#Factcheck-Allu Arjun visits Shiva temple after success of Pushpa 2? No, image is from 2017
Executive Summary:
Recently, a viral post on social media claiming that actor Allu Arjun visited a Shiva temple to pray in celebration after the success of his film, PUSHPA 2. The post features an image of him visiting the temple. However, an investigation has determined that this photo is from 2017 and does not relate to the film's release.
Claims:
The claim states that Allu Arjun recently visited a Shiva temple to express his thanks for the success of Pushpa 2, featuring a photograph that allegedly captures this moment.
Fact Check:
The image circulating on social media, that Allu Arjun visited a Shiva temple to celebrate the success of Pushpa 2, is misleading.
After conducting a reverse image search, we confirmed that this photograph is from 2017, taken during the actor's visit to the Tirumala Temple for a personal event, well before Pushpa 2 was ever announced. The context has been altered to falsely connect it to the film's success. Additionally, there is no credible evidence or recent reports to support the claim that Allu Arjun visited a temple for this specific reason, making the assertion entirely baseless.
Before sharing viral posts, take a brief moment to verify the facts. Misinformation spreads quickly and it’s far better to rely on trusted fact-checking sources.
Conclusion:
The claim that Allu Arjun visited a Shiva temple to celebrate the success of Pushpa 2 is false. The image circulating is actually from an earlier time. This situation illustrates how misinformation can spread when an old photo is used to construct a misleading story. Before sharing viral posts, take a moment to verify the facts. Misinformation spreads quickly, and it is far better to rely on trusted fact-checking sources.
- Claim: The image claims Allu Arjun visited Shiva temple after Pushpa 2’s success.
- Claimed On: Facebook
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Related Blogs
Introduction: Reasons Why These Amendments Have Been Suggested.
The suggested changes in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, are the much-needed regulatory reaction to the blistering emergence of synthetic information and deepfakes. These reforms are due to the pressing necessity to govern risks within the digital ecosystem as opposed to regular reformation.
The Emergence of the Digital Menace
Generative AI tools have also facilitated the generation of very realistic images, videos, audio, and text in recent years. Such artificial media have been abused to portray people in situations they are not in or in statements they have never said. The market size is expected to have a compound annual growth rate(CAGR) from 2025 to 2031 of 37.57%, resulting in a market volume of US$400.00 bn by 2031. Therefore, tight regulatory controls are necessary to curb a high prevalence of harm in the Indian digital world.
The Gap in Law and Institution
None of the IT Rules, 2021, clearly addressed synthetic content. Although the Information Technology Act, 2000 dealt with identity theft, impersonation and violation of privacy, the intermediaries were not explicitly obligated on artificial media. This left a loophole in enforcement, particularly since AI-generated content might get around the old system of moderation. These amendments bring India closer to the international standards, including the EU AI Act, which requires transparency and labelling of AI-driven content. India addresses such requirements and adapts to local constitutional and digital ecosystem needs.
II. Explanation of the Amendments
The amendments of 2025 present five alternative changes in the current IT Rules framework, which address various areas of synthetic media regulation.
A. Definitional Clarification: Synthetic Generation of Information Introduction.
Rule 2(1)(wa) Amendment:
The amendments provide an all-inclusive definition of what is meant by “synthetically generated information” as information, which is created, or produced, changed or distorted with the use of a computer resource, in a way that such information can reasonably be perceived to be genuine. This definition is intentionally broad and is not limited to deepfakes in the strict sense but to any artificial media that has gone through algorithmic manipulation in order to have a semblance of authenticity.
Expansion of Legal Scope:
Rule 2(1A) also makes it clear that any mention of information in the context of unlawful acts, namely, including categories listed in Rule 3(1)(b), Rule 3(1)(d), Rule 4(2), and Rule 4(4), should be understood to mean synthetically generated information. This is a pivotal interpretative protection that does not allow intermediaries to purport that synthetic versions of illegal material are not under the control of the regulation since they are algorithmic creations and not descriptions of what actually occurred.
B. Safe Harbour Protection and Content Removal Requirements
Amendment, rule 3(1)(b)- Safe Harbour Clarification:
The amendments add a certain proviso to the Rule (3) (1)(b) that explains a deletion or facilitation of access of synthetically produced information (or any information falling within specified categories) which the intermediaries have made in good faith as part of reasonable endeavours or at the receipt of a complaint shall not be considered a breach of the Section 79(2) (a) or (b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This coverage is relevant especially since it insures the intermediaries against liability in situations where they censor the synthetic contents in advance of a court ruling or governmental warnings.
