#FactCheck: No, PM Modi Did Not Appear in Royal Attire,Image Is AI-Generated

Executive Summary

‍

An image of a banknote featuring Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is going viral on social media, with claims that Iran’s central bank has issued a newly designed 5 million rial note bearing his portrait. However, a fact-check by the CyberPeace Research Wing  has found the claim to be misleading.

‍

Claim
‍

The image was shared by a verified user, “Sprinter Press Agency,” on X (formerly Twitter), claiming that the Central Bank had introduced a new banknote design featuring the leader of the Islamic Revolution.

• https://x.com/ImHuMeer786H/status/2048042719231291661

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, relevant keywords were searched across multiple credible sources. No reports were found from any reputable international media outlet, Iranian government platform, or the Central Bank of Iran confirming the release of such a banknote. A technical analysis of the viral image was also conducted. According to the AI detection tool Zhuque AI Detection Assistant, there is a 63.8% probability that the image is AI-generated, raising further doubts about its authenticity.

‍

‍

Conclusion:
‍

The claim that Iran’s central bank has issued a new 5 million rial banknote featuring Ayatollah Khamenei is misleading. There is no official confirmation of such a release, and available evidence suggests that the viral image is either edited or AI-generated.

‍

Introduction

Every domain of conflict has eventually had to learn restraint. The first Geneva Convention of 1864 grew out of one man's horror at what he saw after a single battle, and it rested on an idea that has since become the backbone of humanitarian law: even in war, there are things that must not be done to people. Cyberspace is the newest domain to face that test, and it is arguably the hardest. Code carries no uniform, an intrusion crosses borders without anyone noticing, and the same network can serve a soldier, a shopkeeper and a schoolchild at once. Whether the actor is a criminal group, an intelligence service or a military cyber unit, the consequences land on ordinary people. That is the case for a humanitarian approach to cyberspace, and it is why it has moved from a courtesy to a matter of national security.

Why the humanitarian lens matters to every nation

Cyberspace does not sort itself into civilian and military zones. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has pointed out for years that military networks lean on civilian cyber infrastructure such as undersea cables, satellites and routers, while civilian supply chains and essential services run over the same channels. A cyber operation aimed at one can land on the other, and the ICRC has warned that incidental harm in this domain risks being widespread and crossing national borders.

It helps to separate three situations, because different rules govern each. Cybercrime, such as ransomware against a hospital, is a matter for criminal law and international police cooperation. Intrusion and espionage in peacetime fall under domestic law and the norms of responsible state behaviour agreed at the United Nations. Cyber operations during an armed conflict fall under international humanitarian law (IHL), which the ICRC and a growing number of states hold applies to cyber means just as it applies to any other weapon or method of warfare. Its core principles, humanity, necessity, proportionality and distinction, were linked to cyberspace in the 2021 report of the UN Group of Governmental Experts. Under those principles civilians and civilian infrastructure must not be attacked, and medical facilities enjoy special protection.

For a nation, the practical point is simpler. Its own hospitals, grids, water systems and payment networks are exactly the assets that erode first when restraint erodes. A country that argues for humanitarian limits is protecting itself as much as anyone else.

A lesson from Lebanon

The events of 17 and 18 September 2024 in Lebanon show what happens when everyday technology stops being trustworthy. On the first day, thousands of pagers detonated across the country within roughly an hour of each other. The next day, hand held radios followed. By the account UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk gave the Security Council on 20 September, at least 37 people had been killed, including two children, and more than 3,400 had been injured in Lebanon alone. UN experts noted that medical personnel were among the dead.

Attribution in this case remained a matter of public allegation rather than official claim, and this piece does not try to settle it. What matters here is the method and how the UN read it legally. Türk told the Council that IHL prohibits booby traps in the form of apparently harmless portable objects designed and constructed to contain explosives, and that violence intended to spread terror among civilians is a war crime. He added that striking thousands of people simultaneously, without knowing who held the devices, where they were or who stood nearby, violates international human rights law and, where applicable, IHL. His summary was that this cannot become the new normal, and he called for an independent, thorough and transparent investigation.

The pager episode was physical, with explosives concealed in hardware, not malicious code. It belongs in a discussion of cyberspace because of how it worked: a compromised supply chain turned an ordinary civilian communication tool into a weapon. That is the same trust relationship every digital system depends on. When people cannot assume that the devices and software they use are what they appear to be, the line between civilian object and military instrument, the foundation of humanitarian law, survives on paper while wearing away in practice.

The Digital Emblem Project

What it is:Think of the red cross on a hospital roof or an ambulance. It tells anyone who sees it that the building or vehicle is protected and must not be attacked. The Digital Emblem is the same idea for computer systems. It is a digital marker, built on a cryptographic signature, that a protected server or network broadcasts to signal that it belongs to a medical or humanitarian organisation entitled to protection under international humanitarian law. The organisations allowed to use it are the same ones entitled to use the physical emblem.

