#FactCheck: Edited Broadcast Misused to Spread False Assam Political Rift Claim
Executive Summary:
A video from an India TV news show related to the Assam elections is going viral on social media. In the clip, anchor Meenakshi Joshi is allegedly seen claiming that there is a rift between the BJP and the RSS in Assam. The video further suggests that RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat wrote a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi stating that former Congress members have taken over the BJP, and that RSS volunteers would not work for the party in Assam. However, a research by the CyberPeace found that the viral video is edited and misleading. The original video contains no such claims.
Claim:
A social media user Ajit Singh shared the video on X with the caption:“The core idea of today’s BJP is to capture power by any means. We have been saying this for long, and now even RSS has accepted that BJP in Assam has been taken over by Congress mindset.”
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we searched relevant keywords about the alleged letter by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. However, we found no credible media reports supporting this claim. We then checked the YouTube channel of India TV but could not find the viral clip there. During the search, we did find a similar video from Meenakshi Joshi’s show. In the beginning of that video, the portion seen in the viral clip appears.
In the original video, the anchor is discussing the announcement of election dates in five states. There is no mention of any rift between the BJP and RSS in Assam.
Conclusion:
The viral India TV video claiming a rift between the BJP and RSS in Assam is edited and misleading. The original broadcast was about election dates in five states and did not include any such claims.
Related Blogs
Introduction
The increasing online interaction and popularity of social media platforms for netizens have made a breeding ground for misinformation generation and spread. Misinformation propagation has become easier and faster on online social media platforms, unlike traditional news media sources like newspapers or TV. The big data analytics and Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have made it possible to gather, combine, analyse and indefinitely store massive volumes of data. The constant surveillance of digital platforms can help detect and promptly respond to false and misinformation content.
During the recent Israel-Hamas conflict, there was a lot of misinformation spread on big platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram. Images and videos were falsely shared attributing to the ongoing conflict, and had spread widespread confusion and tension. While advanced technologies such as AI and big data analytics can help flag harmful content quickly, they must be carefully balanced against privacy concerns to ensure that surveillance practices do not infringe upon individual privacy rights. Ultimately, the challenge lies in creating a system that upholds both public security and personal privacy, fostering trust without compromising on either front.
The Need for Real-Time Misinformation Surveillance
According to a recent survey from the Pew Research Center, 54% of U.S. adults at least sometimes get news on social media. The top spots are taken by Facebook and YouTube respectively with Instagram trailing in as third and TikTok and X as fourth and fifth. Social media platforms provide users with instant connectivity allowing them to share information quickly with other users without requiring the permission of a gatekeeper such as an editor as in the case of traditional media channels.
Keeping in mind the data dumps that generated misinformation due to the elections that took place in 2024 (more than 100 countries), the public health crisis of COVID-19, the conflicts in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the sheer volume of information, both true and false, has been immense. Identifying accurate information amid real-time misinformation is challenging. The dilemma emerges as the traditional content moderation techniques may not be sufficient in curbing it. Traditional content moderation alone may be insufficient, hence the call for a dedicated, real-time misinformation surveillance system backed by AI and with certain human sight and also balancing the privacy of user's data, can be proven to be a good mechanism to counter misinformation on much larger platforms. The concerns regarding data privacy need to be prioritized before deploying such technologies on platforms with larger user bases.
Ethical Concerns Surrounding Surveillance in Misinformation Control
Real-time misinformation surveillance could pose significant ethical risks and privacy risks. Monitoring communication patterns and metadata, or even inspecting private messages, can infringe upon user privacy and restrict their freedom of expression. Furthermore, defining misinformation remains a challenge; overly restrictive surveillance can unintentionally stifle legitimate dissent and alternate perspectives. Beyond these concerns, real-time surveillance mechanisms could be exploited for political, economic, or social objectives unrelated to misinformation control. Establishing clear ethical standards and limitations is essential to ensure that surveillance supports public safety without compromising individual rights.
In light of these ethical challenges, developing a responsible framework for real-time surveillance is essential.
Balancing Ethics and Efficacy in Real-Time Surveillance: Key Policy Implications
Despite these ethical challenges, a reliable misinformation surveillance system is essential. Key considerations for creating ethical, real-time surveillance may include:
- Misinformation-detection algorithms should be designed with transparency and accountability in mind. Third-party audits and explainable AI can help ensure fairness, avoid biases, and foster trust in monitoring systems.
- Establishing clear, consistent definitions of misinformation is crucial for fair enforcement. These guidelines should carefully differentiate harmful misinformation from protected free speech to respect users’ rights.
- Only collecting necessary data and adopting a consent-based approach which protects user privacy and enhances transparency and trust. It further protects them from stifling dissent and profiling for targeted ads.
