#FactCheck-Claim Linking UP School Hostel Video of Injured Children to Delhi CJP Protest is False

Introduction

‍
The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023 of India is a significant transition for privacy legislation in this age of digital data. A key element of this new law is a requirement for organisations to have appropriate, user-friendly consent mechanisms in place for their customers so that collection, use or removal of an individual's personal data occurs in a clear and compliant manner. As a means of putting this requirement into practice, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued a comprehensive Business Requirements Document (BRD) in June 2025 to guide organizations, as well as Consent Managers, on how to create a Consent Management System (CMS). This document establishes the technical and functional framework by which organizations and individuals (Data Principals) will exercise control over the way their data is gathered, used and removed.

‍

Understanding the BRD and Its Purpose

‍

BRD represents an optional guide created as part of the "Code for Consent" programme run by MeitY in India. The purpose of the BRD is to provide guidance to startups, digital platforms and other enterprises on how to create a technology system that supports management of user consent per the requirements of the DPDP Act. Although the contents of the BRD do not carry any legal weight, it lays out a clear path for organisations to create their own consent mechanisms using best practices that align with the principles of transparency, accountability and purpose limitation in the DPDP Act.

‍

The goal is threefold:

‍

1. Enable complete consent lifecycle management from collection to withdrawal.
2. Empower individuals to manage their consents actively and transparently.
3. Support data fiduciaries and processors with an interoperable system that ensures compliance.

‍

Key Components of the Consent Management System

‍

The BRD proposes the development of a modular Consent Management System (CMS) that provides users with secure APIs and user-friendly interfaces. This system will allow for a variety of features and modules, including:

‍

1. Consent Lifecycle Management – consent should be specific, informed and tied to an explicit purpose. The CMS will manage the collection, validation, renewal, updates and withdrawal of consent. Each transaction of consent will create a tamper-proof “consent artifact,” which will include the timestamp of creation as well as an ID identifying the purpose for which it was given.
2. User Dashboard – A user will be able to view and modify the status of their active, expired or withdrawn consent and revoke access at any time via the multilingual user-friendly interface. This would make the system accessible to people from different regions and cultures.
3. Notification Engine – The CMS will automatically notify users, fiduciaries and processors of any action taken with respect to consent, in order to ensure real-time updates and accountability.
4. Grievance Redress Mechanism – The CMS will include a complaints mechanism that allows users to submit complaints related to the misuse of consent or the denial of their rights. This will enable tracking of the complaint resolution status, and will allow for escalation if necessary.
5. Audit and Logging – As part of the CMS's internal controls for compliance and regulatory purposes, the CMS must maintain an immutable record of every instance of consent for auditing and regulatory review. The records must be encrypted, time-stamped, and linked permanently to a user and purpose ID.
6. Cookie Consent Management – A separate module will enable users to manage cookie consent for websites separately from any other consents.

‍

Roles and Responsibilities

‍

The BRD identifies the various stakeholders involved and their associated responsibilities.

‍

1. Data Principals (Users): The user has full authority to give, withhold, amend, or revoke their consent for the use of their personal data, at any time.
2. Data Fiduciaries (Companies): Companies (the fiduciaries) must collect the data principals' consents for each particular reason and must only begin processing a data subject's personal data after validating that consent through the CMS. Companies must also provide the data principals with any information or notifications needed, as well as how to resolve their complaints.
3. Data Processors: Data Processors must strictly adhere to the consent stated in the CMS, and Data Processors may only process personal data on behalf of the Data Fiduciary.
4. Consent Managers: The Consent Managers are independent entities that are registered with the Data Protection Board. They are responsible for administering the CMS, allowing users to manage their consent across different platforms.

‍

This layered structure ensures transparency and shared responsibility for the consent ecosystem.

‍

Technical Specifications and Security

‍

The following principles of the DPDP Act must be followed to remain compliant with the DPDP Act.

