#FactCheck-Old Accident Involving Delhi Police Head Constable Falsely Linked to CJP Protest
Executive Summary
A social media post is being widely circulated claiming that Delhi Police personnel Amit died during the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) ‘Sansad Chalo’ protest held on July 20, 2026. The post attempts to link his death to violence that allegedly took place during the demonstration. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found the claim to be false. The research revealed that the death of Head Constable Amit was not related to the CJP protest held on July 20. He died on July 15 after being hit by a speeding vehicle while on duty at Singhu Border. An old accident has been falsely linked to the recent protest through a misleading claim.
Claim:
A Facebook user shared a post on July 23, 2026, claiming that a police personnel was martyred during the alleged protest carried out by “student goons and their supporters from Congress and Kejriwal’s party” on July 20. The user further claimed that the protest was responsible for the death of a police personnel and questioned criticism over alleged police action against protesters.
The post’s link, archive link and screenshot are provided below:
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=3562630610568369&set=a.100838436747621
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/m8QM8
Fact Check:
To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, the Desk first examined the official social media accounts of Delhi Police. During the research, the Desk found a post shared on Delhi Police’s official Instagram account on July 16, 2026, which contained the same image being circulated in the viral post.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Da19BQxEmQv/?igsh=cnN1bXZhaHg5OWRs
In the next stage of the research, the Desk found an NDTV report published on July 16, 2026. According to the report, Delhi Police had arrested two accused in connection with the death of Head Constable Amit. The arrested individuals were identified as Kuldeep alias Karan and Neeraj. The report stated that police had also seized the vehicle bearing registration number DL11CG2268, which was involved in the accident. An FIR was registered at Alipur Police Station and further research was underway.
Further research led the Desk to a related post on the Facebook page of Delhi Samachar TV. According to the post, the hit-and-run case involving Head Constable Amit, who was hit while performing duty at Singhu Border (NH-44), was solved by Delhi Police within hours. The police team arrested two accused and recovered the vehicle used in the incident.
The post’s link and screenshot are provided below:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1006635078843860
Conclusion:
The research established that the death of Delhi Police Head Constable Amit was not connected to the CJP ‘Sansad Chalo’ protest held on July 20, 2026. Amit died on July 15 after being hit by a speeding vehicle while on duty at Singhu Border. The old accident is being falsely linked to the recent protest with a misleading claim.
Related Blogs
Introduction
Meta smart glasses are now banned from courts across England and Wales. His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), the body responsible for criminal, civil, and family courts throughout the jurisdiction, has confirmed that anyone entering a court building wearing the devices will have them confiscated at the door and returned only when they leave. The decision follows a comparable restriction introduced by New York's court system weeks earlier, and it lands at a moment when Meta's artificial intelligence (AI) powered eyewear, now sold in more than seven million pairs worldwide, has already been turned away from a wide range of British venues, from pubs and restaurants to theatres and members' clubs, over the same underlying worry: that a camera built into an ordinary looking pair of glasses can record people who have no way of knowing it is happening. Courts occupy a category of their own in this debate. Photography and recording inside a courtroom have been prohibited for the better part of a century, precisely because the integrity of witness testimony, jury deliberation, and the dignity of the proceedings depend on people being able to speak and be observed only by those the law intends. Smart glasses do not just test that rule. They expose a gap in how it was ever meant to be enforced.
What actually changed, and why smartphones were never the real problem
Unauthorised filming inside a courtroom can be prosecuted as contempt of court. Smartphones, despite carrying multiple cameras, have always been let through security on a kind of implicit social contract: everyone understands that the device could record, everyone understands that using it to do so is a punishable offence, and the visible act of holding a phone up to film someone is itself a signal that can be seen and stopped. As per reports citing an HMCTS spokesperson, "There are clear restrictions on taking images or videos within courts and tribunals which is why the use of Meta glasses is prohibited."
Smart glasses dissolve that social contract. A person wearing them looks, to everyone around them, exactly like a person not recording anything at all.
The wider pattern this fits into
England and Wales did not act in isolation. New York's court system introduced a comparable restriction weeks earlier, following an incident during a trial in which a presiding judge warned Meta's own legal team, present in court wearing the company's glasses, that recording proceedings would be treated as contempt. Reports note that the same device has already been shut out of a striking range of everyday venues across Britain, including a major pub chain, high end restaurants, private members' clubs, theatres, music venues, and comic book conventions, with critics giving the product the unflattering nickname "pervert glasses" well before any court got involved.