- An independent oversight body that can monitor surveillance activities while ensuring accountability and preventing misuse or overreach can be created. These measures, such as the ability to appeal to wrongful content flagging, can increase user confidence in the system.
Conclusion: Striking a Balance
Real-time misinformation surveillance has shown its usefulness in counteracting the rapid spread of false information online. But, it brings complex ethical challenges that cannot be overlooked such as balancing the need for public safety with the preservation of privacy and free expression is essential to maintaining a democratic digital landscape. The references from the EU’s Digital Services Act and Singapore’s POFMA underscore that, while regulation can enhance accountability and transparency, it also risks overreach if not carefully structured. Moving forward, a framework for misinformation monitoring must prioritise transparency, accountability, and user rights, ensuring that algorithms are fair, oversight is independent, and user data is protected. By embedding these safeguards, we can create a system that addresses the threat of misinformation and upholds the foundational values of an open, responsible, and ethical online ecosystem. Balancing ethics and privacy and policy-driven AI Solutions for Real-Time Misinformation Monitoring are the need of the hour.
References
- https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fact-sheet/
- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:C:2018:233:FULL
Introduction
In January 2026, the Basic Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and the Establishment of a Foundation for Trustworthiness came into effect in South Korea, establishing one of the first national AI laws in the world. The bill, enacted by the National Assembly of Korea in December 2024 and implemented from January 22, 2026, aims to strike a balance between the rapid advancement of technology and clear safeguards against risks, as well as transparency, accountability, and responsible AI use. It puts Seoul and the European Union on the frontline of developing legal systems for artificial intelligence and indicates a long-term goal of becoming an AI power on the global stage.
What the AI Basic Act Covers
The AI Basic Act consists of 19 separate AI bills that are merged into a single piece of legislation that covers the lifecycle of AI, including research and development, deployment, and utilisation. It is very wide in its coverage: it refers to any AI system that influences the Korean market or users inside the country, irrespective of the country in which it is created. The law does not apply to national defence and security applications.
The law defines key concepts like artificial intelligence, generative AI, and high-impact AI and establishes the principles of ethical AI, safety, user rights, industry support, and national policy coordination. It also offers a legal foundation for the activities of the government to promote AI innovation without jeopardising the common good.
Fundamentally, the AI Basic Act is designed to establish a culture of trust between businesses and the government/citizens. It does not prohibit AI technologies and does not excessively limit innovation. Instead, it creates the framework of responsible development and economic growth.
Guardrails for Safety and Accountability
One of the defining features of the AI Basic Act is its risk-based approach. Rather than considering all AI systems as similar, it makes a distinction between ordinary and high-impact AI systems, the ones applied in sectors where the wrong or unsafe decision can have a major impact on the safety, rights, or critical infrastructure of the population. Some of them can be seen in healthcare, transportation, financial services, education, and public services.
The high-impact AI operators must integrate risk management plans, human controls, and surveillance systems. In critical decision-making situations, human control should be available at all times; that is, machines can help but not override human control where human safety or other human rights are involved.
The law enables the regulators to perform on-site checks, demand documentation, and conduct compliance investigations. Fines for breaches may go up to 30 million Korean won (approximately 21,000 US dollars). It has a one-year period of transition that is based on guidance but not enforcement, thus allowing companies time to implement compliance measures before imposing fines.
These requirements contribute to enhancing accountability by defining who is accountable for the safety outcomes. The law in South Korea is placed in the ecosystem, as opposed to the methods in which industry self-governance alone is utilised.
Transparency and Labelling Requirements
The AI Basic Act is based on transparency. The legislation ensures that users are notified before an AI system is operating, particularly with the generation of AI outputs that could be confused with human-created material. As an example, AI-generated text, images, video, or audio that may be difficult to distinguish between reality and fake must have obvious labels or watermarks to allow users to understand the source of the content.
The necessity to label is meant to fight misinformation, misleading activities, and unintended influence on the perception of the people. It is based on international anxiety regarding AI-generated content, such as deepfakes, manipulated media, and misleading online advertisements that have already been addressed separately in policy by South Korea, as well as discussions of data governance.
The transparency is also applied to the process of decision-making in AI systems. Developers and operators should be able to give explicit information about the way in which high-impact systems make their conclusions so that those who are victims of automated decisions can seek meaningful explanations. Although specific explainability criteria are in the process of being developed, the law grounds the principle that AI cannot act behind the scenes in situations where crucial decisions are being made.
Data Privacy and User Protection
The AI governance practice in South Korea is complementary to its current data protection laws, the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), which is broadly regarded as equivalent to major international data protection regulations like the GDPR in regard to personal data laws. The AI Basic Act provides an explanation as to how the data can be gathered, processed, and utilised within AI systems with regard to privacy rights, particularly in areas of high impact.
