#FactCheck-No Evidence India Returned Iranian Oil After Trump-Modi Call

Forensic Reality Check

A screenshot shows what appeared on a screen. It does not automatically prove who created the content, whether it was altered, or what happened outside the frame.

Introduction

In today's period of time ,we observe that a screenshot seems like evidence. A screenshot can feel like proof. The screenshot comes with a name, a timestamp, a profile picture and a message all neatly placed inside an app we know well. In cases involving fraud, harassment, workplace conflicts or cybercrime individuals often send a screenshot first to the police, a company or a lawyer. This makes sense. When something troubling shows up on a phone or computer taking a screenshot feels like the thing to do. The screenshot captures the moment like a photo.

There is another side to evidence. A screenshot only shows what was on the screen at that moment. The screenshot does not tell us where the content came from. The screenshot does not show who had control of the account. The screenshot does not say if the image was edited. The screenshot does not reveal what happened before or after the screenshot was taken. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 recognizes records. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam also sets out rules for proving them. That means the real question is not just "Is this screenshot real?" The bigger question is, "Can we explain and verify the story behind it?”

A screenshot is evidence - but not automatically the whole story

Think of a common situation. A person receives a screenshot of a chat in which someone appears to demand money and threaten to publish private documents. The image looks genuine. Yet an investigator would still ask: Was the message actually sent? From which account or device? Does the date and time match the service records? Is the conversation complete?

Those questions do not make the screenshot useless. They make the investigation stronger.

Digital information can be copied, compressed, cropped, forwarded, or edited with little visible sign. NIST describes digital evidence as information of probative value stored or transmitted in binary form and emphasises preservation because digital files are easy to change. [3][4] The forensic mindset is simple: ask whether an image’s origin, context and integrity can be explained.

What makes a screenshot more reliable?

‍

A stronger evidence package normally answers five practical questions:

• Source - Where did the image come from: a phone, laptop, messaging application, email client, cloud account, or another person?

• Context - Does it preserve the relevant username, number, URL, date, time, surrounding messages, and sequence?

• Integrity - Has the original file been retained, and can later changes be detected?

• Corroboration - Do other records support the same event, such as device artifacts, email headers, transaction data, or witness accounts?

• Chain of custody - Who collected it, when, how was it transferred, and where was it stored?

Hashing helps with integrity. A cryptographic hash acts like a digital fingerprint for a file. If the file changes, its hash value changes. NIST recommends hashing digital images and other evidence objects and securely preserving the resulting hash values. [4][5] A hash does not prove the content is truthful; it helps show that the file examined is the file that was preserved.

The Indian legal angle: admissibility is not the same as authenticity

India’s current evidence framework is equally important. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. Section 61 says an electronic or digital record cannot be denied admissibility merely because it is electronic, subject to the Act. Section 62 directs that electronic records are proved in accordance with Section 63. [1]

Section 63 sets out conditions for admissibility and, where it applies, requires a certificate to accompany the electronic record when submitted for admission. The Schedule includes device details and fields for the relevant hash value and algorithm. [2]

‍

There is an important practical nuance: not every screenshot automatically requires the same proof route. Treatment can depend on what is produced, how it was obtained, and how it is tendered. Investigators should preserve the underlying source wherever lawfully possible rather than treat a screenshot as a self-proving substitute for the original record.

In Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 10 March 2026, the Supreme Court considered call detail records rather than screenshots and held, in that case, that the certificate requirement under Section 63 was mandatory for the electronic record relied upon there. [6] The broader lesson is that digital evidence must be presented through the legal proof framework that applies to it.

REALISTIC EXAMPLE  A screenshot arrives. The investigation starts.

Consider a realistic cyber-fraud complaint. A victim receives a screenshot showing what appears to be a message from a senior company executive asking an employee to transfer money urgently. The safest response is not to decide immediately whether it “looks genuine.” The investigator can preserve the original image, record its source, calculate a hash, and look for supporting material: the actual chat or email, device data, account identifiers, timestamps, transaction records, or login history.

‍

Suppose the screenshot says 3:14 p.m., but the underlying account record shows the message was never sent. That contradiction becomes an investigative lead. If the screenshot matches the original device data and independent records, its evidentiary value becomes stronger.

The human side matters too. A victim should not be criticised for taking a screenshot. In many incidents, it is the quickest way to show another person what happened. The forensic response is simply to go one step further: preserve first, verify next, interpret last.

A small checklist can prevent a big evidentiary problem

‍

The bigger lesson

Screenshots are valuable because they can preserve a moment that may later disappear: a threat, a suspicious payment instruction, a spoofed webpage, or a social-media post. But a convincing image is not the same thing as a complete digital record.