That pattern matters analytically because it shows this is not really a story about courts distrusting one particular gadget. It is a story about physical spaces everywhere recalibrating what "no recording" can plausibly mean once recording no longer requires a visible object pointed at someone. Meta, for its part, has said the glasses carry a pulsing light-emitting diode (LED) indicator that activates during recording and tamper detection technology intended to stop wearers covering the light, and the company has shipped more than seven million pairs, commanding, according to reports, more than 80 percent of the global AI eyewear market. None of that changes how the device is experienced by the person being recorded, who typically has no reliable way of noticing a small light on the side of someone's face across a room.
There is a genuine innovation story sitting underneath this controversy, and it deserves to be told honestly rather than dismissed. Wearable AI devices that layer translation, navigation, accessibility support, and hands free computing onto ordinary looking eyewear represent one of the more interesting consumer hardware categories to emerge in years, and the underlying engineering, fitting a camera, microphones, speakers, and AI processing into frames that look like Ray-Bans, is a legitimate technical achievement. The court ban is not a verdict on that achievement. It is a verdict on a specific gap between what the hardware makes physically possible and what existing social and legal norms were designed to detect and police. Those are two different conversations, and collapsing them into one tends to produce worse policy on both sides.
Reading the legal architecture underneath the ban
What HMCTS has effectively done is draw a bright line around function rather than form. Smartphones stay in because the courts are relying on deterrence, the near certainty of visible detection and prosecution if someone is caught filming, to manage the risk they pose. Smart glasses are excluded because that deterrence model breaks down when the recording apparatus is invisible by design. Clara Westbrook, a privacy law partner quoted in coverage of the decision, framed the underlying issue as a gap between the technology and the rules meant to govern it, rather than a simple case of institutional overreaction. That framing holds up under scrutiny. Courtroom rules were written for an era in which recording devices announced themselves. Smart glasses were engineered, whatever the stated intent, to do the opposite.
The view from India
Photography and videography are already prohibited inside Indian court premises as a general rule. Filming inside courtrooms has long been treated as a threat to witness candour, judicial dignity, and the orderly conduct of proceedings, and the principle has been reinforced recently. The Supreme Court, in a circular issued in September 2025, imposed a strict ban on photography, videography, and the creation of social media content within its High Security Zone, prohibiting mobile phones, cameras, tripods, and similar equipment except for official use. More recently, in an interim order passed in 2026, the Court went further, restricting the extraction, editing, and re-dissemination of audio-video recordings of judicial proceedings on social media or digital platforms without prior written permission from the Registrar General of the concerned High Court or the Secretary General of the Supreme Court.
Read together, these rules already prohibit the underlying act that smart glasses would enable inside a courtroom, unauthorized capture and circulation of what happens during a hearing. In that sense, Meta glasses are indirectly covered the moment someone wears a pair inside an Indian court, since using them to record would fall squarely within conduct the existing circulars already forbid. What has not happened, and this distinction matters, is any explicit order naming smart glasses as a class of device to be confiscated or barred at entry, the way HMCTS has now done in England and Wales. Indian courts have regulated the act of recording. They have not yet regulated the device that makes covert recording structurally easier to commit without detection.
It remains to be seen whether Indian courts will explicitly name and ban Meta glasses, rather than relying on existing photography rules to cover them indirectly. If that happens, the reasoning will be drawn on constitutional privacy jurisprudence or courtroom security concerns already in play.
Conclusion
What courts owe the people who appear before them is not hostility toward innovation, but a firm defence of the trust a courtroom is built on, that witnesses can speak freely, that proceedings remain what they are meant to be, and that privacy inside those walls is not negotiable. The question worth asking is not what smart glasses can see, but what courts must protect. Innovation earns its place by respecting the spaces it enters, not by outrunning their rules.