What it aims to achieve:Its purpose is recognition. Someone probing a network cannot see a red cross, and may not realise they have entered a medical facility's systems or a Red Cross office. The digital emblem lets that fact be detected and verified by machines, so a military cyber unit or any other operator can recognise the system and avoid it. It does not create any new legal protection, and it does not replace cybersecurity. Like the physical emblem, it cannot stop an attack on its own. It makes existing protection visible.

Why it was created:The physical emblem has worked for more than 150 years, but it has no natural place online. Cyber operations are becoming a regular feature of armed conflict, and humanitarian bodies are targeted by criminals seeking money as well as by state linked actors. The ICRC learned this directly in 2022, when a breach of its own servers exposed the data of more than 515,000 people in vulnerable situations. It began researching a digital equivalent and, with ETH Zurich, developed a technical standard.

Where it stands today:The idea has moved from concept to working prototype. In October 2024, Resolution 2 was adopted at the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, which includes all 196 states party to the Geneva Conventions, affirming that the duty to respect and protect medical services and humanitarian personnel applies to their use of information and communication technologies. In July 2026, the ICRC, with Microsoft's support, presented the emblem in Geneva and announced the next phase, with several national Red Cross societies already testing it. That phase is expected to take several years. Technical standards still need to be developed through bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union and the Internet Engineering Task Force, and international law would need to recognise the emblem formally, through an amendment to the Geneva Conventions framework or a new protocol.

For nations, the emblem offers a practical way to mark hospital and humanitarian networks as off limits, and it removes the excuse of not knowing when a marked system is attacked. That makes accountability clearer. It also supports the central argument of this piece: humanitarian principles only work in cyberspace if they can be seen and acted on, not just written down. Its success will depend on whether the people it addresses, state cyber forces and criminal groups alike, choose to honour it, which is why adoption and enforcement at national level will matter as much as the technology.

What nations can do now

None of this requires waiting for a new treaty. A country can publicly state its national position on how international law, including IHL, applies to cyber operations, since the ICRC itself treats the publication of national views as a form of capacity building. It can classify healthcare, humanitarian, water and energy networks as protected critical infrastructure in its national cyber strategy, and plan to adopt the digital emblem for its own hospitals as standards mature. It can invest in supply chain assurance for the devices and software that civilians and governments depend on, which is the most direct lesson of the Lebanon episode. It can ensure that military cyber units are trained in IHL and that cyber capabilities undergo legal review with an eye to humanitarian impact. And it can treat ransomware against hospitals as the serious crime it is, backed by international cooperation on evidence and victim protection.

Conclusion

A humanitarian approach to cyberspace is sometimes dismissed as idealism. It is closer to enlightened self interest. Every state relies on the reciprocal restraint that keeps hospitals, grids and communications networks out of the crossfire, and every state is, at some point, on the receiving end of the alternative. The Lebanon episode showed how quickly trust in ordinary technology can fail, and the Digital Emblem shows one way the international community is trying to rebuild it. Nations that commit early, in doctrine, in procurement and in practice, will help decide whether cyberspace develops guardrails or simply learns to live without them. The idea behind the first Geneva Convention was that even conflict has limits. Cyberspace is where that argument now needs to be made again.

References

1. ICRC, "ICRC proposes digital red cross/crescent emblem to signal protection in cyberspace." https://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-proposes-digital-red-crosscrescent-emblem-signal-protection-cyberspace
2. ETH Zurich, "Digital emblem for humanitarian law in cyberspace." https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2023/11/digital-emblem-for-humanitarian-law-in-cyberspace.html
3. Digital Watch Observatory, "ICRC unveils digital emblem to protect humanitarian organisations online." https://dig.watch/updates/icrc-digital-emblem-cybersecurity
4. Geneva Solutions, "ICRC and Microsoft launch digital emblem to prevent cyberattacks." https://genevasolutions.news/peace-humanitarian/icrc-and-microsoft-launch-digital-emblem-to-prevent-cyberattacks
5. "Making humanitarian protection visible in cyberspace: The promise of the Digital Emblem." https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2026/07/09/making-humanitarian-protection-visible-in-cyberspace-the-promise-of-the-digital-emblem/
6. ICRC Humanitarian Law and Policy Blog, "IHL's lighthouse: navigating towards a digital emblem." https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2026/01/15/ihls-lighthouse-navigating-towards-a-digital-emblem/
7. Digital Watch Observatory, "Building Trust and Protection for Essential Digital Services: From Standards to Deployment." https://dig.watch/event/wsis-forum-2026/building-trust-and-protection-for-essential-digital-services-from-standards-to-deployment
8. UN OHCHR, "Exploding pagers and radios: A terrifying violation of international law, say UN experts." https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/09/exploding-pagers-and-radios-terrifying-violation-international-law-say-un
9. UN OHCHR, "Disrespect for international law is a matter of international peace and security, High Commissioner Türk tells the UN Security Council." https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2024/09/disrespect-for-international-law-a-matter-of-international-peace-and-security-hc
10. ASIL Insights, "Cyber Operations under International Humanitarian Law: Perspectives from the ICRC." https://asil.org/insights/volume-24-issue-11/
11. Pager Attack in Lebanon, CyberPeace Blog https://cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/pager-attack-in-lebanon