C. Labelling and Metadata Requirements that are mandatory on Intermediaries that enable the creation of synthetic content
The amendments establish a new framework of due diligence in Rule 3(3) on the case of intermediaries that offer tools to generate, modify, or alter the synthetically generated information. Two fundamental requirements are laid down.
- The generated information must be prominently labelled or embedded with a permanent, unique metadata or identifier. The label or metadata must be:
- Visibly displayed or made audible in a prominent manner on or within that synthetically generated information.
- It should cover at least 10% of the surface of the visual display or, in the case of audio content, during the initial 10% of its duration.
- It can be used to immediately identify that such information is synthetically generated information which has been created, generated, modified, or altered using the computer resource of the intermediary.
- The intermediary in clause (a) shall not enable modification, suppression or removal of such label, permanent unique metadata or identifier, by whatever name called.
D. Important Social Media Intermediaries- Pre-Publication Checking Responsibilities
The amendments present a three-step verification mechanism, under Rule 4(1A), to Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs), which enables displaying, uploading or publishing on its computer resource before such display, uploading, or publication has to follow three steps.
Step 1- User Declaration: It should compel the users to indicate whether the materials they are posting are synthetically created. This puts the first burden on users.
Step 2-Technical Verification: To ensure that the user is truly valid, the SSMIs need to provide reasonable technical means, such as automated tools or other applications. This duty is contextual and would be based on the nature, format and source of content. It does not allow intermediaries to escape when it is known that not every type of content can be verified using the same standards.
Step 3- Prominent Labelling: In case the synthetic origin is verified by user declaration or technical verification, SSMIs should have a notice or label that is prominently displayed to be seen by users before publication.
The amendments provide a better system of accountability and set that intermediaries will be found to have failed due diligence in a case where it is established that they either knowingly permitted, encouraged or otherwise failed to act on synthetically produced information in contravention of these requirements. This brings in an aspect of knowledge, and intermediaries cannot use accidental errors as an excuse for non-compliance.
An explanation clause makes it clear that SSMIs should also make reasonable and proportionate technical measures to check user declarations and keep no synthetic content published without adequate declaration or labelling. This eliminates confusion on the role of the intermediaries with respect to making declarations.
III. Attributes of The Amendment Framework
- Precision in Balancing Innovation and Accountability.
The amendments have commendably balanced two extreme regulatory postures by neither prohibiting nor allowing the synthetic media to run out of control. It has recognised the legitimate use of synthetic media creation in entertainment, education, research and artistic expression by adopting a transparent and traceable mandate that preserves innovation while ensuring accountability.
- Overt Acceptance of the Intermediary Liability and Reverse Onus of Knowledge
Rule 4(1A) gives a highly significant deeming rule; in cases where the intermediary permits or refrains from acting with respect to the synthetic content knowing that the rules are violated, it will be considered as having failed to comply with the due diligence provisions. This description closes any loopholes in unscrupulous supervision where intermediaries can be able to argue that they did so. Standard of scienter promotes material investment in the detection devices and censor mechanisms that have been in place to offer security to the platforms that have sound systems, albeit the fact that the tools fail to capture violations at times.
- Clarity Through Definition and Interpretive Guidance
The cautious definition of the term “synthetically generated information” and the guidance that is provided in Rule 2(1A) is an admirable attempt to solve confusion in the previous regulatory framework. Instead of having to go through conflicting case law or regulatory direction, the amendments give specific definitional limits. The purposefully broad formulation (artificially or algorithmically created, generated, modified or altered) makes sure that the framework is not avoided by semantic games over what is considered to be a real synthetic content versus a slight algorithmic alteration.
- Insurance of non-accountability but encourages preventative moderation
The safe harbour clarification of the Rule 3(1)(b) amendment clearly safeguards the intermediaries who voluntarily dismiss the synthetic content without a court order or government notification. It is an important incentive scheme that prompts platforms to implement sound self-regulation measures. In the absence of such protection, platforms may also make rational decisions to stay in a passive stance of compliance, only deleting content under the pressure of an external authority, thus making them more effective in keeping users safe against dangerous synthetic media.