References
- The Guardian, "Meta glasses banned from courts in England and Wales," 11 August 2026 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/11/meta-glasses-banned-from-courts-in-england-and-wales
- Engadget, "England and Wales ban Meta Glasses from courtrooms.” https://www.engadget.com/2234606/england-and-wales-ban-meta-glasses-from-courtrooms/
- TechRepublic, "England and Wales Courts Ban Meta Smart Glasses Over Recording Risks." https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-meta-smart-glasses-ban-england-wales-courts/
- BM Magazine, "Meta glasses banned from courts across England and Wales." https://bmmagazine.co.uk/legal/meta-glasses-banned-courts-england-wales/
- IBTimes UK" UK Court Service Bans Meta Smart Glasses After Restaurants, Theatres and Pubs Lead 'Spyware' Privacy Push." https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-courts-ban-meta-smart-glasses-privacy-concerns-18141
- 97 Boing Boing, "English courts ban Meta glasses and other spyware." https://boingboing.net/2026/08/11/english-courts-ban-meta-glasses-and-other-spywear.html
- MediaPost, "Meta Smart Glasses Banned In England, Wales Courtrooms." https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/417180/meta-smart-glasses-banned-in-england-wales-courtr.html
- LiveLaw, "When Seeing Becomes Recording: Invisible Bystander And Limits Of Indian Privacy Law." https://www.livelaw.in/lawschool/articles/invisible-bystander-limits-indian-privacy-law-545517
- PCQuest "B by Lenskart AI Glasses: India's Privacy Laws May Not Be Ready." https://www.pcquest.com/tech-trends/b-by-lenskart-ai-smart-glasses-india-privacy-dpdp-act-12141827
- MediaNama, "Meta tightens AI glasses security as questions over bystander privacy persist." https://www.medianama.com/2026/07/223-meta-tightens-ai-glasses-security-questions-bystander-privacy-persist/
- India Legal, "The State Of Surveillance." https://indialegallive.com/cover-story-articles/il-feature-news/surveillance-jantar-mantar-protests-delhi-police-wearable-recording-devices/
- Feminism In India, "AI Glasses: Is India Ready To Handle The Privacy Implications?" https://feminisminindia.com/2026/07/29/is-india-ready-to-handle-ai-glasses-social-ethical-and-regulatory-governance/
- LiveLaw, "Supreme Court Bans Photography, Videography In Court's High Security Zone." https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-bans-photography-videography-in-courts-high-security-zone-after-bars-concerns-over-reels-selfies-in-court-premises-303682
- LiveLaw, "Supreme Court Bans Uploading and Sharing Of Audio-Video Recordings Of Court Hearings Without Prior Permission." https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/breaking-supreme-court-bans-uploading-sharing-of-audio-video-recordings-of-court-hearings-without-prior-permission-542719
- Deccan Herald, "SC bans clicking photos, making reels in its high security zone." https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/story/india%2Fdelhi%2Fsc-bans-clicking-photos-making-reels-in-its-high-security-zone-3724668
.webp)
Introduction
India's National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) is set to approach the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to recommend mandating a KYC-based system for verifying children's age under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act. The decision to approach or send recommendations to MeitY was taken by NCPCR in a closed-door meeting held on August 13 with social media entities. In the meeting, NCPCR emphasised proposing a KYC-based age verification mechanism. In this background, Section 9 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 defines a child as someone below the age of 18, and Section 9 mandates that such children have to be verified and parental consent will be required before processing their personal data.
Requirement of Verifiable Consent Under Section 9 of DPDP Act
Regarding the processing of children's personal data, Section 9 of the DPDP Act, 2023, provides that for children below 18 years of age, consent from parents/legal guardians is required. The Data Fiduciary shall, before processing any personal data of a child or a person with a disability who has a lawful guardian, obtain verifiable consent from the parent or lawful guardian. Additionally, behavioural monitoring or targeted advertising directed at children is prohibited.
Ongoing debate on Method to obtain Verifiable Consent
Section 9 of the DPDP Act gives parents or lawful guardians more control over their children's data and privacy, and it empowers them to make decisions about how to manage their children's online activities/permissions. However, obtaining such verifiable consent from the parent or legal guardian presents a quandary. It was expected that the upcoming 'DPDP rules,' which have yet to be notified by the Central Government, would shed light on the procedure of obtaining such verifiable consent from a parent or lawful guardian.
