#FactCheck : Edited video falsely claims Dr. Vikas Divyakirti targeted Narendra Modi
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media shows Dr. Vikas Divyakirti speaking during a podcast, where he is heard saying, “Those who cannot even memorise and speak four sentences are considered the greatest in India.” Several users are sharing the clip claiming that the remark was aimed at Narendra Modi. However, a research by CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. The research revealed that the viral clip has been edited and shared out of context. In the original video, Divyakirti made the remarks in reference to film stars, not the Prime Minister.
Claim
On Facebook, a user shared the viral clip with an English caption alleging that Divyakirti criticised Modi, saying he cannot speak without a teleprompter or scripted interviews and has built a false image of greatness.
Similarly, another user shared the video on X, suggesting that people who cannot speak without a teleprompter are still considered great in India, indirectly linking the remark to Modi.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. This led us to the original video uploaded on the official YouTube channel of Raj Shamani.
At around the 3:55 mark, the same clip can be seen. During the conversation, Shamani asks whether building a larger-than-life perception actually benefits an individual. Responding to this, Dr. Vikas Divyakirti explains that film stars often have an exaggerated public image. He notes that many of the dialogues they are praised for are not written by them, but by others, and some even rely on teleprompters while speaking. He further adds that there are individuals who cannot even memorise and deliver four sentences or think independently, yet are regarded as great in India. He also mentions that many social media personalities use teleprompters, but audiences remain unaware and assume they possess exceptional knowledge.
Conclusion
The viral claim is misleading. The video has been edited and shared out of context. Dr. Vikas Divyakirti was referring to film stars and social media personalities, not Narendra Modi.
Related Blogs
Introduction
Law grows by confronting its absences, it heals through its own gaps. States often find themselves navigating a shared frontier without a mutual guide or lines of law in an era of expanding digital boundaries and growing cyber damages. The United Nations General Assembly ratified the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime on December 24, 2024, and more than sixty governments were in attendance in the signing ceremony on 24th & 25th October this year, marking a moment of institutional regeneration and global commitment.
A new Lexicon for Global Order
The old liberal order is being strained by growing nationalism, economic fracturing, populism, and great-power competition as often emphasised in the works of scholars like G. John Iken berry and John Mearsheimer. Multilateral arrangements become more brittle in such circumstances. Therefore, the new cybercrimes convention represents not only a legal tool but also a resurgence of international promise, a significant win for collective governance in an uncertain time. It serves as a reminder that institutions can be rebuilt even after they have been damaged.
In Discussion: The Fabric of the Digital Polis
The digital sphere has become a contentious area. On the one hand, the US and its allies support stakeholder governance, robust individual rights, and open data flows. On the other hand, nations like China and Russia describe a “post-liberal cyber order” based on state mediation, heavily regulated flows, and sovereignty. Instead of focusing on ideological dichotomies, India, which is positioned as both a rising power and a voice of the Global South, has offered a viewpoint based on supply-chain security, data localisation, and capacity creation. Thus, rather than being merely a regulation, the treaty arises from a framework of strategic recalibration.
What Changed & Why it Matters
There have been regional cybercrime accords up to this point, such as the Budapest Convention. The goal of this new international convention, which is accessible to all UN members, is to standardise definitions, evidence sharing and investigation instruments. 72 states signed the Hanoi signature event in October, 2025, demonstrating an unparalleled level of scope and determination. In addition to establishing structures for cooperative investigations, extradition, and the sharing of electronic evidence, it requires signatories to criminalise acts such as fraud, unlawful access to systems, data interference, and online child exploitation.
For the first time, a legally obligatory global architecture aims to harmonise cross-border evidence flows, mutual legal assistance, and national procedural laws. Cybercrime offers genuine promise for community defence at a time when it is no longer incidental but existential, attacks on hospitals, schools and infrastructure are now common, according to the Global Observatory.
Holding the Line: India’s Deliberate Path in the Age of Cyber Multilateralism
India takes a contemplative rather than a reluctant stance towards the UN Cybercrime Treaty. Though it played an active role during the drafting sessions and lent its voice to the shaping of global cyber norms, New Delhi is yet to sign the convention. Subtle but intentional, the reluctance suggests a more comprehensive reflection, an evaluation of how international obligations correspond with domestic constitutional protections, especially the right to privacy upheld by the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017).
Prudence is the reason for this halt. Policy circles speculate that the government is still assessing the treaty’s consequences for national data protection, surveillance regimes, and territorial sovereignty. Officials have not provided explicit justifications for India’s refusal to join. India’s position has frequently been characterised by striking a careful balance between digital sovereignty and taking part in cooperative international regimes. In earlier negotiations, India had even proposed including clauses to penalise “offensive messages” on social media, echoing the erstwhile Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, but the suggestion found little international traction.
