. The Press Information Bureau (PIB) has also verified that the video being shared is false and misleading. During our research, we also came across footage from the video game Arma-3 on YouTube, which appears to have been repurposed to create the illusion of a real military conflict. This strongly indicates that fictional content is being used to propagate a false narrative. The likely intention behind this misinformation is to spread fear and confusion by portraying a conflict that never actually took place.

‍

Conclusion:
‍
It is true to say that Pakistan is using the widely shared misinformation videos to attack India with false information. There is no reliable evidence to support the claim, and the videos are misleading and irrelevant. Such false information must be stopped right away because it has the potential to cause needless panic. No such operation is occurring, according to authorities and fact-checking groups.

‍

• Claim: Viral social media posts claim PAF attack on India
• Claimed On:  Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

Procedural History: 

‍

The case started with a 2011 Madras High Court ruling that included the appellant’s personal information. In the case discussed, the court decided in 2024, the appellant went to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court to request that his name and other identifying information from that previous ruling be redacted. He argued that his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was violated by the ongoing release of such private information into the public arena. He claimed that the revelation had hurt him in real ways, such as having his application for an Australian visa denied. Therefore, without compromising the ideals of open justice, the current procedures aimed to have the court recognize a person’s “Right to be Forgotten” within a broader framework of privacy and data protection.

‍

Background and Factual Matrix

‍

The appellant was charged under Sections 417 and 376 of the IPC. The trial court convicted him in 201, but later, the High Court in 2014 fully, completely and unconditionally acquitted him, which was not based on the benefit of doubt. Following the acquittal, he remarried and has three children. The judgment of both the High Court and the Trial Court has personal and intimate details about him. Being available in the public domain has caused him significant repercussions, as he was denied a visa to travel to Australia by authorities, citing the criminal cases. The appellant has filed a plea seeking a mandamus directing the Registrar General, Additional Registrar General, and Registrar (IT-Statistics) as R1, R2, R3 to redact his name and other identities from the acquittal judgment. He has sought a direction from Ikanoon Software Development Private Limited (R4) to reflect the redaction in its publication. 

‍

Issue 

‍

1. Whether a writ of mandamus can lie against a High Court for redaction of personal details from its own judgment, or does such a prayer tantamount to a High Court issuing a writ against itself?
2. Whether the High Court, being a Court of Record under Article 215 of the Indian Constitution, is entitled to preserve its record for perpetuity in its original form without any modification or redaction?
3. Whether the ‘Right to be Forgotten' can be recognised and enforced in the absence of a specific statutory provision or Supreme Court direction, given that it constitutes an exception to the fundamental principle of open courts and open justice?

‍

Adjudication and Reasoning

The division bench has allowed the Writ appeal and granted the following relief:

1. R4 directed to take down the judgment in Crl.A. (MD) No.321 of 2011 dated 30.04.2014 forthwith.
2. R1 to R3 directed to redact the name and other details of the Writ Petitioner relating to his identity from the judgment dated 30.04.2014 in Crl.A.(MD) No. 321 of 2011 and ensure that only the redacted judgment is available for publication or for uploading.

‍

Rule 

‍

1. Courts have a wide discretion in deciding whether to allow redaction or not. Such discretion can either be granted at the request of the party seeking redaction or, in appropriate cases, even suo moto by the court.
2. The accused who have earned full, complete and unconditional acquittal without any benefit of doubt have a legitimate claim to move forward for redaction of personal information.
3. The open Court doesn’t require absolute disclosure of all personal information, and the courts, while deciding the concern of privacy and the right to ensure that in litigations to leave behind parts of their past which are no longer relevant, have to balance the concept of open Court on the one hand and privacy concerns of a citizen on the other.
4. As the High Court is the repository of a wide range of information and is entitled to preserve the original record in perpetuity. However, without diluting the sanctity of the original record, the public reflection of that record can be moderated to preserve the privacy of the person to whom that record pertains.

‍

Reasoning 

‍

1. Drawing on the judgment K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the court found Article 21 to protect not only informational privacy but also the "right to be forgotten," which gives individuals the right to request the deletion of any personal data when there is no longer any legitimate public interest in retaining such information. Such irreparable reputational damage is thus an infringement on constitutional privacy that demands judicial redaction. 
2. The court rejected the argument that a writ against its own order is impermissible, drawing a distinction between challenging the legal correctness of a judgment and seeking redaction of personal information. Allowing redaction will not question the validity of the judgment; rather, it will simply change its public appearance to ensure privacy.
3. Since a High Court is a Court of Record with an obligation to preserve its judgments in their unaltered form forever, the court held here that such internal maintenance of complete records was not incompatible with the issuance of a redacted public version. Institutional integrity is maintained when the original kept in the archives is supplemented with a public version that masks the privacy areas.
4. Open justice principles work to establish transparency, accountability, and public confidence, but these are not absolute. The court took a proportionality stance: personal identifiers, where they neither educate nor have precedential value and continue to inflict harm, may be expunged without affecting the established legal principles of judgment.
5. Although the DPDP Act exempts courts from several statutory obligations, the court held that it can, by virtue of its inherent discretion, protect personal data, and in so doing, exercise that power without the need for any legislative command. Traditionally the Madras High Court rules provide for the possibility of restriction of certified copies, thus establishing redaction as feasible both legally and administratively.