‍

Introduction
‍

The rise of artificial intelligence has transformed how individuals search for information, buy and compare products online. Unlike the traditional search engines like Google  that presents the user with a set of links and directs users to websites, AI-powered systems provide synthesised answers and recommendations which means we don't have to click through every link to find what we are looking for, we simply have to ask an LLM and it provides recommendations based on our needs expressed through prompt. This development has raised important legal and commercial questions, one such question was addressed in the judgement of Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited v. Open AI Inc. and Others (2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5738) decided by HMJ Ravi Krishan Kapur of Calcutta High court on 20 May 2026. If an AI platform becomes a primary source of information, can a business demand inclusion in its responses? Is it a legal injury if the LLM omits a business? More fundamentally, how do the existing laws classify technologies that not only process information, but also generate new content? These were the questions that came before Calcutta High Court. Although the dispute arose from Indiamart’s complaint regarding visibility on ChatGPT search, the judgement explored beyond the disagreement between two private entities.

‍

The Dispute
‍

IndiaMart is one of India’s largest electronic business-to-business marketplaces since 1996, serving millions of buyers and sellers across India. They also have registered trademarks and their entire business depends on visibility on the internet considering the digitalisation of the market. Open AI launched ChatGPT search in October 2024, which is a feature that supplements AI responses with links to relevant web sources. Indiamart alleged that ChatGPT was not displaying links to their online platform in the same way that it displayed links to other competing services or individual sellers. A major grievance raised by Indiamart was that ChatGPT allegedly bypassed IndiaMart market listings by directing users to sellers’ individual websites while continuing to provide platform level links for other competing platforms. Hence, they contended that this practice diverted users away from their platform and negatively affected their business interests. The company argued that such exclusion amounted to discriminatory treatment and resulted in economic harm, diluted its trademarks and amounted to disparagement. They alleged that it violated their rights under article 14, 19, 21 under the constitution and rights under IT Act and IT Rules also. When IndiaMart sought an explanation from OpenAI, the company stated that its decision was influenced by the inclusion of IndiaMart in the United States Trade Representative (USTR) Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy 2024, a U.S. government report that identifies online and physical marketplaces alleged to facilitate intellectual property infringements. IndiaMart challenged this justification, arguing that the USTR report has no statutory or binding force in India. It further alleged selective discrimination, pointing out that several other platforms featured on the same USTR list including DHGate, Pinduoduo, Shopee, and Taobao continued to remain accessible through ChatGPT-generated responses. Consequently, IndiaMart approached the Calcutta High Court seeking interim relief directing ChatGPT to display and provide access to IndiaMart links in its responses.

‍

ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT

‍

IndiaMart's contentions: They argued that ChatGPT, because its search feature, performs the role of an "intermediary" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act and is therefore required to comply with the obligations imposed under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Relying on Rule 3(1)(n), IndiaMart argued that an intermediary cannot engage in discriminatory treatment of platforms or selectively restrict access to information. IndiaMart further maintained that users have a right to access information relating to its platform and that the omission of IndiaMart links from ChatGPT's responses violated this interest. They alleged violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, along with the broader principle of a user's "right to know", to argue that OpenAI owed an obligation to display IndiaMart listings in response to relevant queries. In addition, IndiaMart alleged that the exclusion of its links caused commercial harm, diluted its trademarks, amounted to disparagement, and constituted an unfair trade practice that adversely affected its business and reputation.