Advocates for digital rights such as Raman Jit Singh Chima of Access Now have warned that ensuring that the treaty’s implementation upholds constitutional privacy principles may be necessary for India to eventually endorse it. He contends that the treaty’s wording might not entirely meet India’s legal requirements in the absence of such voluntary pledges.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres praised the agreement as “a powerful, legally binding instrument to strengthen our collective defences against “cybercrime” during its signing in Hanoi. The issue for India is to make sure that multilateral collaboration develops in accordance with constitutional values rather than to reject that vision. Therefore, the path forward is one of assertion rather than absence, careful march towards a cyber future that protects freedom and sovereignty.
Sources:
Modern international trade heavily relies on data transfers for the exchange of digital goods and services. User data travels across multiple jurisdictions and legal regimes, each with different rules for processing it. Since international treaties and standards for data protection are inadequate, states, in an effort to protect their citizens' data, have begun extending their domestic privacy laws beyond their borders. However, this opens a Pandora's box of legal and administrative complexities for both, the data protection authorities and data processors. The former must balance the harmonization of domestic data protection laws with their extraterritorial enforcement, without overreaching into the sovereignty of other states. The latter must comply with the data privacy laws in all states where it collects, stores, and processes data. While the international legal community continues to grapple with these challenges, India can draw valuable lessons to refine the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP) in a way that effectively addresses these complexities.
Why Extraterritorial Application?
Since data moves freely across borders and entities collecting such data from users in multiple states can misuse it or use it to gain an unfair competitive advantage in local markets, data privacy laws carry a clause on their extraterritorial application. Thus, this principle is utilized by states to frame laws that can ensure comprehensive data protection for their citizens, irrespective of the data’s location. The foremost example of this is the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), 2016, which applies to any entity that processes the personal data of its citizens, regardless of its location. Recently, India has enacted the DPDP Act of 2023, which includes a clause on extraterritorial application.
The Extraterritorial Approach: GDPR and DPDP Act
The GDPR is considered the toughest data privacy law in the world and sets a global standard in data protection. According to Article 3, its provisions apply not only to data processors within the EU but also to those established outside its territory, if they offer goods and services to and conduct behavioural monitoring of data subjects within the EU. The enforcement of this regulation relies on heavy penalties for non-compliance in the form of fines up to €20 million or 4% of the company’s global turnover, whichever is higher, in case of severe violations. As a result, corporations based in the USA, like Meta and Clearview AI, have been fined over €1.5 billion and €5.5 million respectively, under the GDPR.
Like the GDPR, the DPDP Act extends its jurisdiction to foreign companies dealing with personal data of data principles within Indian territory under section 3(b). It has a similar extraterritorial reach and prescribes a penalty of up to Rs 250 crores in case of breaches. However, the Act or DPDP Rules, 2025, which are currently under deliberation, do not elaborate on an enforcement mechanism through which foreign companies can be held accountable.
Lessons for India’s DPDP on Managing Extraterritorial Application
- Clarity in Definitions: GDPR clearly defines ‘personal data’, covering direct information such as name and identification number, indirect identifiers like location data, and, online identifiers that can be used to identify the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural, or social identity of a natural person. It also prohibits revealing special categories of personal data like religious beliefs and biometric data to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the subjects. On the other hand, the DPDP Act/ Rules define ‘personal data’ vaguely, leaving a broad scope for Big Tech and ad-tech firms to bypass obligations.
- International Cooperation: Compliance is complex for companies due to varying data protection laws in different countries. The success of regulatory measures in such a scenario depends on international cooperation for governing cross-border data flows and enforcement. For DPDP to be effective, India will have to foster cooperation frameworks with other nations.
- Adequate Safeguards for Data Transfers: The GDPR regulates data transfers outside the EU via pre-approved legal mechanisms such as standard contractual clauses or binding corporate rules to ensure that the same level of protection applies to EU citizens’ data even when it is processed outside the EU. The DPDP should adopt similar safeguards to ensure that Indian citizens’ data is protected when processed abroad.
- Revised Penalty Structure: The GDPR mandates a penalty structure that must be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. The supervisory authority in each member state has the power to impose administrative fines as per these principles, up to an upper limit set by the GDPR. On the other hand, the DPDP’s penalty structure is simplistic and will disproportionately impact smaller businesses. It must take into regard factors such as nature, gravity, and duration of the infringement, its consequences, compliance measures taken, etc.