‍

• End-to-End Encryption: All exchanges of data with users must be encrypted using a minimum of TSL 1.3 and also encrypting within that standard.
• API-First Approach: API’s will be utilized to validate, withdraw and update consent in a secured manner using external sources.
• Interoperability/Accessibility: The CMS needs to allow for users to utilize several different languages (e.g. Hindi, Tamil, etc.) and be appropriate for use with various types of mobile devices and different abilities.
• Data Retention Policy: The CMS should also include automatic deletion of consent data (when the consent has expired or has been withdrawn) in order to maintain compliance with data retention limits.

‍

Legal Relevance and Timelines

‍

While the BRD itself is not enforceable, it is directly aligned with the upcoming enforcement of the DPDP Act, 2023. The Act was passed in August 2023 but is expected to come into effect in stages, once officially notified by the central government. Draft implementation rules, including those defining the role of Consent Managers, were released for public consultation in early 2025.

For businesses, the BRD serves as an early compliance tool—offering both a conceptual roadmap and technical framework to prepare before the law is enforced. Legal experts have described it as a critical resource for aligning data governance systems with emerging regulatory expectations.

‍

Implications for Businesses

‍

Organizations that collect and process user data will be required to overhaul their consent workflows:

1. No blanket consents: Every data processing activity must have explicit, separate consent.
2. Granular audit logs: Companies must maintain tamper-proof logs for every consent action.
3. Integration readiness: Enterprises need to integrate their platforms with third-party or in-house CMS platforms via the specified APIs.
4. Grievance redress and user support: Systems must be in place to handle complaints and withdrawal requests in a timely, verifiable manner.

Failing to comply once the DPDP Act is in force may expose companies to penalties, reputational damage, and potential regulatory action.

‍

Conclusion

‍
The BRD on Consent Management of India is a forward-looking initiative laying a technological framework that is an essential component of the DPDP Act concerning user consent; Although not yet a legal document, it provides an extent of going into all the necessary discipline for companies to prepare. As data protection grows in importance, developing consent mechanisms based on security, transparency, and the needs of the user is no longer just a regulatory requirement, but rather a requirement for the development of trust. This is the time for businesses to establish or implement CMS solutions that support this objective to be better equipped for the future of data governance in India.

‍

References

1. https://d38ibwa0xdgwxx.cloudfront.net/whatsnew-docs/8d5409f5-d26c-4697-b10e-5f6fb2d583ef.pdf
2. https://ssrana.in/articles/ministry-releases-business-requirement-document-for-consent-management-under-the-dpdp-act-2023/ 
3. https://dpo-india.com/Blogs/consent-dpdpa/ 
4. https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2025/06/the-ghost-in-the-machine-the-recent-business-requirement-document-on-consent/ 
5. https://www.mondaq.com/india/privacy-protection/1660964/analysis-of-the-business-requirement-document-for-consent-management-system 

‍

‍Brief Overview of the EU AI Act

The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, was officially published in the EU Official Journal on 12 July 2024. This landmark legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) will come into force just 20 days after publication, setting harmonized rules across the EU. It amends key regulations and directives to ensure a robust framework for AI technologies.  The AI Act, a set of EU rules governing AI, has been in development for two years and now, the EU AI Act enters into force across all 27 EU Member States on 1 August 2024, with certain future deadlines tied up and the enforcement of the majority of its provisions will commence on 2 August 2026. The law prohibits certain uses of AI tools, including those that threaten citizens' rights, such as biometric categorization, untargeted scraping of faces, and systems that try to read emotions are banned in the workplace and schools, as are social scoring systems. It also prohibits the use of predictive policing tools in some instances. The law takes a phased approach to implementing the EU's AI rulebook, meaning there are various deadlines between now and then as different legal provisions will start to apply.

The framework puts different obligations on AI developers, depending on use cases and perceived risk. The bulk of AI uses will not be regulated as they are considered low-risk, but a small number of potential AI  use cases are banned under the law. High-risk use cases, such as biometric uses of AI or AI used in law enforcement, employment, education, and critical infrastructure, are allowed under the law but developers of such apps face obligations in areas like data quality and anti-bias considerations. A third risk tier also applies some lighter transparency requirements for makers of tools like AI chatbots.

In case of failure to comply with the Act, the companies in the EU providing, distributing, importing, and using AI systems and GPAI models, are subject to fines of up to EUR 35 million or seven per cent of the total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.

