#FactCheck: AI Video made by Pakistan which says they launched a cross-border airstrike on India's Udhampur Airbase

Introduction

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) changed course just 48 hours after the directive dated December 1, 2025,  sparked controversy. On December 3, 2025, the department publicly reversed its directive to smartphone manufacturers to pre-install the Sanchar Saathi app starting in March of the following year. The withdrawal marked the ending of a tumultuous, quick-paced event that highlighted how dynamic digital policy can be in a democracy. 

‍

The DoT explained its move in calculated terms. The government said that the first mandate was no longer necessary due to an abrupt increase in voluntary app downloads brought on by the public furore. The agency stated , “The mandate to install the app was meant to accelerate the process because the number of users has been growing rapidly.”

‍

The app in question is not new. When it was first introduced in 2023, it was intended to be a public safety where people could report suspicious calls, identify numbers registered in their name, block stolen devices using their IMEI, confirm the authenticity of their handset, and report fraudulent international calls that were disguised as Indian numbers. The platform has quietly expanded over the past two years with features like utilities to check mobile connections, as well as Chakshu for reporting fraud. When used freely, it has helped numerous people in navigating the increasingly complex web of online scams. 

‍

Balancing Protection and Personal Freedom

In India, there isn’t much precedent for requiring all phones to have a certain government backed app installed. While operators supported TRAI’s DND app in 2018 and emergency numbers were integrated during the pandemic, they did not go into the territory of compulsory pre-installation.

‍

Legal experts have time and again pointed out that although the government can control telecommunications for security reasons, any mandatory action pertaining to personal devices may be subject to constitutional review under the right to privacy, as stated in the Puttaswamy ruling. Not because the app is flawed in and of itself, but rather because every transition from voluntary adoption to mandatory compliance necessitates a higher standard of necessity, proportionality, and protections.  

‍

The Pulse of the Policy

The DoT’s stated rationale was clear: fake, duplicated or spoofed IMEIs represent a major cyber-security threat. India currently faces some of the world’s highest levels of SIM misuse, digital impersonation, online extortion, and device cloning crimes. Even a small fraction of compromised devices can do great harm in a nation with over a billion active mobile users.

‍

The DoT’s AI and Digital Intelligence Unit, a small seven-person team in charge of SIM security, fighting illicit telecom setups, and collaborating with financial regulators on quickly changing fraud patterns, issued the Sanchar Saathi directive as part of a larger set of security-focused measures. One order required platforms such as WhatsApp to make sure that web sessions were terminated after six hours and that accounts only functioned when the registered SIM card was present in the device.

‍

When taken as a whole, these orders indicate a clear strategic goal, the government is working to close systemic gaps that organised crime, particularly identity theft and device-level fraud, exploits. However, they also highlight the complex relationship between public opinion and security requirements. The government’s quick reversal in the Sanchar Saathi case demonstrated a crucial realization: digital safety mechanisms can only be effective when people feel educated, valued, and in charge. 

‍

CyberPeace Perspective & The Middle Path

CyberPeace stated that whenever a digital tool comes into contact with identity, data, or mobile access, public concern is inevitable. However, it is also emphasised that Sanchar Saathi is not a surveillance tool, instead can empower citizens. 

Even with the rolled back mandate, it is reaffirmed that cornerstones of digital trust are accountability, openness, audits, and unambiguous permissions. India can maintain both safety and rights through responsible implementation, ethical design, and open communication. 

‍

References

1. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/what-is-the-sanchar-saathi-app-why-is-the-government-mandating-its-pre-installation/article70350322.ece
2. https://theprint.in/opinion/sharp-edge/sanchar-saathi-app-modi-govt/2797917/ 
3. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2198110&reg=3&lang=2 
4. https://sancharsaathi.gov.in/SancharSaathiDocuments/ImportantDocuments/DoT%20issues%20directions%20for%20pre-installation%20of%20Sanchar%20Saathi%20App%20in%20mobile%20handsets%20to%20verify%20the%20genuineness%20of%20mobile%20handsets.pdf 
5. https://cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/sanchar-saathi-portal-a-solution-for-mobile-phone-theft-and-data-protection
6. https://cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/chakshu-and-dip-shielding-citizens-from-online-frauds
7. https://cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/financial-risk-indicator-launched-by-dot-to-strengthen-cybersecurity

‍

Introduction 

Due to the rapid growth of high-capability AI systems around the world, growing concerns regarding safety, accountability, and governance have arisen throughout the world; thus, California has responded by passing the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA), the first state statute focused on "frontier" (highly capable) AI models. This statute is unique in that it does not only target harms caused by AI models in the form of consumer protection as compared to the majority of state statutes; rather, this statute addresses the catastrophic and systemic risks to society associated with large-scale AI systems. As California is a global technology leader, the TFAIA is positioned to have a significant impact on both domestic regulation and the evolution of international legal frameworks for AI technology (and as such has the potential to influence corporate compliance practices and the establishment of global norms related to the use of AI).