OpenAI's contentions: OpenAI asserted that IndiaMart had no legally enforceable ‘Right to visibility’ on ChatGPT. They argued that neither contract, statute, nor constitutional law imposed any obligation on OpenAI to display, prioritise, or recommend IndiaMart links in response to user queries. In the absence of any recognised legal right, there could be no actionable injury and therefore no valid cause of action. OpenAI also challenged the classification of ChatGPT as an "intermediary" under the Information Technology Act, 2000. According to OpenAI, ChatGPT does not merely host, transmit, or facilitate access to third-party content but also generates responses through its large language model (LLM) and therefore functions more closely as an "originator" than an intermediary. Consequently, the obligations applicable to intermediaries under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, including those relied upon by IndiaMart, were inapplicable. With respect to the USTR Notorious Markets List, OpenAI submitted that its reliance on the report formed part of its internal risk-management and business policies. Such decisions, it argued, were matters of private commercial judgment and not ordinarily subject to judicial review. OpenAI further pointed out that IndiaMart had also previously blocked ChatGPT from accessing and crawling its website that weakened the company's demand for greater visibility within ChatGPT-generated responses.

Court’s decision: The court rejected Indiamart's claim that they were entitled to be displayed in ChatGPT searches. The court emphasised the autonomy of private businesses, the court held that the right to carry on trade and business is "inviolable" and that no law can compel one private entity to operate their platform for the benefit of another, which is based on foundational economic philosophy of laissez faire. Unless there is a contractual, statutory or constitutional obligation, a platform has no duty to the other platform to promote or advance their economic interest. Applying this principle, the court found no such duty or “vested legal right” that entitled IndiaMart’s visibility on ChatGPT. The court reasoned that even if users possess the ‘right to know’, Indiamart could not convert that interest into an enforceable claim under article 19(1)(g) or other legal provision. The court looked at the dispute as one arising from commercial disadvantage rather than violation of any legally protected right. Although the reduced visibility may have had economic consequences, economic harm does not by itself create a cause of action.

The court also took into consideration whether ChatGPT should be classified as an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 or as an originator under Section 2(1)(za). This was an important distinction, because the intermediaries can claim safe harbour protection under section 79 of the IT act, but the originators cannot. The court expressed a preliminary view that ChatGPT is generative capabilities, place it closer to an originator than an intermediary because, unlike conventional search engines, which identify and rank existing information, Generative AI systems, analyse the data and produce new output based on algorithms, which is in response to the user’s prompt. The Court also referenced the NITI Aayog National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (pages 7 to 12) to support its observations that ChatGPT does not merely store, host or transmit information, it can produce essays, research material, code, creative writing, and other forms of content that did not previously exist in that exact form, hence extending beyond the conventional understanding of an intermediary. The court also recognised that it is a vexed issue and remains unsettled because AI systems operate in response to users instructions and do not function independently, which is why the court refrained from providing a definitive classification and acknowledged that the question may ultimately require legislative clarification as well.

In addition to this, the Court took the view that the IndiaMart’s grievances did not amount to an Intellectual property dispute, as they found no trademark infringement or dilution because any reference to the "IndiaMart" mark was merely descriptive and did not constitute commercial use "in the course of trade" under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. IndiaMart also hadn’t demonstrated any false or misleading use of its trademark.

Similarly, the Court found that claims of disparagement, trade libel, and injurious falsehood were unsustainable because such claims require the publication of a false statement that harms reputation and since ChatGPT had not published any derogatory statement about IndiaMart, the mere omission of links could not amount to disparagement or libel. The Court relied on Tech Plus Media v. Jyoti Janda, that allegations of unfairness or copyright infringement must be supported by specific pleadings and evidence.

Beyond the immediate dispute, the judgment shed light on the growing difficulty of applying legal categories created for an earlier internet era to generative AI systems. The Information Technology Act was enacted at a time when internet regulation focused primarily on websites, service providers, and electronic communications and therefore existing classifications may not adequately address the hybrid nature of contemporary AI technologies. The Court acknowledged OpenAI's concern that granting IndiaMart's request could trigger floodgates of litigation on similar claims from businesses dissatisfied with AI-generated visibility, however, it clarified that such concerns cannot outweigh genuine legal claims or fundamental rights. The Court suggested that legislative intervention may eventually be necessary.

‍

Conclusion
‍

This judgement not only addressed the visibility issue in AI generated responses, but also whether visibility itself can become a legally protected interest in AI-driven searches? As more and more users rely on AI generated output for their preference rather than traditional search engine output, the power to decide what information is displayed and what is not will eventually become economically significant. The Calcutta High Court through this judgement declined to create any such right through judicial interventions and also highlighted that the existing legal framework is not adequately equipped to address the novel challenges posed by generative AI.

‍(This blog is based on the judgment in Indiamart Inter Mesh Limited v. Open AI Inc. and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5738, decided on May 20, 2026 by the Calcutta High Court, and related reporting by LiveLaw and SCC Times.)

‍

References
‍

• https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/calcutta-high-court/no-right-to-visibility-exists-on-private-ai-platforms-calcutta-high-court-refuses-to-direct-chatgpt-to-display-indiamart-links-536891
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/06/03/chatgpt-intermediary-originator-it-act-calcutta-high-court/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198449710/

‍