Good digital forensics connects the artifact to a source, a timeline, a method of collection, and independent facts. NIST’s work on digital evidence emphasises preservation, controlled handling, and awareness of the limits of forensic conclusions. [3][4] Confidence should follow the evidence, not replace it.

Conclusion

So, can a screenshot be evidence? The important question is whether the screenshot can be verified, put into context and backed up by evidence when the case needs it. For citizens the practical advice is clear: keep the screenshot, do not delete the screenshot, keep the screenshot and do not rely only on a forwarded copy. Preserving the source device or original platform record were lawful and possible.

For investigators and organisations, the standard is higher. Record the source and collection details preserve the screenshot, calculate and document hashes, maintain chain of custody and seek corroboration. A screenshot can open the door to an investigation. Good forensic practice is what helps establish what happened on the side of that door.

References

[1] India Code, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Sections 61-62; commencement from 1 July 2024. Source

[2] India Code, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 63 and Schedule - certificate for electronic records, including device particulars and hash value fields. Source

[3] NIST, Digital Evidence, overview of digital evidence and forensic challenges. Source

[4] NIST, Digital Evidence Preservation: Considerations for Evidence Handlers, NISTIR 8387, 2022. Source

[5] NIST / OSAC Lexicon, “Hash, Hash Value,” 2025. Source

[6] Supreme Court of India, Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2026 INSC 217, judgment dated 10 March 2026. Source

[7] NIST, ANSI/ASTM E3016-18 Standard Guide for Establishing Confidence in Digital and Multimedia Evidence Forensic Results by Error Mitigation Analysis. Source

‍

Introduction

In July 2025, the Digital Trust & Safety Partnership (DTSP) achieved a significant milestone with the formal acceptance of its Safe Framework Specification as an international standard, ISO/IEC 25389. This is the first globally recognised standard that is exclusively concerned with guaranteeing a secure online experience for the general public's use of digital goods and services.

Significance of the New Framework

Fundamentally, ISO/IEC 25389 provides organisations with an organised framework for recognising, controlling, and reducing risks associated with conduct or content. This standard, which was created under the direction of ISO/IEC's Joint Technical Committee 1 (JTC 1), integrates the best practices of DTSP and offers a precise way to evaluate organisational maturity in terms of safety and trust.  Crucially, it offers the first unified international benchmark, allowing organisations globally to coordinate on common safety pledges and regularly assess progress.

Other Noteworthy Standards and Frameworks

While ISO/IEC 25389 is pioneering, it’s not the only framework shaping digital trust and safety:

• One of the main outcomes of the United Nations’ 2024 Summit for the Future was the UN's Global Digital Compact, which describes cross-border cooperation on secure and reliable digital environments with an emphasis on countering harmful content, upholding online human rights, and creating accountability standards. 
• The World Economic Forum’s Digital Trust Framework defines the goals and values, such as cybersecurity, privacy, transparency, redressability, auditability, fairness, interoperability and safety, implicit to the concept of digital trust. It also provides a roadmap to digital trustworthiness that imbibes these dimensions. 
• The Framework for Integrity, Security and Trust (FIST) launched at the Cybereace Summit 2023 at USI of India in New Delhi, calls for a multistakeholder approach to co-create solutions and best practices for digital trust and safety.
• While still in the finalisation stage for implementation rollout, India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) and its Rules (2025) aim to strike a balance between individual rights and data processing needs by establishing a groundwork for data security and privacy.
• India is developing frameworks in cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence. Using a hub-and-spoke model under the IndiaAI Mission, the AI Safety Institute was established in early 2025 with the goal of creating standards for trustworthy, moral, and safe AI systems. Furthermore, AI standards with an emphasis on safety and dependability are being drafted by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). 
• Google's DigiKavach program (2023) and Google Safety Engineering Centre (GSEC) in Hyderabad are concrete efforts to support digital safety and fraud prevention in India's tech sector.

What It Means for India

India is already claiming its place in discussions about safety and trust around the world. Google's June 2025 safety charter for India, for example, highlights how India's distinct digital scale, diversity, and vast threat landscape provide insights that inform global cybersecurity strategies. 

For India's digital ecosystem, ISO/IEC 25389 comes at a critical juncture. Global best practices in safety and trust are desperately needed as a result of the rapid adoption of digital technologies, including the growth of digital payments, e-governance, and artificial intelligence and a concomitant rise in instances of digital harms. Through its guidelines, ISO/IEC 25389 provides a reference benchmark that Indian startups, government agencies, and tech companies can use to improve their safety standards.