Understanding the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act

The Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act provides a specific regulatory process for companies that create sophisticated AI systems with societal, economic, or national security implications. Covered developers are required to publish an extensive safety and transparency policy that details how they navigate risk throughout the artificial intelligence lifecycle. The act requires developers to notify the government of any significant incidents or failures with their deployed frontier models on a timely basis.

A significant aspect of the TFAIA is that it establishes the concept of "process transparency", which does not explicitly control how AI developers create their models, but rather holds them accountable for their internal safety governance by mandating that they develop Documented safety frameworks that outline risk assessment, mitigation, and monitoring processes. The act allows developers to protect their trade secrets, patents, and national defense concerns by providing them with limited opportunities for exemption and/or redaction of their documents so that they can maintain a balance between data openness and safeguarding sensitive information..

Extraterritorial Impact on Global AI Developers

While the Act is a state law, its implementation has far-reaching effects. Many of the largest AI companies have facilities, research labs or customers in California. Therefore, to be compliant with the TFAIA, these companies are required to do so commercially. The ability to develop a unified compliance model across regions enables companies to avoid developing duplicate compliance models.

This same pattern has occurred in other regulatory areas, like data protection regulations; where a region's regulations effectively became global compliance benchmarks for that regulatory area. The TFAIA could similarly serve as a global standard for transparency in frontier AI and shape how companies build their governance structure globally even if they don't have explicit regulations in the regions where they operate.

Influence on International AI Regulatory Models

The TFAIA offers a unique perspective on global discussions about regulating AI. In contrast to other legislation which defines different levels of risk depending on the type of AI, the TFAIA targets specifically high-impact or emerging technologies. Other nations may see value in this model of tiered regulations based on capability and apply it for their own regulation of AI, with the strictest obligations placed on those with the most critical potential harm.

The TFAIA may serve as a guide for international public policy makers by showing how they can reference existing standards and best practices in developing regulations, thus improving interoperability and potentially lessening regulatory barriers to cross-border AI innovations.

Corporate Governance, Compliance Costs, and Competition

From an industry perspective, the Act revolutionizes the way companies govern themselves. Developers are now required to create thorough risk assessments, red-teaming exercises, incident response protocols, and have board oversight for AI safety and regulation. The number of people involved in this process increases accountability but at the same time the increases will create a burden of cost for all involved.

The burden of compliance will be easier for large tech companies than for smaller or start-ups, and thus large tech companies may solidify their position of dominance over the development of frontier AI. Smaller and newer developers may be blocked from entering the market unless some form of proportional or scaled compliance mechanism for where they operate emerges. These developments certainly raise issues surrounding innovation policy and competition law at a global scale that will need to be addressed by regulators in conjunction with AI safety concerns.

Transparency, Public Trust, and Accountability

The TFAIA bolsters the capability of citizens, researchers and journalists to oversee the development and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) through its requirement for public disclosure of the safety framework of AI systems. The disclosures will allow citizens, researchers and journalists to critically evaluate corporate claims of responsible AI development. Over time, this evaluation could increase trust in publically regulated AI systems and would expose businesses that exhibit a poor risk management process.

However, how useful this transparency is depends on the quality and comparability of the information being disclosed. Many current disclosures are either too vague or too complex, thus limiting the ability to conduct meaningful oversight. There should be a push for clearer guidance and/or the establishment of standardised disclosure forms for the purposes of public accountability (i.e., citizens) and uniformity between countries.

Conclusion

The Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act is a transformative development in the regulation of Artificial Intelligence Technology, specifically, a whole new risk profile of this new generation of AI / (Advanced High-Powered) Technologies such as Autonomous Vehicles. This new California law will create global impact because it Be will change how technology companies operate, create regulatory frameworks and develop standards to govern/oversee the use of Autonomous Vehicles. The Act creates a “transparent” means for regulating (or governing) Autonomous Vehicles as opposed to relying solely on “technical” means for these systems. As other regions experience similar challenges that US Government is facing with respect to this new generation of AI (written laws), California's approach will likely be used as an example for how AI laws are written in the future and develop a more unified and responsible international AI regulatory framework.