IV. Conclusion
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2025 suggest a structured, transparent, and accountable execution of curbing the rising predicaments of synthetic media and deepfakes. The amendments deal with the regulatory and interpretative gaps that have always existed in determining what should be considered as synthetically generated information, the intermediary liabilities and the mandatory labelling and metadata requirement. Safe-harbour protection will encourage the moderation proactively, and a scienter-based liability rule will not permit the intermediaries to escape liability when they are aware of the non-compliance but tolerate such non-compliance. The idea to introduce pre-publication verification of Significant Social Media Intermediaries adds the responsibility to users and due diligence to the platform. Overall, the amendments provide a reasonable balance between innovation and regulation, make the process more open with its proper definitions, promote responsible conduct on the platform and transform India and the new standards in the sphere of synthetic media regulation. They collaborate to enhance the verisimilitude, defence of the users, and visibility of the systems of the digital ecosystem of India.
V. References
2. https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/artificial-intelligence/generative-ai/worldwide
Executive Summary:
Amid escalating tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, a video is being widely shared on social media claiming that Afghanistan has shot down a Pakistani fighter jet. The posts further allege that the incident marks the formal beginning of a war between the two countries. However, research conducted by the CyberPeace found the viral claim to be false and the research revealed that the circulating video is not authentic but AI-generated.
Claim
On February 24, 2026, a user on X (formerly Twitter) shared the viral video with the caption: “Afghanistan has shot down a Pakistani fighter jet! Afghanistan announces that war with Pakistan has begun.”
- Original post link: https://x.com/JyotiDevSpeaks/status/2026348257186545914
- Archived link: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/7l00Y
Fact Check:
A careful review of the viral video revealed unusual visual patterns and artificial-looking effects, raising suspicions that it may have been created using artificial intelligence.We analyzed the video using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation, which indicated an 86 percent probability that the video was AI-generated.
To further verify the findings, we scanned the footage using another AI detection platform, Sightengine. The results showed a 99 percent likelihood that the video was AI-generated.
To understand the broader context of the ongoing tensions, we conducted a keyword search and found a report published on February 22, 2026, by BBC Hindi. According to the report, Pakistan claimed it had targeted “seven terrorist hideouts and camps” along the Pakistan–Afghanistan border based on intelligence inputs. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Taliban government in Afghanistan stated that Pakistani airstrikes in Nangarhar and Paktika provinces resulted in the deaths of dozens of people, including women and children.
- https://www.bbc.com/hindi/articles/clyz8141397o
Conclusion
Our research confirms that the viral video claiming Afghanistan shot down a Pakistani fighter jet and formally declared war on Pakistan is fake. The footage is AI-generated and is being circulated with a false and misleading narrative.
.webp)
Executive Summary
A video is being shared on social media showing a group of people dancing on a road while carrying saffron flags. A mosque can also be seen nearby in the video Sharing this clip, some users are claiming that it is from Uttam Nagar in Delhi, where members of the Hindu community celebrated Holi on the occasion of Eid on March 21. Research by the CyberPeace found the viral claim to be misleading. Our probe revealed that the video is not related to Holi celebrations on Eid in Uttam Nagar, Delhi. In fact, the video has been available on the internet since 2024 and is said to be from Raichur district in Karnataka. Several users have shared it claiming that it was recorded during Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations.
Claim:
A social media user shared the viral video on March 21, 2026, with a misleading claim. The link and archive link of the post are given below.
Fact Check:
To verify the viral claim, we first conducted a keyword search on Google. However, we did not find any credible media report supporting the claim. In the next step, we extracted keyframes from the video and performed a reverse search using Google Lens. During this process, we found the same video on an Instagram account, which was posted on September 23, 2024.
The user had captioned the video as “Ganesh Chaturthi 2024,” suggesting that the clip is related to the festival. Further, upon closely analyzing the video, we noticed that the mosque visible in the background had “Usmania Masjid” written on it. We then searched for this location on Google Maps and found that the mosque is located on Teen Khandil Road in Raichur, Karnataka, which matches the visuals seen in the viral clip.
Conclusion:
Our research found that the video is not from Uttam Nagar, Delhi, nor is it related to Holi celebrations on Eid. The clip has been available online since 2024 and is from Raichur, Karnataka. It has been shared with a misleading claim and is actually linked to Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations.