Conclusion 

A global trust-and-safety standard like ISO/IEC 25389 is essential for making technology safer for people, even as we discuss the broader adoption of security and safety-by-design principles integrated into the processes of technological product development. India can improve user protection, build its reputation globally, and solidify its position as a key player in the creation of a safer, more resilient digital future by implementing this framework in tandem with its growing domestic regulatory framework (such as the DPDP Act and AI Safety policies).

References 

• https://dtspartnership.org/the-safe-framework-specification/
• https://dtspartnership.org/press-releases/dtsps-safe-framework-published-as-an-international-standard/?
• https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/04/united-nations-global-digital-compact-trust-security/?
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/google-releases-safety-charter-for-india-senior-exec-details-top-cyber-threat-actors-in-the-country/articleshow/121903651.cms? 
• https://initiatives.weforum.org/digital-trust/framework 
• https://government.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/secure-india/the-launch-of-fist-framework-for-integrity-security-and-trust/103302090 

‍

Introduction

In the vast, cosmic-like expanse of international relations, a sphere marked by the gravitational pull of geopolitical interests, a singular issue has emerged, casting a long shadow over the fabric of Indo-Canadian diplomacy. It is a narrative spun from an intricate loom, interlacing the yarns of espionage and political machinations, shadowboxing with the transient, yet potent, specter of state-sanctioned violence. The recent controversy undulating across this geopolitical landscape owes its origins to the circulation of claims which the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) vehemently dismisses as a distorted tapestry of misinformation—a phantasmagoric fable divorced from reality. 

This maelstrom of contention orbits around the alleged existence of a 'secret memo', a document reportedly dispatched with stealth from the helm of the Indian government to its consulates peppered across the vast North American continent. This mysterious communique, assuming its spectral presence within the report, was described as a directive catalyzing a 'sophisticated crackdown scheme' against specific Sikh diaspora organizations. A proclamation that MEA has repudiated with adamantine certainty, branding the report as a meticulously fabricated fiction.

THE MEA Stance 

The official statement from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) emerged as a paragon of clarity cutting through the dense fog of accusations, 'We strongly assert that such reports are fake and emphatically concocted. The referenced memo is non-existent. This narrative is a chapter in the protracted saga of a disinformation campaign aimed against India.' The outlet responsible for airing this contentious story, as per the Indian authorities, has a historical penchant for circulating narratives aligned with the interests of rival intelligence agencies, particularly those associated with Pakistani strategic circles—a claim infusing yet another complex layer to the situation at hand.

The report that catapulted itself onto the stage with the force of an untamed tempest insists the 'secret memo' was decked with several names—all belonging to individuals under the hawk-like gaze of Indian intelligence. 

The Plague of Disinformation

The profoundly intricate confluence of diplomacy is one that commands grace, poise, and an acute sense of balance—nations effortlessly tip-toeing around sensitivities, proffering reciprocity and an equitable stance within the grand ballroom of international affairs. Hence, when S. Jaishankar, India's Minister of External Affairs, found himself fielding inquiries on the perceived inconsistent treatment afforded to Canada compared to the US—despite similar claims emanating from both—his response was the embodiment of diplomatic discretion: 'As far as Canada is concerned, there was a glaring absence of specific evidence or inputs provided to us. The robust question of equitable treatment between two nations, where only one has furnished substantive input and the other has not, is naturally unmerited.'

The articulation from the Ministry's spokesperson, Arindam Bagchi, further solidified India's stance. He calls into question the credibility of The Intercept—the publication that initially disseminated the report—accusing it of acting as a vessel for 'invented narratives' propagated under the auspices of Pakistani intelligence interests.

Conclusion 

In the grand theater of international politics, the distinction between reality and deception is frequently obscured by the heavy drapes of secrecy and diplomatic guile. The persistent denial by the Indian government of any 'secret memo' serves as a critical reminder of the blurred lines between narrative and counter-narrative in the global concert of power and persuasion. As observant spectators within the arena of world politics, we are endowed with the unenviable task of untangling the convoluted web of claims and counterclaims, hoping to uncover the enduring truths that linger therein. In this domain of authentic and imaginary tales, the only unwavering certainty is the persistent rhythm of diplomatic interplay and the subtle shadows it casts upon the international stage. The Ministry of External Affairs fact-checked a claim on the secret memo, rubbishing it as fake and fabricated. The government has said there is a deliberate disinformation campaign that has been on against India. 

References

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/mea-denies-report-it-issued-secret-memo-on-nijjar-to-missions/articleshow/105884217.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-denies-secret-memo-against-nijjar-report-peddled-by-pak-intelligence-101702229753576.html