The law does not supersede the personal data protection policies, but it sets certain conditions on how AI developers must address the data to be utilised in training, testing, and running AIs. Operators will be required to document their data workflows and demonstrate how they guard the privacy of their users, including by transparency and consent mechanisms where necessary. This can assist in ensuring that the information that is utilised in AI functions is regulated by definite norms, and it is more difficult to avoid privacy requirements in the name of innovation.
Accountability and Governance Infrastructure
The AI Basic Act establishes a national policy framework of AI governance. The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy Committee, chaired by the President, is at the top and proposes the overall AI policy and aligns it with national objectives. The organisations that would support this are the specialised organisations that deal with safety, risk assessment, and research and the policy centre that would analyse the effects of AI on society and assist in its adoption by the industry.
This institutional structure facilitates strategic guidance as well as operational control. It is through incorporating AI governance in the administration of the people, but not into the market forces, that South Korea wishes to have the ethical and societal concerns become part of the sectors and agencies.
Promoting Innovation and Industrial Support
Although the AI Basic Act does not disregard regulation, it is not a law of restrictions. It also offers legal justification for research and development, human capital, and the growth of the AI industry, with special consideration for startups and small and medium-sized businesses. The legislation promotes AI clusters, long-term funding programmes, and policies to bring foreign talent to the Korean AI ecosystem.
This bidimensional approach of compliance and support is indicative of the broader desire of Korea to become one of the leading AI powers in the world, along with the US and China. The government has pointed out that it will encourage trust by having clear and predictable rules that will attract investment and maintain innovation and not stifle it.
What This Means Globally
The AI Basic Act of South Korea is not only interesting in its contents but also in its timing. It is also among the first thorough AI legislations to come into force in the world, and it beats the gradual regulatory implementations in other parts of the globe, like the European Union. Its system incorporates a principle-based framework, transparency requirements, accountability regulations, and industrial support, which reflects a contrasting model to either pure prescriptive risk regulation or lax self-regulation models elsewhere.
Other critics, such as industry groups and civil society organisations, have suggested that some of the protections may be more explicit, in particular to those who are harmed by AI systems, or to establish high-impact categories. Nonetheless, the framework sets a benchmark upon which most nations will pay close attention when they establish their own AI regimes.
Conclusion
The AI Basic Act puts South Korea at the forefront of national AI regulation, including very well-developed guardrails that enforce transparency, ethical control, accountability, and data protection in addition to fostering innovation. It recognises that AI could lead to economic and social advantages, yet also actual risks, particularly when systems are opaque, autonomous, or widely implemented. South Korea has gone holistically in responsible AI governance by integrating human oversight, labelling requirements, risk management planning, and governance infrastructure into law to be emulated by other countries in the years to come.
Sources
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/29/south-korea-world-first-ai-regulation-laws
- https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/10/artificial-intelligence-and-the-labour-market-in-korea_af668423/68ab1a5a-en.pdf
- https://asianintelligence.ai/south-korea
- https://aibasicact.kr/
- https://aibusinessweekly.net/p/south-korea-ai-basic-act-takes-effect-jan22-2026
- https://asiadaily.org/news/12112/
A photograph showing Prime Minister Narendra Modi holding a trident and dressed in royal attire is being widely shared on social media. Users circulating the image are claiming that it shows PM Modi in a regal outfit.
However, a verification by the Cyber Peace Foundation’s Research Desk has found that the claim is false. The investigation established that the viral image is not authentic and has been generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Claim:
On January 11, 2026, several Instagram users shared the image with captions describing it as a photograph of Prime Minister Modi in royal attire.
Links and archived versions of the posts, along with screenshots, are provided below.
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, relevant keywords such as “PM Modi holding trishul” were searched on Google. This led to a report published by Navbharat Times on January 10, 2025. The report features photographs of Prime Minister Modi holding a trident during his visit to the Somnath Temple. However, in the original images, he is seen wearing normal attire, not royal clothing as shown in the viral image. Link and screenshot
In the next step of the investigation, the original photograph was traced to the official Instagram account of BJP Gujarat, where it was posted on January 11, 2026. The post clearly identifies the image as being from Somnath Temple. Link and screenshot: https://www.instagram.com/p/DTVlb-9Da1V
A close examination of the viral image raised suspicion about digital manipulation. The image was then analysed using the AI detection tool TruthScan. The tool’s assessment indicated a 97 percent likelihood that the image was AI-generated.
Further comparison between the viral image and the original photograph revealed that all visual elements match except the clothing, confirming that the attire was digitally altered using AI tools.
Conclusion
The claim that Prime Minister Narendra Modi appeared in royal attire is false. The Cyber Peace Foundation’s research confirms that the viral image was created using AI by altering the clothing in an original photograph taken during PM Modi’s visit to Somnath Temple. The manipulated image was shared online to mislead users.