- Governance Structure: The GDPR envisages a multi-tiered governance structure comprising of
- National-level Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) for enforcing national data protection laws and the GDPR,
- European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) for monitoring the processing of personal data by EU institutions and bodies,
- European Commission (EC) for developing GDPR legislation
- European Data Protection Board (EDPB) for enabling coordination between the EC, EDPS, and DPAs
In contrast, the Data Protection Board (DPB) under DPDP will be a single, centralized body overseeing compliance and enforcement. Since its members are to be appointed by the Central Government, it raises questions about the Board’s autonomy and ability to apply regulations consistently. Further, its investigative and enforcement capabilities are not well defined.
Conclusion
The protection of the human right to privacy ( under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) in today’s increasingly interconnected digital economy warrants international standard-setting on cross-border data protection. In the meantime, States relying on the extraterritorial application of domestic laws is unavoidable. While India’s DPDP takes measures towards this, they must be refined to ensure clarity regarding implementation mechanisms. They should push for alignment with data protection laws of other States, and account for the complexity of enforcement in cases involving extraterritorial jurisdiction. As India sets out to position itself as a global digital leader, a well-crafted extraterritorial framework under the DPDP Act will be essential to promote international trust in India’s data governance regime.
Sources
- https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/
- https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-150/
- https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-51/
- https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/06/2bf1f0e9f04e6fb4f8fef35e82c42aa5.pdf
- https://www.eqs.com/compliance-blog/biggest-gdpr-fines/#:~:text=ease%20the%20burden.-,At%20a%20glance,In%20summary
- https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/
- https://www.legal500.com/developments/thought-leadership/gdpr-v-indias-dpdpa-key-differences-and-compliance-implications/#:~:text=Both%20laws%20cover%20'personal%20data,of%20personal%20data%20as%20sensitive.
Executive Summary
A video is going viral on social media in which Defence Minister Rajnath Singh is seen allegedly saying, “During Operation Sindoor, we initially hid the losses of jets and soldiers so that Pakistan could not use them for propaganda. Later, a documentary was made to reveal the truth.” Research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found that the video is completely fake and was created using artificial intelligence (AI). Defence Minister Rajnath Singh never made any such statement. The video has primarily been circulated by Pakistani accounts.
Claim:
A video of Rajnath Singh has been shared by a Pakistani user on the social media platform X, with the caption: “Rajnath Singh while commenting on Operation Sindoor documentary makes a starting revelation, Initially we did not admit any jet or soldier losses to avoid giving any propaganda chances for Pakistan but then we made this documentary to tell the truth.” The post link and screenshot are provided below.
https://x.com/i/status/2091095915021193252
Fact Check:
To investigate the viral claim, we first extracted keyframes from the video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During this process, we found the original video on ANI’s X account, in which Defense Minister Rajnath Singh can be seen saying: Defense Minister Rajnath Singh said, “The remarks made yesterday in the Lok Sabha by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi and India’s foreign policy are extremely cheap and condemnable. Personally, this is painful for me as well. In my long political life, I have never seen such unbecoming and unthinkable behavior from any Leader of Opposition. Such conduct poses a serious threat to a healthy democracy. Rahul Gandhi may feel disappointment toward the Prime Minister, but such improper remarks are unacceptable—especially when PM Modi has elevated India’s national and international prestige and paved the way for a ‘Viksit Bharat’.
Working with complete dedication for 12 years, he has not taken a single day off. Such unbecoming remarks against such a Prime Minister pain every Indian I would also humbly like to ask the Congress Party: after such language and conduct, can it still claim the legacy of great stalwarts ranging from Lal-Bal-Pal and Gandhi, Patel, Nehru to Subhas Babu, Rajendra Babu, Shastri Ji, Narasimha Rao Ji, and Pranab Mukherjee? Through this behavior, Rahul Gandhi has not only insulted Prime Minister Narendra Modi but also damaged India’s international reputation. He has tarnished the dignity of the post of Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. I cannot even imagine that anyone carrying the surname 'Gandhi' could make such a shameful remark.” Throughout the entire video, he never made the statement attributed to him in the viral claim. The post link and screenshot are provided below.
https://x.com/ANI/status/2088230045102002466
We scanned the audio on the AI detection tool Resemble AI, where the results confirmed that the voice is AI-generated.
We also scanned the clip on another AI detection tool, Detect Video AI, where the results indicated that the viral video is 57 percent AI-generated.
Conclusion:
Our research revealed that the viral video is completely fake and was created using Artificial Intelligence (AI). The research confirmed that Defense Minister Rajnath Singh made no such statement. It was also revealed during the fact-check that this fake video is being primarily circulated on social media through Pakistani accounts.