‍

References

1. https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/california-enacts-landmark-ai-transparency-law-transparency-frontier-artificial
2. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/09/29/governor-newsom-signs-sb-53-advancing-californias-world-leading-artificial-intelligence-industry/ 
3. https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/251001-california-enacts-ai-safety-transparency-regulation-tfaia-sb-53 ‍
4. https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2025/10/california-law-mandates-increased-developer-transparency-for-large-ai-models

Introduction

India’s digital growth journey has been moving at a tremendous pace. According to MeitY’s report, India’s digital economy is expected to rise to US$ 500 billion by 2025, up from US$ 200 billion in 2019. The digitisation drive that we are experiencing is likely to foster and boost a favourable business environment that will attract rapid investment and augment economic growth across sectors. This will, in turn, compel businesses to adopt digital platforms as solutions to meet customer expectations. Due to accelerated digitisation, cyber risks often deter business growth. Cybercrimes are becoming more rampant and complex and the costs associated with such breaches are not only increasing but also becoming more systemic.

Development of the Cyber Insurance Landscape

Digitization of businesses started in the 1980s with the use of mainframes. Personal computers entered the game and further modified the landscape from the 2000s along with LANs, the internet and the dot-com boom of the 2000s. In the late 1990s, cyber-insurance was developed as a risk management tool to ensure information security. Coverage was limited, and clients included SMEs in need of insurance to qualify for tenders, or community banks too small to hedge the risks of their online banking operations. The first cyber insurance policy was written in 1997 through AIG, against hacking as a third-party liability policy. 

The current trends in the cyber insurance space are focused on the prevention of cyber risks, which by nature are hard to outline and constantly evolving. The result is that the buyers have limited clarity on the types of cyber risks covered under cyber insurance, and even lesser visibility on the scope and amount of optimum coverage. Unfamiliarity with the claim procedure and resolutions, ambiguous claim thresholds during settlements, and confusion around exclusions and coverage of regulatory fines and penalties under a purchased scheme further discourage potential buyers from seriously investing in cyber insurance products. 

Key Factors in Cyber Insurance Evolution and Its Role in Risk Management

The cyber insurance market in India has three key influencing factors, namely the speed of achieving digital maturity, government initiatives to digitise and enforce stringent cyber laws, and the evolving landscape with technology giants and MNCs entering the cyber insurance domain. The latter  are the catalyst for intensifying competition in this market. 

Advancements in technology in terms of AI, machine learning, big data, robotics, blockchain, augmented and virtual reality, and IoT are expected to reshape the insurance industry and help reach untapped audiences in a more digital-forward manner. With the absence of a standard cyber insurance policy, regulators need to take the following variables into consideration while developing cyber insurance policies: the risk insured against, the scope of the loss covered and the limits/ sub-limits.

Challenges 

With the complexity of cyber risks increasing exponentially the challenges to counter the same are growing too which is leading to gaps in the coverage offered for cyber threats. Resultantly, the compliance regulations are dependent on the risks which exist and cyber threat actors adopt new technologies faster and exploit them to their benefit. A lack of historical data and predictability in future cyber risks, the possibility of large overwhelming loss events, uncertainties among market participants about what is specifically covered under such policies, and legal battles over fundamental issues are some of the challenges identified.

Future Outlook/ Recommendations

India's cyber infrastructure requires a multi-faceted approach that involves collaboration between government, industry, and academia should be developed. Some recommendations are:

• Risk assessments should be a general practice and the cyber insurance policies should be simplified, clearing the mismatch between the premium paid and insurance coverage and there should be standard verbosity across cyber policy language.
• Promoting R&D tailored to India focused on education programs that have public-private partnerships and global collaborations to share threat intelligence, best practices, and expertise in critical infrastructure protection.
• Cyber insurance can also be promoted as compliance with the DPDP Act, which would lead to better development of cyber infrastructure and cyber hygiene practices.
• Regular updates to cyber insurance policies to ensure relevance and effectiveness. Insurers could create and offer holistic cyber insurance risk management plans.

Conclusion

According to a report by Deloitte in 2023, the cyber insurance market in India is expected to grow by 27-30 per cent in the coming years and it is currently valued at USD 50-60 million, while maintaining a steady 27-30 per cent CAGR in the past three years. The Indian cyber infrastructure’s nature is challenging, however, it offers opportunities for growth, innovation, and collaboration. A proactive approach, supported by robust policies, advanced technologies, and skilled professionals, will be essential to building a resilient cyber infrastructure capable of withstanding evolving threats.

Reference

• https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/nl/Documents/financial-services/deloitte-nl-fsi-demystifying-cyber-insurance-coverage-report.pdf
• https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-what-s-cyber-liablity-insurance-and-why-you-may-need-it-2136556‍
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/banking/finance/insure/cyber-insurance-gains-momentum-in-india-set-to-witness-exponential-growth-deloitte/articleshow/104189297.cms?from=mdr