Key highlights of EU AI Act Provisions

• The AI Act classifies AI according to its risk. It prohibits Unacceptable risks such as social scoring systems and manipulative AI. The regulation mostly addresses high-risk AI systems.
• Limited-risk AI systems are subject to lighter transparency obligations and according to the act, the developers and deployers must ensure that the end-users are aware that the interaction they are having is with AI such as Chatbots and Deepfakes. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI. This includes the majority of AI applications currently available in the EU single market like AI-enabled video games, and spam filters, but with the advancement of Gen AI changes with regards to this might be done. The majority of obligations fall on providers (developers) of high-risk AI systems that intend to place on the market or put into service high-risk AI systems in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or a third country. And also, a third-country provider where the high-risk AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• Users are natural or legal persons who deploy an AI system in a professional capacity, not affected end-users. Users (deployers) of high-risk AI systems have some obligations, though less than providers (developers). This applies to users located in the EU, and third-country users where the AI system’s output is used in the EU.
• General purpose AI or GPAI model providers must provide technical documentation, and instructions for use, comply with the Copyright Directive, and publish a summary of the content used for training. Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must also conduct model evaluations, and adversarial testing, and track and report serious incidents and ensure cybersecurity protections.
• The Codes of Practice will account for international approaches. It will cover but not necessarily be limited to the obligations, particularly the relevant information to include in technical documentation for authorities and downstream providers, identification of the type and nature of systemic risks and their sources, and the modalities of risk management accounting for specific challenges in addressing risks due to the way they may emerge and materialize throughout the value chain. The AI Office may invite GPAI model providers, and relevant national competent authorities to participate in drawing up the codes, while civil society, industry, academia, downstream providers and independent experts may support the process.

Application & Timeline of Act

The EU AI Act will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, but some parts will be applicable sooner, for instance the ban on AI systems posing unacceptable risks will apply six months after the entry into force. The Codes of Practice will apply nine months after entry into force. Rules on general-purpose AI systems that need to comply with transparency requirements will apply 12 months after the entry into force. High-risk systems will have more time to comply with the requirements as the obligations concerning them will become applicable 36 months after the entry into force. The expected timeline for the same is:

• August 1st, 2024: The AI Act will enter into force.
• February 2025: Prohibition of certain AI systems - Chapters I (general provisions) & II (prohibited AI systems) will apply; Prohibition of certain AI systems.
• August 2025: Chapter III Section 4 (notifying authorities), Chapter V (general purpose AI models), Chapter VII (governance), Chapter XII (confidentiality and penalties), and Article 78 (confidentiality) will apply, except for Article 101 (fines for General Purpose AI providers); Requirements for new GPAI models. 
• August 2026: The whole AI Act applies, except for Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations (one of the categories of high-risk AI systems);
•  August 2027: Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations apply.

The AI Act sets out clear definitions for the different actors involved in AI, such as the providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers. This means all parties involved in the development, usage, import, distribution, or manufacturing of AI systems will be held accountable. Along with this, the AI Act also applies to providers and deployers of AI systems located outside of the EU, e.g., in Switzerland, if output produced by the system is intended to be used in the EU. The Act applies to any AI system within the EU that is on the market, in service, or in use, covering both AI providers (the companies selling AI systems) and AI deployers (the organizations using those systems).

In short, the AI Act will apply to different companies across the AI distribution chain, including providers, deployers, importers, and distributors (collectively referred to as “Operators”). The EU AI Act also has extraterritorial application and can also apply to companies not established in the EU, or providers outside the EU if they -make an AI system or GPAI model available on the EU market. Even if only the output generated by the AI system is used in the EU, the Act still applies to such providers and deployers. 