‍

Introduction

‍

On June 2, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order called "Promoting Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security." The order tells federal agencies to improve cyber defences against AI-based threats and creates a system where AI companies can choose to let the government access powerful new models before they are released to the public. This happens as the U.S. and China are in a heated competition to lead the next generation of AI. While the order only affects the United States, its impact could reach the global AI industry, including India.

‍

What Does the Executive Order Do?

‍

The White House order focuses on three areas: First, it aims to upgrade government cyber security. Federal agencies must strengthen their information systems with AI-enabled defences within 30 days. Cyber Security and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) will issue new guidelines for civilian agencies, and an AI Cyber security Clearinghouse will be established for the government and private companies to share and resolve software vulnerabilities. 

Second, the order introduces a voluntary pre-release review process for advanced AI models. Before a new model is publicly available, AI companies can give the government up to 30 days to evaluate it for cyber security risks. An earlier draft proposed a 90-day review period, but this was cut back due to feedback from the technology industry. The government will also create classified benchmarks to figure out which models qualify as a “covered frontier model” and are therefore subject to this review process. 

Finally, the order emphasises criminal enforcement. It prioritises legal action against those who use AI tools to commit cybercrimes. 

According to the White House, the aim is to promote AI innovation and security by collaborating with the private sector to modernise government and private information systems and protect them from external threats.

‍

Why Does This Matter Globally?

‍

1. AI Is Now a National Security Issue Until recently, most governments viewed AI as an economic or scientific issue. This order officially changes that for the United States, placing advanced AI alongside other sensitive technologies that need government oversight before deployment.  When the world's largest military makes this change, other governments pay attention. Countries allied with or partnering with the U.S. will likely revisit their own AI governance frameworks in the months ahead. 

2. Two Competing Models for the World The U.S. and EU represent two different approaches to AI governance. The EU AI Act lays down strict rules, is focused on ethics, and requires heavy compliance. The US approach is lighter on ethics, promoting voluntary cooperation, prioritising security, and encouraging innovation. Countries developing their own AI policies will either continue to align with one of these models or take ideas from both.  The Atlantic Council has pointed out that if the U.S. model is successful, it could influence international security standards for AI development, even without formal global agreements. 

3. The China Factor  Trump initially delayed signing the order, worried it would slow down American companies and give China an edge. The final version avoids mandatory licensing requirements but clearly indicates that the U.S. aims to lead, not only in building AI but also in securing it. China is likely to respond by speeding up its own evaluation systems, creating another global framework.

‍

What Could This Mean for India?

‍

India has taken a careful, non-mandatory approach to AI governance. MeitY's India AI Governance Guidelines, issued in November 2025, are based on principles and are not binding. India's AI Safety Institute has been announced but is not fully operational.  Efforts to create binding regulation have been seen in actions like the Private Member's Bill, the AI Ethics and Accountability Bill, 2025, introduced in the Lok Sabha. This bill suggests mandatory reviews for high-risk AI systems but has not been passed yet. It's important to note that groups like the AI Governance Expert Group (AIGEG) and the Technology and Policy Expert Committee (TPEC) serve only in an advisory role; they do not have legislative power. As a result, nothing binding has been implemented so far.  The Trump order puts additional pressure on India to pass measurable, binding AI-security-related measures. As AI use increases in banking, healthcare, telecommunications, and government services and frontier AI models continue to evolve without global oversight, stronger security evaluation methods are becoming necessary, especially in critical sectors.

Recent events prove this need. In June 2026, a Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack hit the CBSE's On-Screen Marking portal. It saw 1.5 million requests in two minutes and over one lakh unauthorised file access attempts targeting a system used by millions of students. Similar attacks have impacted AIIMS Delhi and other public digital infrastructure. As AI tools make these attacks easier to carry out, security testing before deployment can no longer be seen as optional.

For Indian AI companies aiming at global markets, the U.S. framework is also important for business. Standards that are set voluntarily in Washington often become necessary for international partnerships and contracts.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Trump's AI cyber security order signals a shift. A government that resisted regulating AI has now recognised that powerful models need oversight before they reach the public. Its immediate impact affects U.S. agencies and developers. However, the broader message is that advanced AI is a national security concern. This will influence policy conversations around the world. For India, the priority is to develop its own security evaluation capacity now, rather than waiting to adopt frameworks created for other contexts.

‍

References

‍

• White House Executive Order, "Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security," June 2, 2026
• Federal Register — Executive Order Publication, June 5, 2026
• Council on Foreign Relations — Assessing Trump's Executive Order on AI Oversight, June 4, 2026
• Atlantic Council — Reading Between the Lines of Trump's New Executive Order on AI, June 3, 2026
• Times of India — Donald Trump Passes AI Cyber security Order
• MeitY India AI Governance Guidelines, November 2025
• AI Ethics and Accountability Bill, 2025 — Explained
• NPR — Trump Signs EO Seeking Early Government Access to Powerful AI Models

‍