However, In the meeting held on 18th July 2024, between MeitY and social media companies to discuss the upcoming Digital Personal Data Protection Rules (DPDP Rules), MeitY stated that it may not intend to prescribe a ‘specific mechanism’ for Data Fiduciaries to verify parental consent for minors using digital services. MeitY instead emphasised obligations put forth on the data fiduciary under section 8(4) of the DPDP Act to implement “appropriate technical and organisational measures” to ensure effective observance of the provisions contained under this act.
In a recent update, MeitY held a review meeting on DPDP rules, where they focused on a method for determining children's ages. It was reported that the ministry is making a few more revisions before releasing the guidelines for public input.
CyberPeace Policy Outlook
CyberPeace in its policy recommendations paper published last month, (available here) also advised obtaining verifiable parental consent through methods such as Government Issued ID, integration of parental consent at ‘entry points’ like app stores, obtaining consent through consent forms, or drawing attention from foreign laws such as California Privacy Law, COPPA, and developing child-friendly SIMs for enhanced child privacy.
CyberPeace in its policy paper also emphasised that when deciding the method to obtain verifiable consent, the respective platforms need to be aligned with the fact that verifiable age verification must be done without compromising user privacy. Balancing user privacy is a question of both technological capabilities and ethical considerations.
DPDP Act is a brand new framework for protecting digital personal data and also puts forth certain obligations on Data Fiduciaries and provides certain rights to Data Principal. With upcoming ‘DPDP Rules’ which are expected to be notified soon, will define the detailed procedure for the implementation of the provisions of the Act. MeitY is refining the DPDP rules before they come out for public consultation. The approach of NCPCR is aimed at ensuring child safety in this digital era. We hope that MeitY comes up with a sound mechanism for obtaining verifiable consent from parents/lawful guardians after taking due consideration to recommendations put forth by various stakeholders, expert organisations and concerned authorities such as NCPCR.
References
- https://www.moneycontrol.com/technology/dpdp-rules-ncpcr-to-recommend-meity-to-bring-in-kyc-based-age-verification-for-children-article-12801563.html
- https://pune.news/government/ncpcr-pushes-for-kyc-based-age-verification-in-digital-data-protection-a-new-era-for-child-safety-215989/#:~:text=During%20this%20meeting%2C%20NCPCR%20issued,consent%20before%20processing%20their%20data
- https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ncpcr-likely-to-seek-clause-for-parents-consent-under-data-protection-rules-101724180521788.html
- https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/dpdp-act-2023-and-the-isssue-of-parental-consent
Executive Summary:
A video showing poor runway visibility from inside an aircraft cockpit is being widely shared on social media, linking it to an alleged aircraft accident involving Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar in Baramati on January 28, 2025. Users claim that the footage captured the final moments before the crash, suggesting that the runway visibility disappeared just seconds before landing. However, research conducted by the CyberPeace found the viral claim to be misleading. The research revealed that the video has no connection to any aircraft accident involving Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar. In reality, the video dates back to 2013 and shows a pilot attempting to land an aircraft amid heavy rain. During the approach, the runway briefly disappears from the pilot’s view, prompting the pilot to abort the landing and execute a go-around. The aircraft later lands safely after weather conditions improve.
Claim
An Instagram user shared the viral video on January 29, 2026, claiming:“Baramati plane crash: video of the aircraft accident surfaces. Runway disappears just three seconds before landing.” (The link to the post, its archived version, and screenshots are provided below.)
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. The search led us to the same video uploaded on a YouTube channel named douglesso, which was published on June 12, 2013. (Footage link and screenshot available below.)
Further research led us to a report published by the American media website CNET, which featured the same visual. According to the report, the video shows a Boeing Business Jet attempting to land during heavy rainfall. The aircraft was conducting a CAT I Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach when a sudden downpour drastically reduced visibility at decision height. As the runway briefly disappeared from view, the pilots aborted the landing and carried out a go-around. The aircraft later landed safely once weather conditions improved. (The link to the CNET report and its screenshot are provided below.)
- https://www.cnet.com/culture/this-is-what-happens-when-a-plane-is-landing-and-the-runway-disappears/
Conclusion
Our research confirms that the video circulating on social media is unrelated to any recent aircraft accident involving Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar. The clip is an old video from 2013, which is now being shared with a false and misleading claim.