CyberPeace Outlook 

The EU AI Act, approved by EU lawmakers in 2024, is a landmark legislation designed to protect citizens' health, safety, and fundamental rights from potential harm caused by AI systems. The AI Act will apply to AI systems and GPAI models. The Act creates a tiered risk categorization system with various regulations and stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Act adopts a risk-based approach to AI governance, categorizing potential risks into four tiers: unacceptable, high, limited, and low. Violations of banned systems carry the highest fine: €35 million, or 7 percent of global annual revenue. It establishes transparency requirements for general-purpose AI systems. The regulation also provides specific rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and lays down more stringent requirements for GPAI models with 'high-impact capabilities' that could pose a systemic risk and have a significant impact on the internal market. For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act addresses the issues of fundamental rights impact assessment and data protection impact assessment.

The EU AI Act aims to enhance trust in AI technologies by establishing clear regulatory standards governing AI. We encourage regulatory frameworks that strive to balance the desire to foster innovation with the critical need to prevent unethical practices that may cause user harm. The legislation can be seen as strengthening the EU's position as a global leader in AI innovation and developing regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. It sets a global benchmark for regulating AI. The companies to which the act applies will need to make sure their practices align with the same. The act may inspire other nations to develop their own legislation contributing to global AI governance. The world of AI is complex and challenging, the implementation of regulatory checks, and compliance by the concerned companies, all pose a conundrum. However, in the end, balancing innovation with ethical considerations is paramount. 

At the same hand, the tech sector welcomes regulatory progress but warns that overly-rigid regulations could stifle innovation. Hence flexibility and adaptability are key to effective AI governance. The journey towards robust AI regulation has begun in major countries, and it is important that we find the right balance between safety and innovation and also take into consideration the industry reactions.

References: 

1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
2. https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/12/24197058/eu-ai-act-regulations-bans-deadline
3. https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/12/eus-ai-act-gets-published-in-blocs-official-journal-starting-clock-on-legal-deadlines/
4. https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-ai-act-to-enter-into-force-in-august.html
5. https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Is-your-business-ready-for-the-EU-AI-Act
6. https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clyimpowh000ouxgkw1oidakk/the-eu-ai-act-a-quick-guide

‍

Executive Summary 
‍

A video circulating on social media, shared by a Pakistani account, claims to show Indian Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi making a controversial statement. In the clip, he is allegedly heard saying that he requested Prime Minister Narendra Modi to connect him with film director Ranjan Agnihotri so he could provide inputs and a script for a movie on “Operation Sindoor.”

However, research by CyberPeace has found that the viral video is an AI-generated deepfake. General Upendra Dwivedi has made no such statement.

‍

Claim

‍

A Pakistani user shared the viral video on X (formerly Twitter) on April 10, 2026, making the above claim.
‍

Post links:

• https://x.com/DanishNawaz2773/status/2042312967811973225?s=20
• https://archive.ph/kAwoR

‍
‍

‍

Fact Check

To verify the claim, we conducted keyword searches on Google but found no credible media reports supporting it. Further research led us to the original video posted on the X account of ANI. In this authentic clip, General Upendra Dwivedi is seen speaking at the ‘Ran Samwad’ seminar held in Bengaluru.

In the original video, he discusses the operational aspects of “Operation Sindoor,” including ground intelligence, cyber and electronic warfare inputs, Pakistan’s behaviour, and the challenges of a two-front scenario. There is no mention whatsoever of Pakistan mediation, Prime Minister Modi, Ranjan Agnihotri, any movie script, or a film based on Operation Sindoor.

• https://x.com/ANI/status/2042172004217000071?s=20 

‍

This clearly indicates that the viral clip has been manipulated and taken out of context. The video was further analyzed using the AI detection tool DetectVideo AI, which indicated a 72% probability that the content is AI-generated. This strongly supports the conclusion that the video is a deepfake.

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

The viral claim is false. The video featuring General Upendra Dwivedi has been digitally altered using AI techniques to insert fabricated statements. The original footage is from the ‘Ran Samwad’ seminar in Bengaluru, where he spoke about military strategy and multi-domain operations, not about any film or director. There is no evidence to suggest that he made any statement regarding contacting a filmmaker or contributing to a movie script. The inclusion of such references in the viral clip is entirely fabricated. This case highlights how AI-generated deepfakes are increasingly being used to spread misinformation, especially in sensitive contexts involving the military and international relations. Viewers are advised to rely on verified sources and exercise caution before sharing such content.

‍